This page is used for the administration of the Articles for Creation or Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
The List of kidnappings, previously one of our longest pages, was recently split by century/date. One of them was moved to the Draft: space over alleged BLP violations (i.e., naming the perpetrator). There is a question at Talk:List of kidnappings about whether long-standing article content, placed on a brand-new page, can/should be treated like a new article or like an old one, wrt "The article was not created within the last 90 days" in WP:DRAFTNO. I don't know if this has ever been discussed before, so I hope that one of you will know the answer and reply over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTOBJECT is all that you need to do if you see someone is using draft space in a questionable way like this. You don't even need to provide a justification. There's always a better process available for controversial material once the content is back in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that I don't intend to do draft reviews. I encounter these in the course of maintenance. Tagging is a service for those better equipped than me for reviews. Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Miscellany for Deletion paragraph of this policy states:
Drafts that do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion can still be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion (MfD). A draft will be deleted at MfD if there is a consensus that it meets one of the reasons for deletion under the deletion policy and that it is unlikely to ever be a viable article.[note 10] Failure to demonstrate that the topic meets notability guidelines is not considered sufficient reason to delete a draft,[note 11] unless it has been repeatedly declined and resubmitted at AfC without improvement.
Should we revise or reword the mention of drafts that are unlikely ever to be viable articles? The reason why I am asking is that we sometimes get nominations for the deletion of drafts because they will never become viable articles, but we don't want to encourage such nominations of drafts. There are approximately 5000 drafts deleted as G13 each month. If five percent of these drafts were nominated for deletion, there would be 250 such nominations each month, or 8 nominations a day. That would multiply the amount of volunteer time spent reviewing useless drafts. We don't want to encourage such nominations. We don't even want to be neutral about such nominations, because if we are neutral about such nominations, some editors will think that they are being helpful in nominating one hopeless draft a day. MFD should be for stuff that should be deleted for a reason, not because someone may have overlooked the self-cleaning nature of G13.
An editor who nominates a draft that will never be an article probably thinks that they are being helpful, but they are asking several volunteers to review the draft, rather than to let time get rid of the draft. Should that paragraph, which is sort of weasely about when drafts should be nominated, be revised? Weasels are scavengers and can feast on the 160-plus drafts that are automatically deleted daily.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Since I've been reverted, just wanted to start a discussion on if DRAFTNO criterion #5 WP:DRAFTNO #5 - Another editor is actively working on the article, e.g. there is an {{under construction}} notice or there have been constructive edits made within the last hour is too strict. I believe it is and I'd like to propose removing it. Is it really practical to forbid editors from making draftifications if something has been edited in the last hour? What if the article is 89 days old, and a WP:GNOME comes by and adds a category? Adding a category is a constructive edit. Should this really put a complete stop to all draftifications? Is it fair or efficient to burden patrollers with having to make a note to come back later to draftify? Does adding a category really outweigh something like getting an unsourced or machine translated article out of mainspace?
In my view, the minimum application and a great application of this rule is WP:NPPHOUR, which is the same rule, but prohibits most draftifying one hour from article creation rather than one hour from last article edit. I'd be in favor of keeping that of course. The first hour of an article's life is much more likely to have someone actively working on it.
Don't forget that an editor can make their edits in draftspace, or WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Draftification doesn't suddenly forbid them from working on the article.
Sorry, I think I wrote ambiguously in that edit summary. It was primarily about the effect of the change on draftification, not about your approach to editing guidelines and policy (to which BRD does not really apply; significant changes should be discussed first). Removing criteria that block draftification when someone else objects allows NPPers to unilaterally get their way. That is what I was objecting to.
Anyway, as for #5: Draftification is for articles not under active improvement. If someone is actively editing an article and you pull the rug under them by moving it somewhere else while they're in the middle of editing, it can be very frustrating and can also lead to a mess when we get a moved draft and then a saved copy back at the place it was moved from. Better to step aside to wait for a time when it is not being actively edited. An hour may seem long but there is no real way of determining how long someone will be sitting typing in the edit window. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is being actively edited, talk to the editor. Use the talk page. Or if you don’t respect that editor, use AfD. Don’t just ignore the presence of an active editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, SmokeyJoe: I think the point Novem was making has still been misunderstood. The crucial word here - without ramming it at anyone as an opinion - is 'actively'. The very minor bot edits and and other maintenance tags which almost every new article gets within its first coupkle of hours do not demonstrate that an article genuinely needing to be draftified is being 'actively' worked on by its creator. The Move-to-draft script is not normally used when such a move is disputed, indeed, a dispute if any, come afterwards. It's extremely rare that qualified NPPers abuse the Move-to-draft script or re-draft when such a move has been disputed; instead, they would escalate BLPPROD it or send it to AfD and let the community decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reword it so that bot edits, categorizations, cleanup banners &c do not count towards the time limit, then removing this clause and its time limit altogether does not seem like the best way of doing that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should WP:DRAFTNO #6 and #7 be merged?
Hello. Since I've been reverted, just wanted to start a discussion on if DRAFTNO criterion #6 and #7 should be merged. Currently #6 reads Another editor has asserted that the page belongs in mainspace, e.g. it has previously been moved there, or there is a clear statement to that effect in the edit history or on the talk page and #7 reads Another editor has objected to or reversed the move.
I propose deleting #6. #7, which links to WP:DRAFTOBJECT, covers in detail the ways that a draftification can be objected to. Why do we need two bullets for what essentially boils down to the same thing? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging might be ok. Deleting #6 instead of merging is not as good. #6 is about claims that the article should be in mainspace, while #7 is about responses to direct threats of merging. As written they are not the same and simply removing one of the two bullets does not make it as clear what behavior from others counts as an objection. If you want one bullet rather than two, I don't see why that should be a problem, but then include both the claims that the article should be in mainspace and the objections to draftification in that bullet. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
