Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 70

Let's stop ignoring the suggestion in R2
Currently, R2 states:

Regarding that second sentence, it will not surprise you to know that practically all R2 deletions are a result of Main->Draft/Usersandbox moves, mainly the former, being tagged immediately upon creation. These are usually created by a patroller "draftifying/incubating" articles they deem not ready for mainspace. A number of scripts have made this process much easier with the end result being that people are not waiting a day or two before tagging or deleting such redirects. By means of example, here are 50 R2 deletions from January; of these 50, 49 are Main->Draft/User redirects and one was made in error. After being moved, only 2 persisted for longer than 24 hours; 10 were deleted >12 hours after moving, and after being tagged, nothing lasted longer than 9 hours. I also perused 100 each from March and December, and found only redirects to Draft with maybe a half-dozen to userspace.

While this is just a slice of R2 deletions, it's actually a major undercount: sysops and pagemovers are allowed to suppress redirects for cross-namespace redirects per WP:PMRC, which theoretically is in direct conflict with the printed suggestion in R2. That specific language is an unchanged holdover from a 2005 rewrite, well before the Draft: namespace existed, when the intent of R2 was for Main->User redirects (actually it goes further back, to 2003). The project has matured, and it's clear the community has never wanted redirects to Draft or User space polluting mainspace, so R2 is an outlier compared to the explicit prohibitions against speedy deletion after page moves we see in G7 or R3. Regardless, the end result is that we are ignoring the second sentence of WP:CSD roughly 100% of the time. As such, I think we have three options:


 * Option 1: Remove the sentence. Changes: none.
 * Option 2: Keep the sentence and continue ignoring it. Changes: none (status quo).
 * Option 3: Enforce a waiting period before deleting. Changes: Main->Draft/Userspace redirects linger for a day or two, extendedmovers can no longer suppress when draftifying.

I like the idea of waiting a bit out of kindness but am clearly in favor of option 1 as it matches current community practice. The movelog entry is clearly visible on the page and, if it is draftified, there will be a notice saying "A draft exists at..." so I'm not worried about users finding "their" page. Option 3 leaves items to fall through the cracks unless we create a PROD-like system (RPROD? XNRPROD?), surely isn't worth the bureaucracy. Option 2, in addition to institutionalizing a system of ignoring suggestions, would allow any jerk of a sysop to follow the letter of the law and POINTedly request a reversal of any R2 they see. We've been ignoring this suggestion for a while; it's time to finally remove this holdover from a different era. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 the box with heading "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted." contains the link to the new location, which is sufficient for all purposes I have considered. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the redirect is not instantly tagged for deletion, there's a risk that it will be forgotten and that it will remain for a long time. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 1, not opposed to option 2. I don't see the benefit in leaving a redirect for a few days. If needed, it's not a lot of effort to recreate. Natureium (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with option 1, aligning deletion reason with practice. We can also encourage page movers to notify the writer why it moved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support option 1. It reflects the reasonable current practice.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Current practice. I feel like it's also kinder? In that the redirect will need to be deleted by an admin if the author wants to put their draft back in mainspace anyway (the extra edit nominating the redirect for R2 will disable the ability for just anyone to move over the redirect, since there will be more than one revision in the history page). The quicker we delete the redirect, the quicker the draft can be reintroduced as a proper article; not sure I see the sense in waiting. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 1 this is actual policy per practice; we just need to catch up the writing. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The consensus here seems sufficiently clear that I went ahead and removed the sentence. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Waiting is against the idea of speedy. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support the edit made by I also don't see any reasonable advantage to the waiting restriction.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support option 1 as already implemented by Tazerdadog. Redirects from articlespace into draftish areas should always be speedily removed.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Retain the sentence but don't ignore it in all cases. Waiting isn't necessary in all cases, but it is appropriate in some which is why it is phrased as "consider" not "you must". How we enforce consideration I don't know, but deleting the sentence is certainly not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I know this is quite late, but as one of the most frequent R2 deleters (I think about a third of the ones on the table above are me), I admit to not reading the criterion closely enough to notice the suggestion. That said, I don't see the benefit of leaving a redirect for a page that's been moved to a different namespace, given the big red "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted" box and the "There is a draft for this article at..." box (where applicable). ansh 666  06:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Does CSD G4 still appy if a page has been singificantly modified, since the time a page has the notice pasted on it?
I am referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrashekhar_(TV_Series). Although the page before I tried to fix it up was surely something that was not reliable, and sourced at all. However after I cleaned it up tweaked things up. Also, while I was doing some research on the subject matter I discovered that the page creator did what seemed like a copy paste, and I removed those items. I tried my best in adding a few references. Although I still think it could end up as a candidate for deletion, I am not sure if it still falls under as a candidate for deletion under CSD G4. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not having looked at the page yet, as a general matter, I consider G4 to no longer apply once the prevailing reason the original article was deleted no longer applies. If an article was deleted because there were no reliable sources, and that has been solved, I probably wouldn't consider the page a G4 candidate, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD states "This applies to sufficiently identical copies ..." clarified as "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". So this means that "a page has been singificantly modified" is not going to be sufficiently/substantially identical, so should not be G4'd - but a fresh WP:AFD is certainly an option. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a slightly stricter interpretation than Someguy (AFAICT it was intended for pages that were copied before deletion and immediately reposted, as with the original version of this article), so I'd decline a G4 on it if the tag were placed now. On a quick glance, I'm not convinced of its notability, though. ansh 666 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

G7 for redirects after moves
If a user moves a long-standing article to a completely different title and then tag the redirects from the old title for speedy deletion per G7, then that's a bit disingenuous of them. I wouldn't expect an admin to actually carry out these deletions. But then I came across a series of moves by one user (logs:     ) and the old-title redirects have invariably been speedied. Now, the text at WP:G7 is explicit that this criterion doesn't apply to such pages, but is there something in these cases that I'm missing. Pinging the deleting admins:, ,. – Uanfala (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These looks like content hijacking(s) at a first glance... ~ Winged Blades Godric 07:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a native resident of the state and no renaming etc. happened.It's probably good faith hijacking of current articles to generate new articles.But, I'm equally amazed as to the mop-men managed to speedily delete the redirects?! I'll be indulging in a cleanup soon, using my PM flag. ~ Winged Blades Godric 07:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All ✅--Articles restored to their initial state.I'll probably create the new hijacked-articles (which is now a version in the history of the longstanding articles), in accordance with WP:CWW.Best, ~ Winged Blades Godric 08:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I didn't dig deeply enough in my case. Still getting used to this. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G7 of the redirect you just created as a consequence of doing a non page_mover move seems a perfectly valid thing under the rules. Someone doing such a thing had better be sure the page move was a good idea, and fix up any incoming links.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. There needs to be something wrong with the redirect for it to be deleted, and then that'll be under other criteria (R2, G6 etc). Normally R from move redirects should be and are kept at RFD. Page movers shouldn't and don't arbitrarily suppress redirect unless specifically needed.Galobtter (pingó mió)
 * Disagree as well. R3 explicitly exempts such redirects from speedy deletion because "a history of improper deletions of these redirects" (Note #4) and G7 explicitly says For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move. Please elaborate why you believe such G7 deletions are "perfectly valid thing under the rules" considering those parts of the rules I just cited. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SoWhy, it seems I missed User:Rossami's insertion of the parenthetical clause in the middle of G7. I was familiar with the first and last sentence only.  My comment above struck.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that redirects don't take much resource, so if there's nothing wrong and someone might search for an alternate title, they should probably stay in place :). -- Luk  talk 08:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * What seems to be happening is that the user moves an article, then blanks the redirect and leaves it at that. The G7 tagging appears to have been done by new page patrollers. Taking a look at the three most recently blanked redirects, each was tagged for speedy deletion by a different patroller, one for G7, and two   – bizarrely – for A1. Even more bizarrely, two of these just got deleted (incidentally, by one of the admins I've pinged at the start of the post). – Uanfala (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That last part does not really surprise me. Unfortunately. Regards SoWhy 10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, can someone with the goggles peek into and discover the patroller who did tag the leftover redirects with some or the other CSD tag? ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This information is recoverable from the template messages on the user's talk page. I've alerted one of the two A1 taggers, and left a note on the talk page of the editor who seems to be responsible for the G7 tags. – Uanfala (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Charaghata, Kalyanpur, Baruipur: tagged G7 by User:Xx236
 * Uttar Kazirhat: tagged A1 by User:SamHolt6
 * Sarmaster Chak, Sankar Parulia, Sagra (West Bengal): tagged G7 by User:Mark the train
 * Narayanpur, South 24 Parganas: tagged G7 by User:Cahk. —Cryptic 10:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why we have the text we have in G7. Even something seemingly simple like G7 is ripe for abuse, and taggers and sysops alike need to check more than "Is the first person listed the one who blanked?"  Checking page histories of all pages is key. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An admin who actually checks the page meets the speedy criteria... that would be sight to see! Primefac (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You can see that for free at User:SoWhy :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'm hardly the only one. Most admins know how speedy criteria actually work. Just monitor related discussions and you will notice that problematic deletions are oftentimes performed by the same admins, e.g. who is responsible for those deletions Uanfala mentions above (at 09:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)) after being pinged to this discussion that raised the very same problem less than two hours before (at 07:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)). Regards SoWhy 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I do know that about the same admins, but I'd say part of the problem is that those same admins do quite a proportion of the CSD deletions (which they can do as they don't pay much attention to them) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say frequently in other venues, if you're finding an editor is doing something consistently that they shouldn't, find adequate diffs and open a discussion on the relevant noticeboard. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Ritchie333 tried that last month, didn't really work. Regards So<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 15:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Unused modules
Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 5 has several entries for modules that are no longer used in the templates for which they were created. The situation seems rather clear-cut — a module is useless without a template, so either they'll be deleted as useless, or they'll get put back into the templates because someone shouldn't have removed them in the first place. Why not have a speedy criterion for them? It could be either standalone or made part of something else.

Modules with zero transclusions may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.

Basing this off the image-copyright and T3 criteria, since obviously we shouldn't delete orphaned modules instantly just because they're orphaned; the point is getting rid of stuff that nobody needs, not something that was momentarily removed by accident or vandalism. This is vaguely related to G8 for categories ("populated by a retargeted or deleted template"), since both here and with G8 categories, the template is modified so as to make no more use of the other page. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * G8 has no such restriction, it's literally for all "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". The stuff in the text is only examples and exceptions, not a finite list. Personally, I'd probably summarize those modules under G6 if it's clear that no other use is likely. If it's less clear, TFD won't really collapse from a few extra modules being discussed. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 17:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like you want a Module PROD (which given that I can't even get a Template PROD going, good luck!), but I agree with SoWhy in that TFD is not currently overloaded with nominations, so there's not much point in carving out a specific category just for them. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If the module is dependent on a deleted template, then G8 would work. If you simply want a process for the uncontroversial deletion of modules after seven days, that would be an extension of PROD and should be suggested at WT:PROD. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain where you developed the idea that this is a PROD, given the fact that I copy/pasted the rationale from criterion T3? If you go and remove a T3 speedy tag or a dated file speedy tag without resolving the issue, the tag may be restored without resetting the clock; this is no different.  Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In principle, the same idea that is behind T3 should be able to apply to modules as well. But there are practical considerations that make this less desirable. First, there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of templates, and there is a clear need for efficient means (like CSD) of keeping it all tidy. The number of modules is probably two orders of magnitude smaller, and the deletions that have so far been necessary are far from the scale that would normally necessitate the use of a new speedy deletion criterion. A second – and more important – consideration has to do with they way the two namespaces are used. Templates are one average simpler than modules, they are ubiquitous and well known and so editors passing by are more likely to know what a given template is for it's a more straightforward task to determine if it is unlikely to be used. Modules, on the other hand, are still more esoteric, fewer people are familiar with them, and the tasks that modules are normally created for are more complex and usually involve larger timeframes (which often involve larger intervals between the sketch creation of a module and its deployment). I don't think this is the sort of context in which straightforward, uncontroversial deletions are going to be likely. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The only reason there are so many is because Pppery is going through the module space and deleting things that aren't used. Once that is done I expect the number of modules at TfD to be very low not justifying extending a CSD. Also T3 is Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days. so you'd likely want to extend "0 transclusions" to that first. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And deleting things that aren't used or could be implemented in Wikitext &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal at Village Pump
I have made a proposal concerning g13 at the Village Pump. Please come and participate. Egaoblai (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Village pump (proposals) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for no reason
I got notification from this person User talk:Aneeqarani3132 regarding this article Wag (band). I deleted all what she find bothersome. When can I remove this template? I read everything about speedy criteria and none of this matches mine. Thank you. Qucipuci0 (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Qucipuci0
 * That article is appalling, I have to say. A laundry list compiled from multiple issues of a fan magazine. Are there no weightier sources? Guy (Help!) 20:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

G6 description discrepancies
I posted a question about G6 at WP:NPP/R, but realized this may have been a better place. Clarification welcome. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the NPP curation tool misstates the CSD, then it should be corrected -- the language of the CSD controls. If,, you are suggesting that the CSD should be changed to better match the NPP tool, or in some other way, please make that proposal more clearly, and give your reasons for it. I don't see a reason to change the CSD from its current text, but I may be missing something. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I originally was just asking for clarification, but now I'm thinking that the NPP version makes more sense. There's no need for a disambig page if there's only 2 pages to choose from. A hat note is sufficient. Natureium (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Dab pages with only two entries are correct if neither entry is the primary topic - see for example West Midlands Franchise and E. Ernst. In some, but not all, cases one of the two entries should be set the primary topic but this cannot be determined speedily. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:G4 question
If an article is deleted at WP:AFD is a Draft: of the same article eligible for deletion under WP:G4? ~ GB fan 15:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is normally the case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the whole point of the draft space is to work on/improve substandard articles. If it's submitted for review and it's still significantly similar to the original it should just be declined (though if for some reason it's accepted at AFC then it can be G4'd from article space).
 * As a note, G4 would be acceptable on a draft if it was previously deleted as a draft at MFD without sufficient improvement. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle but disagree in practice. The G4 criteria state that they do not apply to pages that have been draftified for the purpose of improvement.  That is true.  However, unfortunately, when I see drafts on a topic that was already deleted at AFD, they are seldom there for improvement.  Usually what is happening is that draft space is being used in order to evade the deletion.  (As a matter of fact, it won't effectively evade the deletion if the title is really the same as the deleted title and if the reviewer uses the AFC tools, because the tools will say that the title has been deleted.  A submitter can game the system by changing the title.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish that I could be as optimistic as some editors in thinking that submitters really are using draft space to improve substandard articles. I seldom see that.  I sometimes (happily) see draft space used for new adequate articles, and often see draft space used to resubmit crud, but very seldom to turn crud into something any good.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a CSD question, but how is a reviewer to know whether a draft is an improvement over the deleted article anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it is seldom feasible to improve a deleted article in draft space anyway. The way that AFD works, if an article is deleted, the decision has usually been that the topic cannot be improved, not that it needs improvement.  Most deletions are based on lack of notability, and are based on a conclusion that the subject is not notable, not merely that the references do not support notability.  (If the references do not support notability, one of the reviewers may add better references, or the article may simply be tagged.)  So it isn't the rule that improvement of a draft is likely to be effective.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, are you saying that once an AFD has determined that an subject is not notable it can never become notable? I can understand an AFD closes today and is immediately brought back into Draft space.  What about an article about a person that was deleted 3 years ago at AFD, can they become notable?  That is actually what raised this question in my mind.  A BLP article was deleted at AFD in 2015.  In late 2017 a Draft article is created and two days ago it was deleted G4 from Draft space.  Nevermind the fact that the original 2015 AFDd article had two sources and the 2018 Draft had 10.  ~ GB fan 19:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Having 8 more sources/things changing after the AfD was closed would make it ineligible for G4 irregardless of whether it applied to draft space Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that sounds like a problem. I know we're still talking generally, but I would suggest asking that admin (on their talk page) why they did what they did. No need to litigate it here. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will probably just undelete it. I really don't care what the deleting admin has to say about it.  ~ GB fan 20:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can guess who deleted it. Which is sort of good because there aren't so many admins likely to have done this. Thincat (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I could guess too, and then I went and checked and I was right :) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Me 3 Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * it would still be worth drawing the admin's attention to it, in the hope that they will be more careful in future &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but it is not uncommon to see drafts deleted under G4. The problem is that "for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)" is very subjective. Remove that and the deletion criterion would return to its intended function. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 07:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The recourse against an admin being unreasonable about this is WP:Deletion Review. It's almost always decided there that if the previous AfD is old enough, and any sort of a case can be made, re-creation as a draft will be permitted. I also want to mention that articles deleted from WP can be found in  websites devoted to that purpose, such as Deletionpedia.   DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Applying CSD-A criteria to submitted drafts
A proposal was made in the section above about discussing the wisdom of applying all, or possibly a subset of, the CSD-A? criteria to submitted drafts and one of the participants requested that discussion on that topic not take place within the original thread.
 * Comment No immediate opinion the matter. Just opening a section to facilitate discussion. Jbh  Talk  17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to support something like this for A7, but don't see a workable option. Specifically, new editors should get at least one chance to find offline sources, etc. if their initial proposal is declined, as well as to let them know that deletion is a possible outcome (in case they may want to maintain a copy elsewhere).  Requiring at least two (or three) declines before a CSD occurs limits the "speedy"-ness of the action, but might be reasonable. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that many of the article criteria are unsuitable for drafts. For example, I don't think that it's a good idea to delete a draft only because there's no evidence that the subject is notable; the user should be allowed to correct the draft instead. If the criterion is changed so that the draft only is deleted after the user has been given a reasonable amount of time, then it's pointless to use notability article criteria as the page eventually will meet criterion G13 anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This proposal needs to be properly workshopped and presented. Comments are welcome but let's not go too far down the road of judging it yet. We get a lot of pages about random high schoolers that shoild not be left untagged for deletion for 5 minutes after a responsible editor sees them. There is a large increase in AfC submissions (over 5 times more year over year) because of how we now direct new users who want to create new pages, and that is with ACTRIAL turned off. We are in different circumstances today. See WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions for some interesting stats. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewers know when the topic is completely hopeless, just look at some example. Submission of the draft means they are trying to put it into mainspace, and when it is a fantasy story based on their mine craft experience one day, it is impossible that a new source will help. NPReviewers already have the judgement and discretion to know when to draftify an A7 and when to simply tag it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ever since ACTRIAL started, the deluge of new content went from NPP to AfC. However, it doesn't seem right to, say, A7 a submitted draft on it's first submission. That said, we need measures to deal with 8-times-declined drafts, nonstarters, and other problematic drafts. What about expanding PROD to draftspace? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prod. Drafts are not watched, draft prod amounts to a nonobjective CSD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but so is G13 to an extent. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * G13 is completely objective. Prod is assumed to be subjective. A speedy deletion need not be “speedy”, it can have a delay time, but is expected to meet the four new criterion criteria, listed at the top of this page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, G13 gives carte blanche to admins to delete any page that hasn't been edited in six months. That's the only criterion. Also, I retract the DraftPROD idea. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ultimately this comes don to a balancing act between not wasting our AfC reviewer's time reviewing Ax eligible pages over and over again, vs not biting the new comers. The question then becomes how many times we let them resubmit before we put our foot down and say enough. I trust everyone can see why both deleting after the first submission and allowing dozens of virtually unimproved submissions are both very bad ideas. I'd propose three submissions as the line between those two bad things, After three Ax eligible submissions, just delete it.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think that drafts that are Ax worthy and not being improved at all, should be deleted. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When a draft submission is so unsuitable that it immediately fits A7 or A11, and there are many of these, the kindest thing to do is to give the author a timely message. Timely means immediately.  A submission about their minecraft cave system for example, it is to no one's benefit for them to be told a reviewer doesn't think is it suitable, but they are encouraged to edit it to improve it and then resubmit it.  Deletion, immediate deletion is the best thing for the content, it was the wrong way to go.  The automated A7 / A11 sorry text that the author receives is politely, positively and constructively worded.  The newcomer needs to focus on that response, not on the unsuitable text they submitted.  At AfC, they are working on a harder "Rejected" response, which will help, but that is for things that are in the opinion of the reviewer not notable, but not so bad as to be speediable.  Much is speediable, or should be speediable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Apartment 220, for example. Clearly should be deleted, with the author messaged accordingly.  There are many of these.  They are always SNOW deleted at MfD, where they waste time and space, creating and consuming more space and editorial time that even close to what the author invested in the page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Neon Habari (bio and background) is another. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Some web content examples. Brand new (at time of submission) facebook page.Draft:IdsView no amount of editing is going to help that. Another brand new website Draft:KickNtheBalls. Draft:Loki doki and to get another reviewer Draft:Loki Doki Draft:Mind Bending Thumb Bending and Draft:Never Have Ever Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some, not all, of them are G11-eligible. G11 doesn't require the authors intent to be promotion, but if the sole effect of the page is to promote a facebook link, that's G11. A7 has the advantage of not impugning an author's intention intention to promote and brings up the A7 threshold of te indication of importance as the starting point for a new article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A small group of admins want to interpret CSD very narrowly while many absolutely non-notable pages are a stretch for G11 simply because there is nothing on the page that is worth promoting. Legacypac (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with expanding any A-criteria to draft-space (except the fact that Draft-space was conceived as a place to work on stuff in peace without risking deletion) is that we cannot trust all users and admins to really only tag and delete the problematic drafts that have no chance of ever becoming an article. What some might bemoan as a "very narrow" interpretation is actually an attempt to prevent mistakes. If only 1 out of 10 deletions is a mistake, it also means that we lose 10% of content that should be included and (likely) 99% of the editors who created those pages. Personally, I find this too high a price to pay, considering the fact that we keep losing editors anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should keep all those drafts per se, although no one has so far given a good reason what the harm would be in just waiting until they become stale and then G13'ing them, considering that those pages are not indexed and thus not seen by the outside world (people resubmitting a rejected draft without changes is not a problem with the draft and should be handled by sanctioning the editor). But I don't see a way to objectively codify this in a way to prevent the aforementioned mistakes. For example, someone recently raised the case Draft:Steve Negron on my talk page which so far has five rejections despite the subject meeting WP:NPOL as a state legislator. As such, it would now meet the suggested criteria for deletion (see above) and would likely be deleted by an admin with a "loose" interpretation of speedy deletion (despite never ever meeting A7 if it were in article-space). In the end, this seems a solution that might lead to babies being thrown out with the bathwater and considering the amount of A7-mistakes made in article space, it's hard to envision that there will be less such mistakes in Draft-space. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SoWhy, the harm would be in just waiting until they become stale and then G13'ing them is the lack of timely response to the author. Especially kid vanity and trolling, A7s and A11s that don’t deserve a week at MfD, but are patently unsuitable.  It is not kinder to not tell the author what we know, and the auto-messaging of A7 and A11 is exactly what they need.  Making submitted drafts eligible for A7 and A11 doesn't mean the reviewer has to speedy delete, but it is easy for reviewers to see that to leave the page live in draftspace is the wrong message and can only waste further time, whether author time, or reviewer time.  G13 is for abandoned, it is not meant to be slow deletion for things that need immediate deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But don't they get a response that their draft is unsuitable when it gets rejected? So they are getting informed, aren't they? The question was, is there a reason why we have to delete them if those pages are not visible to the outside world anyway. After all, all speedy deletion carries the risk of good content being removed mistakenly so the benefits have to outweigh those risks significantly. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 07:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SoWhy, I’m largely working off the reaction of others who feel the patently hopeless crap (see the examples I have listed) is so offensive to them that they feel the need to dump it on mfd, where it takes up space, dilutes the quality of work there, and gets SNOW deleted, but in balance I think they are right. Currently, DraftSpace errs far on the side of preserving patently hopeless crap, at least for the six months following the author giving up.  I am bothered by how slow that giving up process is.  The fact that the patently hopeless made up story does not get deleted, but remains live with functional “edit” tabs, means to some patent crap submitters that they can continue to play the game.  The number of good topics deleted I think is very small.  Even the afc promoted articles are pretty mediocre, mostly orphan permastubs that don’t really pass notability but are so boring no deletionist will bother.  The article about the high school dormitory bathroom, or the minecraft tunnel experience, it hurts the sanity of the reviewers to have no disposal route for them.  If it were me, I’d make a Userpage blanked version for draftspace and replace the patently hopeless submission, easily reverted if I make a mistake, an abundantly clear message to the author, but I’m pushing for the sanity of the reviewers.  Some make coherent arguments for why blanking is not good enough.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How many are we talking about? I have MfD'd hopeless drafts before now, it doesn't seem to cause much burden. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As with previous proposals, I 1. remain unconvinced that there is any need for this, and 2. believe it to be antithetical to the whole point of drafts. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 14:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft namespace is for allowing editors time to work on a proposed article without the possibility that it will be summarily deleted. The AFC submission is to allow the editor to get feedback on how to improve the article so it won't be summarily deleted in the main space.  If we give a new editor one shot at getting a draft right we might as well shut down the draft namespace and AFC.  ~ GB fan 14:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of declines, often multiple declines, that are clear A7 material where no amount of editing will help them. Draft space is for working on potential articles, not for developing and submitting material with zero chance of having a place in mainspace. Removing the junk helps us find and work with the promising much easier. Editors with almost no experience at AfC or MfD will raise uninformed philosophical objections unfortunately which just makes the work of ArC harder. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've mixed up your criteria; you say clear A7 material, but no amount of editing will help is fundamentally a statement about notability. A7 is not "not notable." ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 18:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he meant there is no way to write a credible claim of significance because there is no claim of significance for the person/organization/whatever. From what I've seen, many articles tagged under A7 pertain to a subject that has essentially no significance and "no amount of editing will help". However, there are definitely a few articles that fail to state significance, but a bit of research shows they are: deleting those submitted drafts under A7 would be damaging. I don't know whether we can say any new editor can find a 'credible claim of significance' in three tries, especially with the limited guidance given in the templates of declined draft submissions. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing one shot to get it right, we're arguing three shots to get it non-speedyable. Surely you see the opposite side where submitting hopeless drafts over and over again is a wasteful drain on the community's resources? Tazerdadog (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * editors are clearly arguing one shot to get it right. SmokeyJoe uses Draft:Taylor Evans as an example of why we should do this.  It has been submitted and declined once.  Legacypac uses Draft:Greenwich Music School as an example and it also has been submitted and declined once.  I do see the drain if pages are submitted multiple times with no or little improvement.  That is a user conduct issue and can be dealt with as disruptive editing.  ~ GB fan 18:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As people have noted above these proposals miss the point of draft space. The whole idea is that if you need to work on a page without the threat that it will be deleted due to failing standards XYZ then you can work on it in draft space until it is up to scratch and then move it to mainspace. Deleting pages in draft space for failing standards XYZ makes this meaningless. This proposal wouldn't allow people any time at all to address certain decline reasons because the draft would be deleted shortly after it was declined. Anyone saying that these pages are causing loads of work at MfD needs to actually have a look there: as I write this there are a whopping 36 drafts nominated for deletion, many of which wouldn't qualify for this anyway. AfC reviewers are in my experience very harsh, I wouldn't conclude that a topic is hopeless from the fact that one has declined a submission.  Hut 8.5  18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and this is still true for the "three-strikes" or "n-strikes" ideas. If I were new and didn't understand A7, being told I have one more submission before the article could be deleted unilaterally would be threatening: the point of draft-space is to avoid those situations. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No one is talking about a full notability test A7 is "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)" which is a much lower standard. Reviewers are not typically sending the pages to MfD but declining them, then declining again, until someday it hits G13. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the intent, but A7 is misapplied all the time in mainspace. Its bar often strays closer to "notability" than it really should. In mainspace this can be justified to some extent: there is a standard of quality. In draftspace, that isn't true anymore. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No one is talking about a full notability test as "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)" which is a much lower standard. Reviewers are not typically sending the pages to MfD but declining them, then declining again, until someday it hits G13. Admins would use the same A7 standard with no change so it would not be up to afc reviewers only. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * discussion seems to have wandered from the OP which was about submitted drafts. Please don't discuss as though "any old draft" were being considered. thx Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but some people may be unclear as to what a submitted draft actually is - they may assume that it means a page saved to draft space, as opposed to a page in draft space that has had a added to it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Draft:The Bucket Wars at MfD. It should not be allowed to be submitted two more times. It is bad faith, it is trolling.  Per WP:DENY, I argue that it should not be given its weeks at MfD.  An immediate response is demanded.  By submitting the draft, the author is asserting its move to mainspace, it is no longer in pre-development. In mainspace, A11 exists for things like this.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe we need a way to expediently get rid of drafts that can never be article material, but expanding A* criteria to draftspace defeats the purpose. There must be a better way. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your recent propensity to MfD weak worthless harmless drafts. Before submission, it can be very hard to tell what the author was thinking, there can be insufficient information to tell.  Once Submitted, the author implicitly believes and asserts it is ready, that they would have it in mainspace.  Treating it as a mainspace creation is appropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, my reasoning is that "the author is probably gone, and a google search didn't turn up any reliable sources. This draft isn't going anywhere, therefore delete". I can see your point for submission to AfC and whether or not it is ready though. (Somewhat related, I oppose G13 on principle, as I believe it is way too broad and gets too much workable content in its dragnet.) Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Draft:Taylor Evans. Submitted. There is no doubt it needs deletion.  G11 fits at a stretch, but A7 is the more appropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That one's pretty bad, no doubt. However, I *generally* oppose applying A* criteria at first submission. Three unchanged submissions, however, and I would say you have a point. Though it would be best if other contributors helped fix these submissions, some drafts just aren't going anywhere, and it isn't really our job to fix low-quality submissions. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It may be useful to clarify exactly what User:SmokeyJoe and User:Legacypac are saying. These two editors have been often disagreeing at MFD, but have come to agreement.  Submitted drafts are drafts that have been submitted to AFC for the AFC review process.  They aren't anything else.  If an author-editor Submits an AFC draft, they are requesting that it be accepted into article space, and so the author-editor is saying that the draft is ready to be judged by the standards of article space.  These standards include that the article should have a credible claim of significance.  We aren't suggesting that a full notability test be applied, but only that people, bands, companies, events, and whatever have a credible claim of significance and not have been made up.  A submitted draft means a draft that has been Submitted to AFC for review and for which acceptance into article space has been requested.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - In my opinion, the exceptions for sandboxes for G2 and G1 also should not apply to Submitted drafts. That is, when the author-editor Submits the draft to AFC, they are saying that it is ready for article space, so it isn't a test edit and it isn't Patent nonsense.
 * Comment - Submitted drafts means drafts for which acceptance into article space has been requested, and therefore not crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * another example: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Greenwich Music School page is not G11 promotional but a local music school is simply not notable and this one was started in January 2018. It's a submitted draft which means we asked to put it in mainspace where it would be immediately CSD'd Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm somewhat opposed to extending A* CSD to drafts. My impression is that the concern is wasting reviewers' time with repeatedly-submitted unsuitable drafts. I assert that a solution to this problem has to address the user behavior that is causing it, without being too WP:BITEy. Along the lines of the three-strikes proposals, I suggest that a thrice-declined and throroughly unpromising draft may be summarily userfied, something any reviewer can do, with a warning. What should that warning say? And what should the user be required to do before submitting again? I'd require at a minimum that the user engage in a discussion on the now userspace draft's talk page or at the AfC Help Desk with, preferably, the declining reviewer or, at least, any AfC reviewer, where the deficiencies of the draft that would cause it to be speedied if it were in articlespace are addressed. Submission without this discussion would be blockable tendentious editing, vaguely akin to various DS regimes.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, for the benefit of not messing with automated tools, we could create CSD#D1 corresponding to A7, and D2 corresponding to A11, for author submitted drafts that would meet A7 or A11, with the explicit note that tagging is not mandatory, the reviewer may tag, or may reject, on their own judgment, potentially distinguishing “fundamentally hopeless” from “currently hopeless looking”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could use matching numbers - D7 corresponding to A7, and D11 corresponding to A11. Should any more of the A criteria be demonstrably useful for drafts, they can readily be slotted in where appropriate - I can see a potential for parallels of WP:CSD [No content] and WP:CSD [No indication of importance (musical recordings)], and we would call these D3 and D9. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. We sometimes use G2 test on No Content Draft pages but it's not a perfect fit. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 points:
 * There's no real problem with letting pages that are in draft space and not submitted for AFC review (and potential promotion to mainspace) lie there and let G13 capture the stragglers. Concievable if the page is being edited it's being improved. If an editor stumbles across a draft that isn't in AFC and isn't being updated, the question of the draft
 * I suggest not circumscribing or perscribing a "If X, Do Y" CSD rule regarding drafts. I would prefer a "AFC submission declined multiple times with no improvement" CSD rule so items that are slam dunks in MFD can short circuit the process. Hasteur (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to see A11 being applied to submitted (or any, for that matter) drafts - A11 is designed to deal with pages that have no redeeming value whatsoever. A7 is more tricky -- there are the hopeless A7s and those that may be on notable subjects but notability was not established. I would support a CSD for drafts being resubmitted multiple (2-3) times without improvement. MER-C 12:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support the application of A3 to submitted, blank drafts. MER-C 19:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Havin' a snat. If you don’t believe in speedy deletion A11 style in draft space, what process do you think should deal with this draft? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A11 for draftspace is actually a good idea. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I support allowing A11 for drafts submitted to AfC, and am neutral on allowing it for all drafts. I'm still not comfortable with A7/A9 deletions on articles submitted to AfC only once, though. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with you on A7/A9 (which should be merged anyway). Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Taylor Evans? Should be speediable, not put through three rounds before deleting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Owenblist/sandbox clear A7 not promotional not vandalism but not worth taking to MfD or even keeping in AfC categories. Should be able to tag for deletion and done. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User sandboxes, the user’s main sandbox, is a special page users are pointed to for testing. They should be blanked, not deleted, so the user can find their testing. AfC scripts should auto-detect their placement on a page titled “sandbox” and respond differently. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes in this case I'm comfortable blanking the sandbox but the example is exactly on point for the type of content we shoudk be aboe to speedy. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Was pinged by Joe - A* should apply to drafts, Limiting CSDs just means drafts get declined for the umpteenth time or their MFD'd - Whilst MFD is fine IMHO it shouldn't be used for the most obvious (It'd be no different to coming across something very poor in articlespace and then AFDing it even tho it's CSD-able) - If editors want a final chance in saving it then they can contest the speedy and put something like "Will source in x days", So I agree drafts should be included in the CSD criteria. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Julia Rubeck. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with extending e.g. A7 to drafts is as follows: Maybe, as an established editor, I believe X band will gain a credible claim of significance within a few months. So I begin a draft about it, with the sourcing currently available, and plan to fill in the gaps if they gain a credible claim of significance. This is a valid drafting practice. If there comes a time when I no longer believe X band will gain a credible claim of significance, I can personally request that the draft be deleted. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to gloss over submitted: Maybe I believe X band currently has a credible claim of significance and submit the draft to AfC for a second set of eyes, only to realize they do not. I should be able to retain my draft for the reasons if I believe they will gain one. That aside, what if non-author User:Y decides to sumbit it to AfC for whatever reason, which is currently allowed, while I personally did not believe it was yet ready? It should not be deleted because of that. Too many caveats would be needed. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 02:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the newcomer were to have such beliefs and the ability to ask, they can have it WP:REFUNDed. Note that it is not in the style of newcomer writers on garage bands, their youtube careers, or their high school toilet, to engage in conversation.  If they did, that would immediately mark them as an exception.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec)User:Godsy, why are you not using the word "submitted". The proposal is to extend to submitted drafts.  The reviewer-tagger and the deleting admin are afforded discretion in their decisions, in the rare case of an upcoming topic being prematurely submitted.  They should have already included their best sources.  Belief in future significance is something common to every YouTuber and garage band and fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and even if sources will arise, a A7 deletable page should be WP:TNTed for a restart with the acceptable sources.  Draft submitters have to carry some responsibility with their decision to submit.  Much more often than the current system allows, the appropriate response is immediate deletion.  Immediate, an no author notification, except for it being useful to record on their talk page the number of deleted pages they wrote.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Does anyone still think this is a bad idea? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on what "this" is, given there have been various suggestions over the course of this discussion. I would support this on (and only on) the condition that all such deletions be eligible for WP:REFUND. Also, I imagine some of the people who objected above for various reasons will still object. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What he said. Also, yes I do. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Appable (talk | contributions) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I for one strongly oppose the whole concept. The entire point of draft space is to permit editors, especially but by no means solely relatively inexperienced or unskilled editors, to create pages thsat would be speedy deleted in mainspace, and even if not, would be quite unready to be shown to our readers as wikipedia articles, and to allow editors to work on them, solely or collaboratively as the case may be, until they are ready for mainspace. Drafts should only be deleted for a few, fairly blatant reasons: spam, copyvios, attack pages and BLP violations, obvious vandalism. Most of these are already CSDs. If a draft doesn't qualify under one of these, if should be discussed at MfD if someone wants to delete it, and should normally be kept. It was said above that someone who submits a draft for review is saying 'this is ready for mainspace" and thereby invites the application of the mainspace standards. Hardly. Such an editor is more plausibly saying "I think this might possibly be ready for mainspace, tell me what problems it still has". Remember, AfC does not currently have any process by which an editor can ask for feedback on an unsubmitted dr5aft, nor is there currently any limit on the number of times a draft may be submitted.This is a supream violation of WP:BITE in which we tell new editors "here is a safe space, ask for feedback when you are ready7" and then the response to a request for feedback may be "oops its gone, we didn't tell you about these rules". Not nice, nor would it benefit the project in any way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Point of interest (speaking purely as an AfC admin) we have an AfC Help Desk and every template we use points people towards it and the IRC chat room, so saying there are not any processes to ask for help is false. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is such a help desk. (And some users ask at the Teahouse also.) I guess that I wasn't thinking of it as a "process" but that is a detail -- it is a way for a user to request feedback other than via a formal submission. I don't think we make it as clear to new users as we might that this is a suggested way to ask for detailed "am i ready to submit this" feedback, but that cna be improved, no doubt. If we are going to place an explicit or implicit limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted before it is subject to deletion for over-submission, then i think we should clearly explain this to users, and more clearly indicate the AfC help desk (or some other venue if we prefer) as the way to ask for feedback without doing a formal submission. I still oippose this idea, but such changes would make it less bad in my view. [[User:DESiegel|DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps place a polite note in the submission template that says something like "There are a limited number of volunteers who are AfC reviewers. Please do not abuse their efforts by repeatedly re-submitting drafts which have not addressed the decline reason and other comments on the article. If you do the article may be tagged for deletion." There is probably a better way to say it; just something to put them on notice of the possibility. Jbh  Talk  15:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some above have spoken of "tendentious" re-submission of drafts, or of drafts being submitted with no significant changes made in response to previous feedback from a previous submission (or submissions). Others have spoken of the number of times that a draft has been submitted, and seem to suggest that there should be an upper limit on the number of tries allowed, if I have understood them correctly. I think we need to clearly distinguish between 1) the editor who resubmits without having made any significant attempt to address the issues a reviewer has raised, in a form of IDONTHEARTHAT, 2) the editor who seems to ha made a sincere attempt to fix the issue but has badly misunderstood what is needed, and 3) the editor who has improved or fixed some of the concerns raised, but whose submission is still not ready for mainspace. Only the first is being tendentious, although the second may have a competence issue, or perhaps the problem with the draft has not been well-explained. Any policy or practice limiting resubmisisons needs to make this distinction clearly, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Elena Tee Yen Ling. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Elena Tee Yen Ling.  Obviously unsuitable.  In userspace, applicable to U5.  In mainspace, applicable to A7.  Will be SNOW deleted at MfD.  We need A7 and A11 to include submitted drafts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are the leaders standing in the way of this proposal. I challenge you to participate in these MfDs, the submitted A7-worthys, and explain why they should not be speedy deleted but must be processed through an MfD discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For that specific one, I'm not sure why nobody tried G11. More generally, I would be much more comfortable with creating a new crteria for blatantly unsuitable drafts then I would be with extending all of the article criteria to apply to (submitted) drafts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, on review I can see that G11 could be seen to cover this. I note however that many Wikipedians look at these weak biographies and do not jump to thinking G11 worthy promotion.  It is not for-profit promotion, and it doesn't read like a CV, discussion popular magazine stuff like childhood family and love life.  A7 is what comes to mind.  It is squarely A7 in mainspace.  Would you prefer a new criterion called "D7" defined as "same as A7 but for submitted drafts in draftspace"?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We do not, in my view, need or want anything of the sort. The draft above is at least arguably within G11, so no other speedy deletion criterion is required for it any any draft like it. Any that aren't quite promotional enough for G11 should face a quick MfD if they are as promotional as Draft:Elena Tee Yen Ling. But look at what A7 actually says. It requires an explicit statement of a claim of significance in the article. The topic may be notable, but if the drafter has failed to explain why, it would be subject to prompt deletion with no useful explanation, and no time to fix the matter, yet this is a situation which is often easily corrected. I can't think of a better way to drive off potentially useful editors than to tell them that draftspace is a safe space to work on a potential article until it is in proper form, with feedback on problems, and then to swiftly delete a draft because it has failed to comply with technical requirements. I frequently see new pages in article space tagged with A7 within minutes of being created, and indeed often invalidly tagged. I think that between 1/2 and 1/3 of all A7 tags that I review are on pages that actually include a claim of significance To invite NPP to do the same in draft space would be a very poor move indeed. Much the same could be said of several of the A criteria -- they are marks of unfinished pages. Well one expects a draft to be unfinished. If it were finished, it would belong in mainspace. New editors take time to learn how to properly draft a Wikipedia article, and even experiencd users take time and multiple edits to create an article ready for mainspace. The speedy deletion criteria exist because there is wide consensus that certain kinds of pages do not belong here and that they are too numerous to go through the AfD process, which is normally a longer, better attended, and more through process than MfD. Articlespace is what we show the world, and so promotion and poor quality pages in it have a significant negative effect on the project as a whole. But draft space is not indexed by search engiens, and is normally seen only by the creator and a few Wikipedia editors. There is no reason to rush a draft creator, and there is no reason to delete a draft that isn't ready yet, but might eb eventually. There is no deadline. There is no size limit on draftspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One does not expect a submitted draft to be unfinished, certainly not with with respect to a basic statement of significance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)  You do, User:DESiegel, appear to have missed the submitted part of the proposal.  I think it odd that you want to keep A7 very tight, but are happy for G11 to cover things for which promotion was not the intent.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Promotion very clearly is the intent here. There is no other reason to talk about her "exceptional personal charm," "capability of being friends with any strangers she meets," "hardworking businessman" father, or the fact that she is "waiting for her prince charming." Also, there's literally a banner at the top of this page saying new CSD criteria should not be created if an existing one can be interpreted to apply. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I have been reading "promotion" too narrowly. I read you and DES as being happy for a liberal reading of "promotion", a tight reading of A7, and broad agreement that these pages are speediable under some criteria.  OK.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Promotion" means the text is doing nothing but non-neutrally advertising its subject. Saying that this also applies when people advertise themselves does not mean DES or C727 have a "liberal reading" of what promotion is but merely restating what G11 already says. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 07:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's an important question to me: is having a couple of people write "delete per nom" on a couple of MfD discussions per day really so much effort as to warrant fundamentally recasting article CSD criteria into the draftspace? Because I and several others believe that the article criteria are as written not suitable to be the applied to drafts, regardless of submission status. Their concepts, maybe, but not the criteria as worded. Another fundamental problem I have with applying article criteria to submitted drafts is that some users may not be confident that their drafts are ready for mainspace when they submit them: I know that if I were an inexperienced editor, I would want to submit a draft to AfC just to receive feedback on it. And I would (reasonably) expect that, if it's not ready, the worst thing that will happen is it will be rejected with an explanation of what to work on. Not some deletion that I wasn't consulted about and can't prevent. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of all the "A" criteria, the only ones I think make excellent sense to extend to draft-space are A11 and A10. 1, 3, 7 and 9 could all apply to works-in-progress. Even A2 could be a work in progress. A5 seems unlikely to come up at all. But even in those two cases, I think it makes sense (outside of things like G3 and G11) to treat draft-space a little differently. Users that come through AFC are asking for a review of their work, after all. By that I just mean, if those drafts get deleted with no message at all to the creator, that would not be ideal - a little bitey, much worse than when it happens on mainspace. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Someguy1221, the proposal is for submitted drafts.  Even A11 shouldn't be applied to an unsubmitted draft.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could tell that from the HUGE TEXT IN THE HEADER :p Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do argue that inviting a large stream of SNOW deleted through MfD is bad. However, that is not what you are arguing elsewhere, you are arguing to use G11 more liberally some would.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No I did not miss the restriction to Submitted drafts. I have two reasons for not giving it much weight. First, I don't trust taggers and admins to adhere to it. How about we give it some teeth: an automatic 2-week block for anyone tagging an unsubmitted draft, and an automatic desysop for anyone deleting an unsubmited draft with such a reason? You don't like that? Well given what I have seen tagged as A7 now, often blatantly against the wording of the criterion, this looks likely to apply in effect to all drafts. Secondly, I don't believe that most new editors have any idea of the consequences that 'submitting" would have under this proposal, nor would they have even if the templates are revised to try to spell them out. SmokeyJoe said above that Well I surely do. The first submission is often only the first draft, so to speak. It isn't until the drafter starts getting feedback that drafts, even on probably notable topics, begin to approach the quality where they might be considered for mainspace, and where it might make sense for A7/A9 to apply. But by that time they won't apply. Empty pages (A3) I could see deleting, but only with a fairly long grace period. If something has sat empty for a month, fine, get rid of it. No context might make sense, except that a) I have see too many invalid non-context speedy tags in mainspace, and b) if the creator has enough context to work on the draft, that is probably enough if it is being worked on, and G13 will apply if it isn't. A11 again is far too often invalidly applied now. The original intent was for things like drinking games, private RPG accounts, and "gatherings" of a few friends. But I've seen it applied to arguably notable organizations, because the writer of the article had (allegedly) been involved in founding the organization, so it was "invented". I have seen it applied to published fiction, because the author must have invented it. And draft gets fewer eyes, so such erros will be less likely to eb found and corrected. So no, I don't find your arguments persuasive. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I can probably give you a dozen examples of experienced editors ignoring the bounds of A7/A9 and tagging clearly notable subjects for speedy deletion (The White Company (retailer) comes to mind, twice kept at AFD with a single delete !vote between both nominations and both A7 tagging and AFD#2 by an admin with literally 10+ years of experience), so yeah, unless there are some actual consequences for misapplying speedy criteria, we always have to assume that they will be misapplied. And as long as that is the case, expanding A-criteria to an area that gets fewer eyes than article space will most likely result in more such mistakes and consequently more material that should be kept being lost, which is not in the project's interest. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 07:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It would not be appropriate to extend the ACSD to drafts because drafts are unpublished works in progress that may meet one of the ACSD when started but not when expanded or finished. For example, one may start with an aspect of something that is not notable then adapt it to an aspect that is. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 17:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)