Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut WP:NEWCSD Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully. Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as instruction creep . Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise. If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page. this header: view • edit

Page information

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:CSD Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87Auto-archiving period: 30 days  Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The other day I tagged {{Qonja}} for a G8 speedy, as I considered it a "subpage with no parent page" (the header article Qonja does not exist). Fastily (talk · contribs) overturned the G8 and upon being asked, responded that they didn't feel it fit G8.

I see no benefit to keeping a page around and letting it spend God knows how long in XFD simply because there isn't a CSD that clearly fits it. This seems like a blatantly obvious template to delete speedily, even if it doesn't quite fit squarely into an existing G8 or other CSD category. If the parent article -- that is, the article the navigational template is named after and/or clearly intended to be used on -- has been deleted or does not exist, that seems like it falls under "subpages dependent on a nonexistant or deleted page", and I don't understand why it's not already cited as an example of something fitting G8.

tl;dr: Should G8 be amended to include "navigational templates where the parent article has been deleted or does not exist"? I say yes for the reasons I just stated.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience, this isn't an issue that arises often at
  WP:CREEP. - Eureka Lott 01:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (edit conflict) Oppose There are four requirements for new or amended CSD criteria listed in the big yellow box you saw when editing this page. Your proposal appears to meet only 1 of them (non-redundant). "The article the navigational template is named after and/or clearly intended to be used on" is not objective or uncontestable as templates may share a name with an unrelated article and there can be multiple main articles. For it to be a valid navigation template there must also be multiple extant articles on which it could be used so G8 could only really apply when all the links are red and there are no other pages on which it could be used. Which brings me on to the frequency requirement - how often does this happen? I don't follow TfD but I don't see anything listed there would meet the proposed criteria which given that it covers about three weeks of nominations suggests it's not a frequently encountered situation. Finally, speed deletion is very much not to be used just because you can't see a point in it spending time at XfD. Speedy deletion is only for things that the normal deletion process is unable to handle because they occur so frequently they would overwhelm the other nominations and/or leaving them around for a week or so would cause harm. Neither applies here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Thryduulf. If the explanation of why a speedy deletion criterion isn't speedy, maybe it isn't a speedy deletion criterion, and can go through TFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would a template like this need to stick around and gather dust for weeks instead of being nuked on sight when it's obviously completely uncontroversial to delete it now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been

  Be patient. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Counter, why does it need to be nuked on sight when it's obviously causing no harm? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If a page is AFD deleted, any related freshly orphaned navigational templates should be deleted per G8 (I think this is already covered, even if not explicitly). In the present case, the template is not orphaned and already being discussed, so I don't see the need for the speedy (it is potentially useful to someone who wishes to create a corresponding article). —Kusma (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be entirely reasonable to use G8 or G6 to get rid of a navigational template which doesn't list any extant articles, in much the same way as we would speedily delete a disambiguation page which doesn't disambiguate any extant articles. This one does have some articles in it (albeit dubious ones) and it does have one transclusion though. Hut 8.5 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. This scenario arises rather infrequently and codifying it amounts to nothing more than
  WP:CREEP. Furthermore, these templates are harmless and can easily be dealt with via TfD as necessary. -FASTILY 01:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've updated {{

A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under

section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please add the appropriate fair use tag

and rationale.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki already limit what type of files that can be uploaded and it is no longer possible to upload doc or zip to Wikipedia. For free PDF files, they may either be moved to Commons or Prodded.--GZWDer (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

quarry:query/56369 shows that it has been used around 32 times in the past year. This search shows we have up to 487 local PDFs. Not qualified with files, but I think it would likely be beneficial to at least look through these PDFs before removing the criteria. --Trialpears (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GZWDer You also mention upload restrictions on certain file types. Do you know where this is documented or implemented? --Trialpears (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This is not about useless non-media files, not just non-media files. It is at least theoretically possible for non-media files to have uses in articles and to be fair use or otherwise not suitable for Commons. In combination with the usage statistics mentioned by Trialpears it seems this criterion is still useful. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have been considering proposing this for some time now. This criterion isn't doing much good and can actually be harmful:

• It is widely misused. By my count 28 of the last 100 F10 deletions (linked above) are of image or sound files, which by definition don't qualify for F10. And that's just the obviously inappropriate ones, some of the other 72 deletions may not be valid either.
• The original rationale for it no longer applies. The reason F10 was introduced was that at the time Mediawiki didn't support rendering PDFs in articles, so PDFs had very little encyclopedic value. Mediawiki has supported displaying PDFs in articles for a long time now. Theoretically F10 could be applied to non-media files other than PDFs, but Wikipedia hasn't supported uploading them for a very long time (over a decade I think) and almost all of those have been deleted.
• It is inherently quite subjective, because of the standard of whether a PDF is useful to the encyclopedia or not. This means it isn't a great use case for a speedy deletion criterion. Hut 8.5 11:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we have a large number of orphaned PDFs (zero incoming links) that are not useful to the project. When applied correctly, this criterion is still useful. -FASTILY 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That list has 97 PDFs. Even if they're all useless to the project (and sister projects) it's not something which would take long to handle through FFD. Hut 8.5 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Cryptic hit the nail on the head below; this only makes sense if we prevent editors from uploading new pdf's. -FASTILY 21:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If this was TfD I would suggest removing the criteria after someone had a look through all remaining pdfs, placing it in the
  holding cell in the meanwhile. Something similar could probably be done here. Something like keeping the criteria as valid, but adding a note about the current situation and allowing for quick removal when this job is done. Thoughts? --Trialpears (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That only makes sense if you couldn't upload any more pdfs. We've consistently gotten about
    Cryptic 17:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Sorry, I was under the impression you couldn't, but you definitely can. I don't know if we want to keep it as an option though. I feel the argument for any non-free pdf fulfilling NFCC is weak and probably should go on commons, but I'm not a file expert by any means. quarry:query/56579 also confirms that pdfs are the only files this criteria will ever apply to. --Trialpears (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: An extension alone enough reason to delete -- is this supposed to say it is or isn't enough reason to delete? Anarchyte (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchyte isn't. I thought I retained all of that part from the previous version, but clearly not. Thanks for pointing it out! --Trialpears (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a image licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission" are not considered free. So in my opinion we can just have one criterion saying "This applies to images (or other media files) that have no credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license and are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use".--GZWDer (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggestion something like: "F3 Non-free images that are not fair use: This applies to any files that are non-free and not listed as fair use. This includes obviously copyrighted media, such as those from commercial stock photo libraries such as Getty. It also applies to media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". It also applies to media licensed under versions of the GFDL earlier than 1.3, without allowing for later versions or other licenses. This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply, "F3 Non-free images that are not fair use: This applies to images (or other media files) that have no credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license and are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. Images only licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission", or GFDL earlier than 1.3, are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images will not be released under a Wikipedia-compatible free license."--GZWDer (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they are merged (I'm not immediately certain either way), then it will be important to maintain the "A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned." and "Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{

Db-filecopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion." clauses from F9. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The processes for deleting F3s and F9s have just about nothing in common. For F3s, all you need to do is check if the uploader has asserted one of the insufficiently-free licenses and that there's no fair use claim. For F9s, you need to compare the image with its external source (often after having to track down that external source yourself, when the source URL isn't provided), whether the image is freely-licensed by the source, and whether the purported source got the image from Wikipedia.

From the uploader's perspective, having distinct criteria for "it said Creative Commons, I thought that's what Wikipedia was?" and "I just want to put this image off the interwebz onto my article" simplifies things tremendously.

The combined criterion really would need everything currently in both F3 and F9, so you're not even saving any text at

Cryptic 10:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose OP appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between NC/ND licenses and non-free content/fair-use. This proposal is unworkable as-is. -FASTILY 23:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC).

This has been discussed a few times before, but I believe there are clear benefits to implementing a one-week (or similar) delay to G13 deletions.

Currently, a bot notifies the page creator at five months of draft inactivity. However, there is no mechanism to alert other editors who may be watching the draft or monitoring it through WikiProjects. By implementing a delay, this will allow time for editors watching the page to check the draft, and maybe rescue it before it's deleted, sparing the need to go through the WP:REFUND process. This could also be integrated into

Looking briefly through some past discussions, I see that some opposition to such proposals have been along the following lines, to which I respond:

If a draft has been stale for six months, what good would an additional week do?

As described above, it would allow regular editors, who may not have noticed the draft having gone stale, to take a new look and maybe rescue it.

There's already a bot giving notifications at five months

These notifications are posted at the talk page of the draft creator, and are useless for attracting the attention of other regular editors who may be interested in rescuing the draft. (Having the bot also post notifications at the draft talk pages would also work, though the delay approach seems easier.)

Let's scrap G13 and implement DRAFTPROD instead

While this approach would also solve the issues I raise, it seems unlikely to gain consensus, given the concerns that a more complicated approach than a straightforward CSD criterion might not be adequate in dealing with the large amount of stale drafts generated each day.

--Paul_012 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've rewritten the proposal as above, seeing as the main points weren't being effectively communicated. The original post is hatted below. --Paul_012 (talk)

Just ask the bot operator to create a log page and the problem is solved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oiyarbepsy, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referring to. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about that bot that notifies the draft creator at five months - have that bot create a log of who was notified and what draft. That way anyone has a list available if they want to review drafts. Fundamentally, there is no problem with the speedy delete criteria, the problem is there is no list of drafts that are eligible. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might be useful for editors willing to sift through all drafts in the pool for those worth rescuing, but it doesn't solve the case in my example. Such a list would be only be practically useful if it was narrowed down to a smaller area of interest. I'm probably interested in a handful of drafts which are already on my watchlist or tagged with a related WikiProject banner. Even if the bot logged notifications in a central location, nothing in my watchlist will have been touched, and the log, listing hundreds of drafts each day, is useless to me for monitoring the pages I'm interested in. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly neutral on the extra week (might avoid some unnecessary work at

WP:REFUND, but unlikely to be very much), but I'm not sure that this will really solve the OP's problem. If you really want to watch certain drafts, you should not rely on seeing the notification on your watchlist (very easy to miss), but just make a list of them as a page in your userspace and check on and improve all promising drafts every once in a while. —Kusma (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Watch the creator's talk page. If they do nothing or almost nothing except create the draft you're interested in, it'll only show up on your watchlist when the draft's approaching deletion. If they're so active that their talk page pops up on your watchlist enough to be a bother, they're unlikely to let the draft just get deleted anyway. If they're in between, then someone who's created a promising draft and is somewhat active is probably worth mentoring. —

Cryptic 10:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would support this. The idea of a time delay is perfectly consistent with a speedy deletion criterion (e.g. F4, F5, F6, F7, F11) and it doesn't make much sense to delete a draft if there's someone still interested in it. It's also entirely possible for someone other than the creator to be interested in a draft and its deletion, and right now there isn't any workable way a watcher could be notified of an impending G13 deletion. As a regular at REFUND (which often gets backlogged) I do often see requests from people to restore recently deleted drafts, so this would reduce the amount of work there as well. Hut 8.5 11:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. This would create a place where editors can see which drafts will be deleted in the upcoming week and give one final chance for anything salvageable to be worked on, not just by the draft's author, but from anyone else patrolling the G13 tags. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As I described here, one solution would simply be to have all articles in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions included in the Article Alerts list. That would go a long way toward resolving the issue. (I could conceivably support the underlying proposal, but I'd first like to see if there are any simpler solutions.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written, and because it doesn't actually solve OP's concern. We already have
  WP:PEREN at this point. -FASTILY 23:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support either this or DRAFTPROD. I have a slight preference for DRAFTPROD, as it gets rid of the "speedy" misnomer, and because it would allow drafts to be deleted earlier than 6 months if no one objects. But either one is preferable to the current arrangement. – bradv^🍁 23:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We have a bot that gives 5 month warnings, that effectively does what this proposal is proposing. Please see User:FireflyBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 11. See Special:Diff/1032362942 for an example of the message given. With this in mind, adding additional steps and complexity to G13 does not make sense to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the DRAFTPROD idea, is this proposing to get rid of CSD G13 and replace it with DRAFTPROD only? Wouldn't this just clog up MFD with people contesting DRAFTPROD removals? That's what happens with many regular PROD removals... I go through my PROD log regularly and AFD any of my PRODs that are removed without fixing the underlying notability issue. Could also lead to some ugly mass DRAFTPRODs and mass un-DRAFTPRODs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose adding more rules to this is not the way to go. I'd support DRAFTPROD in addition to the current G13 process, but I don't see G13 as inherently problematic. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is already a six month delay and several warnings before it expires, and G13 deletions are REFUND eligible if someone later decides it's a potentially viable article subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. With there already being a six months delay after the last edit, a bot giving a message at the 5 month mark, and the fact that G13'd articles are elgible for REFUND I don't see a added benefit. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Having a 7-day delay in policy, as is already the case with
  F6 would be good, as it would give a reliable way to see what drafts are soon becoming eligible for deletion. The few users who work on rescuing worthwhile content (User:DGG et al) are currently forced to rely on the broken Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions -- which is well known to miss a lot of items due to caching (see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Help needed, which is the just the most recent thread about this). Also the bot doesn't catch everything (I believe it's only for AFC-tagged drafts) and nor has it been particularly reliable -- the task has already changed hands between 3 operators in a short time. It's very unsettling that currently policy allows for deletion of harmless pages without a prior notice to the creator. – SD0001 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  SD0001, except it doesn't, since Firefly's bot delivers a message a month in advance telling the page creator it will be eligible for deletion in a month. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I already covered that above. Bots can come and go. They are not required to run. And indeed this bot wasn't running for more than a year, before Firefly took it over. We should not be reliant on bots for issues that are better solved by policy changes.

  WP:G13 does not say that pages are eligible for deletion only if Fireflybot notified the creator a month back. – SD0001 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: I'm finding it a bit ironically amusing and disconcerting that so many people are commenting with exactly the same arguments that I thought I had already pre-emptively refuted in the original post. (Q: "If a draft has been stale for six months, what good would an additional week do? A: "It would allow regular editors, who may not have noticed the draft having gone stale, to take a new look and maybe rescue it." Q: "There's already a bot giving notifications at five months" A: "These notifications are posted at the talk page of the draft creator, and are useless for attracting the attention of other regular editors.") Either I'm a terrible communicator, or maybe... could it be that folks could perhaps maybe take just a little bit more time to actually read through the entire proposal?
  That said, Extraordinary Writ's suggestion for integrating Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions into Article Alerts seems very promising, and I will follow up on that route should this proposal fizzle out. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten the OP. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support basically per bradv. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but only as PROD or the equivalent; it will do much better in a separate group , than in regular speedy, because of the size there are over 50/day. This is 350/7 days, and that's much too large for speedy as it presently works, which is actually quite speedy. Paul012, I don't think you've considered this) At present I regularly patrol the 5+ month category, which is in roughly chronological order. Out of each group of 200, I find about 10 that I think merit further consideration. A few are those that had been declined improperly, and could be accepted; more are ones that have been properly declined, but never looked at again. Some have never even been submitted, and a few of them would be immediately acceptable, but more after a little fixing. (about 1/3 of each group are suitable for merge, rather than as separate articles--they've often been marked for merge, but nobody has merged them--dealing with most would be quite easy.) The true number rescuable is probably twice that, because I do not look at sports or popular entertainment, two fields where I'm incompetent, but many others here would be knowledgable.

The objection that people could have rescued them before, is invalid, because almost nobody does that, because of the number to deal with--this would highlight them. The objection that the editor could always ask for them back, is invalid because most of hte time the original editor, having been once discouraged, is long gone==this is especially unfortunate when they're from editathons or similar projects. Anf nobody else knows of them once they're gone, because deleted articles are not readily even for admins, searchable unless you know they exist, or know the exact title.

And it's worth doing: among the ones I've personally rescued in the last week are several people in major academies of science, or authors with multiple published books that have probably been reviewed, or members of legislatures, or subjects with extensive good articles in other WPs. Most would otherwise probably be lost to us for years or forever--and similarly for the very few other patrollers. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a seperate group as suggested above. The problem is that drafts are deleted in a blink of an eye by certain admins without allowing oversight by unconnected editors whose first sight of the drafts is at speedy deletion and where they are not given time to read even a line or two, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when I was a new-ish editor I had a draft nominated for G13 when I was busy with high school [1] and recieved a talk page notice [2], but by the time I had read it (which was the same day), the draft was already deleted. I think that a week-delay would be useful because it will give new editors time to actually edit the draft before it is deleted. Clovermoss (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clovermoss: currently a bot notifies the draft creator after five months that there is one month until potential deletion (from this BRFA, it looks like). Did this not happen in your case? Would it have solved the problem? — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bilorv: No, I wasn't notified by bot. I see that the BRFA was in 2018 and this happened in 2019, so I'm not sure what happened. Since my main issue was not being notified until the day of the deletion itself, yes this would have solved my main issue with what happened. Clovermoss (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The five month notice bot was entirely down from March 2019 to February 2021. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: How about creating a bot to automatically handle draft undeletion requests? It would work by detecting the template {{g13-undelete}} on the draft's target page, and said bot will undelete prior revisions, which would save time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.107.105 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't sound like a great idea, pages deleted under G13 do sometimes contain copyright violations, spam that could be deleted under G11, etc. The bot wouldn't be able to detect these. Hut 8.5 11:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They've already had 6 months, how long more do they need? It just gives another chance for people to keep abandoned drafts. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This would just make deleting these drafts even more complicated. The editor with the stale draft definitely has enough time to choose to edit it and they get a notice at 5 months. I think we need to encourage people to edit drafts. We could do this in lots of different ways (giving them another notice about the possible G13 earlier on, encouraging people to help edit promising drafts, etc.) but the deletion criteria should not be changed. I think it is fair as it is, especially as they are usually undeleted if you go to
  WP:REFUND. --Ferien (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose as not a
  practical process. The proposed change does not practically provide more opportunity to rescue drafts since there is already ample notification and adding another layer of hoops to ump through does not improve the chances that these will become useful articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - let's scrap G13 and implement DRAFTPROD instead. I don't understand the "more complicated" argument: there's already a mechanism to categorize and notify admins of PRODded and BLPPRODded articles that have been flagged for the mandated minimum time, it's merely a simple matter of adapting that to DRAFTPROD. There is presently no mechanism for "speedy-plus-mandatory-delay" deletion, that is what would be complicated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If it needs to wait a week, it ain't "speedy". Also oppose a PROD-like procedure (though there is a good chance that I am misunderstanding the concept), because a stale draft is a de facto PROD announced for over six months. Creating (or improving) some process to make it easy(er) to find promising drafts would be welcome - some template and category(s)? - Nabla (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  F criteria - already have a grace period. It's not a new idea. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Redrose64: Yes, I know. I also disagree with those :-) The few times I go admin'ing around most of it I do speedy (or otherwise obvious) deletions - so I can help a little, using the quite few available time I have currently - I never do categories or files because they are not really "speedy". They are prods in disguise, aren't they? - Nabla (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though I would prefer to scrap G13 and implement DRAFTPROD instead. I don't see any practical problems with a delay from a bot tagging G13 to the article being deleted; we do something similar with some files and categories already. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: looks to me like people who are saving drafts from deletion are saying this would be useful to them, and people who are not doing this are saying that they shouldn't find it useful. I'm going to go with the people actually doing this. Several credible use cases for this have been given, and as we already have some delay conditions in our CSDs, I don't see that this would cause any particular pain in practice (the drafts have been sat there for six months so it's not a problem for them to sit there for another week). And the OP is right that they anticipated and pre-emptively gave strong arguments against the most common objections; people should not really be opposing unless they read the initial proposal and can explain why the given counter-arguments are unsuitable. — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because I spend much of my day & evening dealing with CSD G13s, I'm going to stay neutral about proposals to change the current system but I have a few comments that I hope folks pay attention to. I'm sorry that I haven't read all of the comments above this one. Whatever change is contemplated has to be able to scale. I have worked with the stale draft pages daily since September 2020 and the number of aging drafts expiring each day is anywhere between 150-400 drafts, with an average of about 200-225 drafts expiring each day or at least 1500 drafts/week. So, whatever change is made won't be to one draft that might be of interest to you but has to work with hundreds of drafts, daily. By comparison, I also work with PRODs and the daily number of PRODs expiring is between 20-40 articles/day. Multiply that times 10 and that is what you will be working with.

We are very lucky to have DGG, who spends much of his time evaluating expiring drafts and delaying deletion of the most promising ones. I'd say that he catches probably 90-95% of promising drafts that are due to expire which is amazing to me. What we could really use is to have a couple more editors scan the daily SDZeroBot lists, (like User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon) and review drafts that will be expiring soon. It would be much, much easier for editors to review the entire G13 soon list on a regular basis than to institute major changes in how stale drafts are handled when there are at least a dozen editors and admins who currently work with them. The SDZeroBot G13 soon list already gives you a week's advance notice on which drafts are due to expire which seems to be what some folks here are asking for. Final word, there might be easier alternatives to achieve your goals than scrapping the current system. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and I seem to deliberately work in a way that complements each other; if someone wants to share the responsibility, they might want to try yet another of the overlapping possibilities. (If Liz thinks I catch this many, it's probably because the ones in sports and popular entertainments that get this far without being made into articles are almost entirely hopeless. (I also do not bother with the ones still in a non-English language--if they've been copied from another WP without being even roughly translated, no work is lost if they're started over again. ) I think they and I and anyone else working here knows what the most important fix would be--the same as would fix all other problem areas in Wikipedia--more people working here. After that the system that does need rewriting from scratch is not isolated parts of the afc system, but the entire system--the AFCH. macro has been patched so many times it would best be rewritten from scratch; like many Wikipedia systems it has accumulated features & special cases that sounded nice, but are almost never used.

What I'd love to see, is work in another direction: not just categorizing drafts, but of matching them with individual active reviewers--this should be a interesting AI project that could also work at NPP and AFD and suggested merges, etc. The wikiproject approach works well in a few fields only--and in those few fields where I know it works, like the military, I refer problems to it. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That list doesn't address the main situation raised by the OP: when an editor has an interest in a draft they didn't create. Maybe they made substantial contributions to it, and have it on their watchlist. Right now they won't get any notification that it's about to be deleted until at most a few hours before, which is far too soon to contest it. A list of all G13 deletions doesn't help with that at all. What are they supposed to do - go through a giant list on a regular basis to see if the drafts they are interested in are listed there? I don't see how the proposed system would be any more onerous than the current one. As now you tag it and it gets deleted. No effort is required to institute the week of delay. Hut 8.5 07:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear on your watchlist when an admin deletes it, at which point you could just REFUND. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's deleted, the text can no longer be seen. So most of the time people won't recall whether the content was worthy or not. Also, for new users, it isn't trivial to "just REFUND". – SD0001 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed the purpose of this proposal was for more experienced editors watching or wanting to be notified of drafts, not for new editors, as per Currently, a bot notifies the page creator at five months of draft inactivity. However, there is no mechanism to alert other editors who may be watching the draft or monitoring it through WikiProjects. By implementing a delay, this will allow time for editors watching the page to check the draft, and maybe rescue it before it's deleted ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think some notice on the draft itself is important. --Bsherr (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There is negligible difference between 6 months and 6 months + 1 week. If this idea will make some editors happier, then I think it's simply irrational to oppose it. But, draft space is mainly a compost heap, full of stuff that's rotten or best used as fertilizer for another article, and our sysops are busy, so we do need to allow it to be cleansed with the absolute minimum of process.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Stifle. We have too many drafts, most of which are junk. If one editor can't get their ducks in a row quickly enough, certainly another editor will come along with the time and needed references to do the job correctly. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 6 months is long enough. Don't turn G13 into a CSD-PROD mudblood. Natureium (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Many of the opposes focus on that the draft creator has ample time and warnings to rescue their draft, but none of them address that other editors do not get this warning, and interested parties only get a few hours notice. It is unreasonable to ask them to monitor the entire list of drafts nearing 6 months, nor for them to track drafts for 6 months to avoid deletion. We have the ability to categorize CSD's by date (example: Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files), so I don't see how it would complicate things significantly. If even only 5-10 drafts are saved by the extra week, I still see that as a major improvement to the depth of knowledge available to readers. I'm also supportive of any alternative proposal that would notify interested parties that are watching the draft (DRAFTPROD, talk page...). Jumpytoo Talk 02:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per S Marshall. This is just scope creep and additional complexity that won't do anything to actually improve/'save' the drafts. Ask Headbomb to add them to Article alerts or something, that would be a more meaningful change. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to weak support. I am somewhat persuaded by the notion that some drafts may be watched by non-admins, and these watchers (who might potentially help) don't get a notification that a draft is soon to be deleted, and they may not know what the draft is once it's deleted. On the other hand, I doubt this happens often enough to really worry about. Overall, I have mixed feelings about G13 vs. DRAFTPROD. I wish that there were a prod-type mechanism for submissions other than businesses, products, bands, and living people (and maybe some additional categories of almost-certain-to-be-garbage that I'd have to think about... these categories make up most of the garbage drafts, though not all). There is some good stuff that gets deleted, but I'm not sure that giving an extra week will do anything. I highly encourage others to monitor User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. With the sorting of the chart and the inclusion of a sentence or so, you can generally quickly identify anything that is worthwhile in the list. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Redundant to the delay that already exists. Sandstein 16:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If you want to alert WikiProjects or whatever, that should just be done a weak earlier. Proposing G-13 be "6 months + 1 week" is... unhelpful. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per many above, particularly Stifle and S Marshall. If people want to come up with bots or other notification processes to get more attention on imminently-deleted drafts, then great. But G13 is an important and still quite high-volume process that primarily cleanses an awful lot of terrible content - it is not productive to apply unnecessary extra process to it. People can and should be encouraged to save drafts, but adding an extra week's complexity is not a particularly efficient solution. ~ mazca ^talk 23:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If the editor wasn't there for 6 months, why should he/she be expected to come back in 1 week? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I sometimes go through draftspace and look for stuff that seems reasonably promising, and add it to my watchlist. Then one day it gets deleted and I'm like, "What was that article again and do I want to do something about it?" But by then it's too late unless I want to go through the additional steps at
  WP:REFUND Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - 6 months is more than enough time for abandoned drafts to be rescued—that's the point of the six months to begin with. I'm all for efforts to save potentially useful drafts, but that would reasonably look like a task force or Wikiproject that monitors abandoned drafts that are approaching deletion and sends out notifications to interested parties who have opted-in to the task of reviewing and working on abandoned drafts, all before the 6 month deadline ever hits. Jamming up the project-wide deletion process, which is already lenient and reasonable, for every single abandoned draft, based on the assumption that there are probably some diamonds in the rough that maybe somebody somewhere might rescue is just Kafkaesque. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping user:SoWhy. Relevant diff. The link to "WP:Notability (media)" misleadingly looks like the text is quoting a valid guideline. Not only is it an essay, the page is actively contrary to consensus. The proposal to elevate it to guideline is being rejected by 2-to-1. We should not be incorporating arbitrarily-edited and actively contrary to consensus essays into CSD Policy. Alsee (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsee: Linking to essays is not in itself problematic. It happens all the time, on a lot of policy and guideline pages. The discussion you link to objected to elevating the essay to a guideline mainly based on either it needing more work or the standards of this proposed guideline being too lax. On a side note, I find it problematic that the discussion about it was closed by the same person who proposed it. An accurate closure requires an independent closer.

That being said, the footnote in question here is for A7, a criterion where erring on the side of caution is generally advised and as such, applying a laxer standard is actually in line with this policy which explicitly is not a notability policy nor does it require proof or claims of notability. The footnote merely gives guidance about which subjects not to use A7 for and I think it can do so even as an essay. If you really feel the need to do so, you can always clarify that this is an essay but then again, the page already does witht he {{supplement}} banner. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a lot of variety in how this criteria is handled by administrators. My question today arises from

What is really troubling to me is when editors tag drafts for CSD G4 deletion...I've seen some admins remove the tag and say G4 doesn't apply to Draft space and other admins who just delete the draft. My point of view is that an AFD decision, especially one with limited participation (which wasn't the case with Cheman Shaik) shouldn't be destiny and final. There should be a way to overcome an AFD deletion decision especially ones from long ago when there might have been two or three editors voting to Delete. Thoughts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "substantially identical" is highly subjective. We've never had a formal process for recreation, and that's fine, but it does mean that some go through

WP:DRV, some go through the deleting admin's talk page, some go through AfC, and some are just recreated in place and never challenged since the notability is obvious enough by that point. As a result, there is no consistent rule on whether community consensus is required to overturn an AfD with the presentation of additional sourcing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The G criteria apply in all namespaces except those specifically excluded (such as User: space for G2). G4 says that it excludes content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy) - the key thing here is the phrase "for explicit improvement" - if a G4-eligible article is moved to Draft: space and then left alone, it's still eligible for G4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But for how long? It obviously wouldn't be eligible for G4 after 1 second, before anyone has had the chance to improve it. If the rule is 6 months, then we don't need G4 as G13 will serve perfectly fine. If we want to set some different threshold, then we need to spell it out explicitly as CSDs are meant to minimize subjectivity.

My view is that any page which exists in its current form with the implicit endorsement of an admin is automatically ineligible for G4. If an admin consistently restores pages improperly, then we should talk about desysopping them, but before that we shouldn't reverse their actions willy-nilly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more that I think about this, and the actions I've taken as an admin, there is a difference between articles that are repeatedly recreated (like those that appear to be paid editing) being deleted as drafts and those that are good faith efforts by editors to create better versions of articles that were AFD deleted, typically because of a lack of notability. The problem with this situation is that it does involve a subjective decision by admins which might be why there is some variability in how admins, as a group, handle these cases in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, someone is speedy deleting pages that were approved through articles for creation? Some serious trout slapping seems called for Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on recent patrolling of CSD categories and visits to

WP:REFUND, I wouldn't say it happens frequently but, yes, it happens. Most of the time, the page creators accept it, and I assume, don't stick around, but if they go seek solutions, they are typically referred to the deleting administrators which, from what I've seen, does not usually result in a page restoration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I would question whether such a person should be an administrator Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oiyarbepsy. If a page has been accepted at AfC then it should not be speedily deleted unless G5, G7 or G12 apply. Indeed I'd be happy to explicitly codify that G4 does not apply in draft space (if it's not being improved G13 will apply, if it is G4 wont apply anyway) and that it doesn't apply to any page that has been through AfC.
Additionally, if anyone raises a good faith objection to the speedy deletion of any page, before or after it was deleted, then it is not eligible for speedy deletion as the deletion was not uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly share Liz's concerns, and some more. Many admins are trigger-happily applying G4 over-liberally and inappropriately. I've recently (a few months ago) had to go through a DRV for a page which was newly created and bore no resemblance whatsoever to any previously deleted version, yet was speedily deleted by an admin who refused to reverse course. Judging from glances at other DRVs, such occurrences are way more common that they should be. (In just the past week, I see two cases of G4 deletions citing AfDs which took place ten years ago or more!) G4 should only be used to prevent re-creations of deleted pages and should almost never apply to good-faith creations by different, uninvolved editors (with the possible exception of categories and some other non-articles).
  The problem, I think, is that G4 is being overstretched beyond its intended spirit. Instead of preventing re-creations of deleted pages, it is also being used to block the creation of new pages about topics previously deemed unworthy. While such actions may be warranted, they should not be within the scope of G4, since it is always entirely possible that the subject of an article created by a COI editor and deleted at AfD may later become notable and created by a good-faith editor. Instead, another process (maybe a new CSD criterion?) is probably needed to prevent COI/paid editors from gaming the system. Re-education of admins will be needed.
  Also, agree with codifying non-applicability to pages passed through AfC, restored pages, and possibly all drafts. (Though the fact alone that this needs to be codified raises serious judgment concerns, which probably won't be resolved without addressing underlying issue.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC) – 10:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we have another fresh example of this blatant G4 abuse with the deletion of
    Miss Grand, a page previously subjected to improper G4 deletion which was overturned at DRV, and most recently brought to AfD with a no consensus result. I'd like to invite the offending admin User:Dodger67 to weigh in on the issues being discussed here, and maybe shed some light on the underlying problems and possible approaches to addressing them. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Passing AfC doesn't mean something is exempt from G4, and it shouldn't. Passing AfC just means that the AfC reviewer thinks the subject is plausibly notable (if the reviewer is doing their job). However plenty of content is deleted at AfD despite somebody arguing that the subject is notable, so even an exact recreation of a page deleted at AfD can still pass AfC review. As the reviewer may not be an admin it may not be possible for them to check that the content is similar to the deleted version anyway. I think the case of Cheman Shaik was a perfectly valid G4 - when the article was deleted at AfD the creator got it draftified, made some largely superficial changes (they only seem to have added one new reference, for example) and got it moved back to mainspace only a few months after it was deleted at AfD. Doing that doesn't entitle you to get a rerun of the AfD every few months. G4 definitely shouldn't be used to delete drafts of articles deleted at AfD though, in draftspace G4 only applies to drafts deleted at MfD. This is because a draft is substantially different to an article. Hut 8.5 12:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hut 8.5: Deleting the article makes no sense, though. If the patrolling admin believes that it is not good enough, then they should restore it to draft space. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G14 already exists, so... G15? Primefac (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Primefac: Fixed :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought exactly the same thing before. Userspace is supposed to have laxer guidelines than draftspace, so it makes little sense to apply NOTWEBHOST to the former but not to the latter. I would certainly support, e.g., a six-month trial of making this G15, although it'll be important to clarify it should be construed narrowly and not as a catch-all. (The key word would be "blatant": if there's any ambiguity at all, send it to XfD.) But if interpreted correctly, it could certainly relieve some of the pressure on MfD etc. without risking abuse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be (in line with #3 of the requirements for new criteria): Is there really such a pressure on MFD that we need such a criterion? The example RandomCanadian mentions for example is actually not an example of what this criterion would be for because Draft:Muhammad Umar Khan (MU Khan) is imho clearly the attempt of creating a userpage, just in the wrong namespace. The correct course of action would imho be to move the page to this user's userspace. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Move it to userspace and then re-apply U5 (because it's just an auto-biography with links to social media?) Or you think U5 doesn't apply here for reasons other than namespace? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has lots of edits to articles so U5 does not apply. Every editor has the right to a userpage with a bio and links to personal web pages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have four points to make here.

1. All CSD criteria (other than the G criteria) apply only to one namespace or to one namespace and its associated talk namespace, so it would be against established practice to extend U5 (or any U criterion) to Draft: namespace.
2. Please do not select a code for a proposed CSD criterion - we get lots of proposals, few of which succeed, and we assign codes when they are accepted and not before - otherwise we would (i) soon use up codes that will never get used for real and (ii) potentially have two or more discussions for proposed criteria that mention the same code as each other.
3. I do not see any indication that all four
   WP:NEWCSD
   criteria can be met, particularly no. 3.
4. It is deplorable practice to move a page from one namespace to another in order that a CSD criterion that did not apply in the first namespace can then be used in the second.

So please think carefully before making unworkable suggestions on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Redrose64's fourth point, moving a page with the sole intention of making it eligible for speedy deletion is

gaming the system and accordingly explicitly forbidden. Anyone doing that should expect serious consequences, and admin repeatedly doing so should not be surprised if they are desysopped. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Correct of course but any page that clearly was meant to be in a different namespace can be treated as being in that namespace, whether it's moved there or not, with the relevant criteria applying. For example, if a user page is created in draft space, you can and should move it to user space where it belongs but if it would be deleteable in user space, it's imho okay to apply a U-criterion to it without moving it first. Gaming the system is and should be forbidden but at the same time, we shouldn't be blind to stuff sometimes being created in a wrong namespace by accident. Regards SoWhy 17:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think
  WP:NEWCSD item 3 is met here, but otherwise don't find it objectionable. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm really not sure how much this would actually cover that needs covered, although I am probably in the Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity line of thinking. At least from what I've seen, U5 generally covers three general groups - 1) promotion in userspace, 2) vandalism/neonazi/conspiracy theory, and 3) occassional things such as fantasy sports leagues or alternate history games. 1) can be dealt with by G11 when it appears in draftspace, and 2) can be caught by G3. So really, this would only cover people running unrelated-to-wp personal stuff through draftspace like the fantasy sports or alternate history, and I'm not sure how much the draft space gets those, as those generally go through userspace from what I've seen. There's plenty of junk drafts where people write about their pets or minecraft servers, but those can be disposed of in six months when the G13 garbage collection truck makes its rounds. We don't need to be ragpicking, and with a lot of the webhost stuff classifiable elsewhere, I'm not sure how frequently an extension here would be needed. Hog Farm _Talk 17:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanding U5 to draft space has been proposed and rejected before (e.g. here and here). I strongly suspect that in practice it would be used to delete drafts which someone doesn't think are any good, rather than genuine cases of people not setting out to write an encyclopedia article. NOTWEBHOST violations are much more likely in user space than in draft space and U5 is widely abused in user space anyway. Hut 8.5 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move

• Would moving it to it's own page in the Wikipedia or template namespace and transcluding it from there resolve the issues? If so I think that's preferable to having it as a section on the
  WP:CSD page that we would need to keep in sync. I certainly support making it part of the policy. If it is moved then the last line of this page's edit notice will need updating. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:NEWCSD shortcut and then read the text. Right now I don't think it's possible for them to read it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Separately, should we change the information icon to something stronger? The edit notice on this page uses a warning triangle. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it has the kind of acceptance which justifies being made into policy, in particular lots of the existing CSD don't meet it. Hut 8.5 17:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall seeing any disagreement that proposed new criteria need to meet these requirements? What other acceptance is required? Whether existing criteria meet the requirements is a separate issue. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The box doesn't actually say that, it just says that CSD crtieria need to meet four points. Several of the existing criteria don't so it's clear that there's consensus that CSD crtiteria don't have to meet all four points. Hut 8.5 07:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk page is the right place for this information, because this isn't of use to those following speedy delete policy, but to those wanting to change it, and we change it here on the talk page. That said, I'm gonna reformat the talk page to draw more attention to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]