Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts)

The proposal has very clearly failedBosstopher (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: DRAFTPROD

Should this page be made part of the Deletion policy? The discussion that led to this page's creation, and the rationale behind it can be seen here. The aim of such a page would be to clear up the large number of WP:STALEDRAFT nominations at WP:MFD which almost never generate any discussion. Bosstopher (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC) This would also act as a replacement for WP:G13Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. CSD doesn't apply to stale drafts eligible for the proposed DRAFTPROD, and this can help clean up MFD backlogs as the proposer has stated. There's nothing bad about this proposal except for editors who are too attached to existing bureaucratic process. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As proposer, responses to objection below. Have changed the proposal to replace [[WP:G13], and reduced the time to 6 months per comments from User:coldacid. I hope given that he is the only other supporter at this point, the fact that I have made changes wont be a problem.Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order - your change to the proposal is a significant change. You basically proposed creating a new deletion process, then halfway through the discussion added an afterthought that oh, by the way, let's make this replace a speedy deletion criterion. I think you should reverse that, and/or make a new proposal with that in mind. More comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Augmenting G13, not Replacing G13

  1. Support - Why not? Heck, there's no reason for a separate process - just permit the existing PROD process to be used on articles or article drafts. I do NOT favor getting rid of G13, though. Wikipedia is not free webhosting and there needs to be a time limit where if you're not interested in making it an article, it goes away. --B (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose since this circumnavigates the deletions via speedy deletion criterion 13. We don't need two different processes to accomplish the same goal. Also, the usual 7-day window is significantly less than the 6-month window for G13 deletions. In addition, if the draft truly should be removed/deleted immediately and uncontroversially, then it, in theory, should be eligible for at least one speedy deletion criterion in the "G" section. I don't see a good reason presented here to speed up the deletion of drafts quicker than already established via G13. And also, nominating drafts for deletion is a function of MfD, but in my opinion, there has to be a very good reason for nominating the draft for deletion prior to the 6-month window, such as basically qualifying for one of the "A" (article) speedy deletion criterions if it was an article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943:You seem to have slightly misunderstood. Under this proposal there would be a 1 year window in which no non-automated and non-vandalism related edits would have to be made to the draft, not just 7 days. I've argued why I prefer this to a speedy deletion system below. Also unlike WP:G13 it applies to all drafts not just Articles for Creation. However, you are right that we dont need two processes doing similar things, so I've amended my proposal so that it now replaces G13.Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per my reason stated here. This would result in behind-the-curtains deletion of drafts. A much simpler alternative to this is a minor policy tweak to WP:MFD. Admins may just be given the power to delete stale drafts nominated at MfD which have gone uncommented in the 7-day period. Another alternative is the one proposed by me and by Xaosflux, that of splitting out drafts to a new XfD venue. This solves the problem of uncluttering the MfD at the same maintaining an XfD system (which in my view is better for drafts because visibility of nominations is ensured). See the "here" link provided above for details. SD0001 (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating yet another XfD board doesn't deal with the backlog this is out to clean up, it just moves that backlog around to somewhere else and ultimately solves nothing. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the notion that creating a new deletion forum for drafts "solves nothing"; actually, it would allow those discussions to happen separate from MFD, essentially allowing the other MFD nominations (Wikipedia:, Help:, etc.) to have priority there. (However, do not consider this me supporting this alternative, because I really don't: this has been discussed somewhat at Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 3#Process for deleting drafts, and there was no consensus for creating the new venue.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    myself, I think there are so fewdiscussions at MfD that we should rather be thinking of whether we can combine anything else into it. Boards work best when there's substantial activity,; otherwise people tend to ignore them. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't believe this will lead to behind the doors deletions at all. All that is needed is for a separate WP:PRODSUM to be created for drafts. That page could then be transcluded into Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, so that the PRODs would be publicized to all those interested in saving drafts. Pinging User:DumbBOT's creator @Tizio:, to see if this would be possible in the scenario that this proposal passes.Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Proposal in search of a problem.

    Are the XFD pages being overrun by excessive nominations of drafts? No

    Does the G-Series of CSD criteria deal with the worst offenders? Yes

    Does the current MFD handle patently unfit Draft pages? Yes

    Currently there is a process by which pages that are enrolled in the Articles for Creation project are looked at, and once they are eligible for G13, a bot process gives notice to the page creator that the page is currently eligible for CSD:G13. At least 30 days after the "warning notice" goes out, if the page still exists and is still eligible for CSD:G13 (still unedited) the bot performs the CSD:G13 nomination (and in theory an admin reviews the nomination). Now in the current practice, admins who are patrolling WP:REFUND are treating the first request for restoration of G13ed draft as a PROD objection (so your proposal is already in practice through existing structures). The Admins can exercise their discretion in reviewing the Refund request to determine if there is other reasons why the page cannot be restored (if it qualified under some other CSD rationalle as well). It has been my experience that the admins patrolling REFUND are less enthusiastic to restore pages that have been successfully CSD:G13ed more than once (some to the point of adding explicit conditions on the restoration). Finally, anything that could be a successful PROD should also be able to withstand a MFD nomination.

    TLDR: Oppose because this proposal is already implemented in current practice. Hasteur (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  4. Oppose but only because I support uncontested uncommented MfD defaulting to delete in these cases. Gigs (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose unless the proposal is modified to replace G13 entirely and includes adequate notice. Two overlapping procedures does not make sense, and MfD would work fine if reviewers used it more often. As a Prod, not XfD, I would then support having uncontested Prods delete at the discretion of the closing administrator, just as prod is currently. (I know there are some admins who automatically delete all uncontested prods that meet the technical requirements. Current policy leaves it to their judgement. I personally think closing prods without thinking whether you agree with the deletion is a poor use of judgment, but it seems to me that current WP:PROD policy permits it.) DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: "Its purpose is to reduce the load on the miscellany for deletion process"... I can only see one draft at MFD at the moment, so this justification is doubtful. Moreover, I don't really see the problem with G13. If you think there should be a 7-day waiting period for G13 deletions, that can probably be implemented within the context of the speedy deletion criterion, in a similar way to {{nsd}}, {{orfud}}, etc. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose G13 covers this well enough. We already have a problem with editor retention, if an editor takes a week long break and finds their draft gone, or notices a giant red deletion tag they are likely to leave. Miscellany for deletion doesn't have too much load and will do fine, and as people have pointed out to me before, what harm are drafts doing floating around anyway? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose The pages in Draft space can be divided into two categories: Those which have been created through the WP:AFC process, mainly by brand new users, and those which have been created deliberately as drafts. It is my understanding that db-g13 applies only to the former group. According to this search, there are about 6,000 pages so far in the latter group. Unlike the AfC submissions, which have been brought to the attention of reviewers, these stand-alone drafts may only have one or two watchers, so a lot of PROD tags would go unnoticed. It shouldn't be necessary to log in every seven days to make sure your drafts haven't been nominated for deletion under no particular criteria. MfD is a fairer process for these drafts. More useful would be a plan for occasional checking to identify drafts which should be considered at MfD under one of the existing criteria.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose as so few of these will be watched by anyone, that they would not get enough eyes on them to see if it was a sensible nomination or not. We do not need more processes than we already have, so I would say just use MFD if you have to. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. As DGG correctly points out, all too often the routine deletion of PRODs might be throwing some babies out with the bathwater. At least the G13s come under a bit more scrutinty before the admins hit them with their delete buttons (well, I hope they do). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. The vast majority of nominations where there is only a VAGUEWAVE to STALEDRAFT should not be deleted at all. If there is nothing else wrong with the page than that it is stale, ie it is not wrong or misleading or promotional or reposted-deleted-material, then it should be blanked& replaced with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, or something similar for draft space. If the material is really innocuous abandoned and stale, nothing else, then it most certainly does not need a community discussion, and taking it to MfD should be banned as disruptive to MfD. The insistence for of throwing worthless irrelevance on top of a forum agenda is nothing but the creation of busy work and what drove me away from MfD. I blame User:Gigs, and people's infatuation with dumbed down ALLCAPSONEWORDS substitutes for rationales that has caused editors to stop their thinking process. If something is adequately dealt with by blanking, then it does not need deletion. If it is merely STALE, there is no issue with its unblanking. Can't people just clean up without having to make a show of their cleaning up? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Might be worthwhile to reduce the time since last real edit criterion from one year to six months? Barring stale drafts that have been vandalized, G13 may be applicable to some drafts before DRAFTPROD would be. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coldacid: G13 is already set for 6 months, not a year. I honestly think a more effective proposal that somewhat relates to this one would be to reduce the time that a draft would qualify for G13 even further. (In a discussion like that, I would probably be neutral since I really have no opinion on the timeframe, but rather don't see the purpose behind two different processes that accomplish the same goal.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just what drafts would be eligible for it that would not be eligible for G13? I can see this policy as a replacement for G13, rather than a supplement to it. I would actually prefer it for that purpose if we worked out how to send the right notices to previous reviewers as well as the people who started the article. I see no overload at MfD--what I see is that it isn't being used anywhere near enough. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: I share the same thoughts. This discussion is probably better suited on WP:CSD as a restructuring of the G13 criterion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: The issue is that MFD gets a very large number of WP:STALEDRAFT nominations that generate absolutely no discussion. For a rough indicator of the problem go to the page, ctrl F 'stale' and look at the results. I'd say they're a major reason why MFD seems to inactive, because there's not really anything you can say about them other than "Delete: it's stale" or "Keep: I'm going to use it." A PROD would solve this by allowing for an easier deletion without discussion. I also think it would be better than expanding G13, as the longer time frames involved would give any interested person the opportunity to rescue the draft. On that note I have expanded the proposal so that it replaces G13. Pinging @Coldacid: in case he wants to no longer support in light of this.Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, when closing MfD's for STALEDRAFT - if a page is several years old and only had one editor who is is inactive, I generally close as delete even if there are no !votes beyond the nominator. — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should just codify that. Uncontested MFD defaults to delete in staledraft cases. There's your prod-like mechanism without having to really do anything much different from what we do now. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose to closing uncontested MfDs as delete; The principle that XfD defaults to keep is extremely important, and should not be compromised. MfD does not get a very large number of anything: 20 stale drafts a week is a trivial burden--what we need to do about MfD is to use it more, and then people will swatch it and comment. What meeds to be listed there is not just stale drafts, but Drafts which have been repeatedly resubmitted and have no hope of becoming articles, or drafts of people so totally unnamable that they amount to personal web pages or utter trivia, but that can't fairly be speedy be deleted as test pages. If any admin has been closing MfDs without comment as delete, in my personal opinion they should simply comment delete, and then some other admin will have a proper basis to close as delete. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment seems to add on to what I stated above in my oppose about drafts should only be deleted speedily if it "qualif[ies] for one of the "A" (article) speedy deletion criterions if it was an article." Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this in principal - in practice the ones I hit like this are usually well past closing time and in the specific case types I listed above - I really wish more people would comment on them. If I actually have an opinion I would just list it and not close the MFD - it still is case by case, and I tend to default to 'no consensus default keep' results in general for MOST uncontested MFD's. — xaosflux Talk 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noted above that Bosstopher's change to the proposal is significant; replacing WP:G13 should be a new proposal or a separate one, since it was not proposed originally. As for the DRAFTPROD idea itself, I think it is unnecessary cruft to add another layer in the draft deletion process. However, I do support deprecating WP:G13 because it's a band-aid that doesn't work very well, and because personally I don't see why we should set any sort of time limit on unfinished drafts; it does no harm to the project at all for them to simply languish in Draft: space forever, unless there is some not-age-related policy-based reason they should be deleted (like they're duplicates, or wouldn't pass WP:GNG, or whatever). And in that case, unless they meet one of the other speedy criteria, they should go to MfD so that those issues can be discussed. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose replacing G13, however I would be all for augmenting G13 to include a draft PROD system. Unlike article space, which is usually monitored pretty well, libelous userspace drafts can go unnoticed for years. Simply from the standpoint of cutting down on the number of things to maintain, I'm all for any process that facilitates getting rid of abandoned drafts. --B (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if a draft were libelous, for example, it could be deleted under existing processes, likely WP:G10 or WP:BLPPROD. We really don't need a deletion process just to delete things that are old. Old drafts are not harmless just by virtue of being old, and if they are harmful then they can already be deleted through existing processes. There is no deadline, and WP:CHEAP tells us that deleting things doesn't save any server space. Ivanvector (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could be deleted. The barrier to deletion is not a policy barrier, rather, it's that nobody is going to ever notice it. There are (I'm making up a number) a million article drafts somewhere on Wikipedia - between the draft space, user space, and the AFC subpages. Nobody anywhere is monitoring these things. They could sit with libel and not be discovered for years. Yes, right now, today, this moment, that libel can be deleted with the click of a button if it is discovered. The problem is that it is unlikely to be discovered. My view is that any draft (or article copy) anywhere should be automatically deleted after some reasonable period of non-use. There is no point in wasting time managing abandoned drafts to see which ones have libel, which ones are really just POV forks of an article, etc. And I am in favor of anything that moves us in the direction of reducing the number of abandoned article drafts. I have no desire to delete anything that someone is actually using and no desire to make it more difficult for someone who is actually trying to write an article - I just don't think we need to retain these things indefinitely. --B (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I disagree on is that being unlikely to be discovered is a problem. A harmful draft is problematic the moment it is created; we don't need to wait 48 hours or 7 days or 6 months to find out. If nobody discovers it in that time, or if nobody ever discovers it, is it really a problem? It's Schrodinger's BLP vio, in a way. It just sits there being idle, not indexed by search engines and not particularly easy to access for readers, until the moment someone observes it and has a problem with it, and then it gets deleted. Setting some arbitrary age limit where we delete drafts simply because they exist doesn't seem to be a good solution to that problem.
I would prefer, if we feel that we absolutely must set an arbitrary age limit for drafts, that rather than automatic deletion, they are reviewed for suitability as articles, and either promoted to main space or deleted according to consensus. Maybe that's what WP:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts is, I don't know, or maybe they can be automatically submitted for a "final" WP:AFC review where they can be deleted if they do not pass. That's not what WP:G13 is currently; editors use it to blanket delete any draft that crosses the age threshold, with no review at all. And I don't think that's what this proposal is, either, it's just "slow" G13. Ivanvector (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is positive. What happens if the admin decides not to delete, then? Do they continue to languish in Draft: space, or are we further burdening the admins with fixing stale drafts to be promoted to main space? Ivanvector (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper procedure for " harmful" drafts is to delete them via the current speedy procedure: G11 and G12 will take care of most, and G2 is available for those that don't fit into any clear category. I've nominated quite a number using all 3, and deleted many that others nominate -- I do not normally do single-handed deletions except in extreme circumstances. We need to simply our procedures, not complicate them, and we already have all the necessary tools for this problem & we only need to use them. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC 2

Should Draftprod be adopted as a policy? Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 00:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]