Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Andrea fortier
Removal of G2 CSD
(I figure this is the most apt location to have this discussion—I'm not too familiar with XfD, but I assume off-topic discussion should be otherwise avoided.)
Adam9007, I marked it as a G2 test page as it was the creator's very first edit—my thought was that it was made for the purpose of figuring out what this "AfC" thing meant, from the editors perspective. I personally think that even G1 (nonsense) or G3 (vandalism) would be fine as well, but I prefer the least-aggressive, yet still applicable criterium when multiple can apply (AFG and all). If this line of thinking doesn't line up with how CSD criteria are traditionally applied, please let me know—that's not something I want to get into the habit of. Perryprog (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perryprog, There's actually a discussion about CSDing drafts like this at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Draft_speedy_deletion_criteria_(D#). It's not nonsense, there's no evidence of it being vandalism, and it doesn't look like a test edit. There's no indication that this is intended to be an AfC submission. A7 and A1 would apply if it were in mainspace. At the moment, the consensus is to let MfD handle drafts like this, though there seems to be growing support for the expansion of the speedy deletion criteria to cover cases such as this. Adam9007 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Adam9007, I agree that G1/G3 would be a bit of a stretch, but I tend to be very generous when I call something a "test" edit; as a good example, see this revert. I suppose I'm probably mistaken in believing this classification would carry over to G2, but if there is no indication it's intended to be an AfC submission I see no reason why it shouldn't typically be considered a "test" (especially if it seems that the creator was just experimenting to see what a shiny blue button did). Anyway—I wasn't aware that there was consensus for MfD to handle this type of draft, but I'm pretty surprised that's the case. Thanks for letting me know. Perryprog (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perryprog, There's no way of telling whether that were the case, if the page was created as a joke, or if it was a misguided beginner's attempt at an article. Test edits are usually obvious. Adam9007 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Adam9007, fair enough, I think that's a good point. The page has since been G10'd (huh), but I did find the essay which I read a long time ago, and is how I still qualify an edit as a "test" today. It's worth a read if you weren't already aware of it: Wikipedia:Identifying test edits. Perryprog (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Perryprog, There's no way of telling whether that were the case, if the page was created as a joke, or if it was a misguided beginner's attempt at an article. Test edits are usually obvious. Adam9007 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Adam9007, I agree that G1/G3 would be a bit of a stretch, but I tend to be very generous when I call something a "test" edit; as a good example, see this revert. I suppose I'm probably mistaken in believing this classification would carry over to G2, but if there is no indication it's intended to be an AfC submission I see no reason why it shouldn't typically be considered a "test" (especially if it seems that the creator was just experimenting to see what a shiny blue button did). Anyway—I wasn't aware that there was consensus for MfD to handle this type of draft, but I'm pretty surprised that's the case. Thanks for letting me know. Perryprog (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)