Wikipedia talk:Deletion of newly created pages


 * This talk page is about the new proposal. For discussion on the old proposal, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion of pages under construction.

New proposal
Unlike the old proposal (linked above) in which one creating a new page in good faith can inform others (most likely new page patrollers) that more edits will be needed for the page to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. This is only intended to be temporary (for minutes), and not for pages that one will continue to construct hours or days later. Sebwite (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this new proposal too. Every single article should have established notability by the time it appears on the mainspace. If you need time to work on it, make a userspace draft. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. Absolutist thinking like Explodicle's is what gives WP:NPP and speedy deletion a bad name, as works in progress get deleted from under competent and well-meaning editors. I've had it happen to me in the space of about two minutes and it is not a good experience. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How can this work in practice? If someone creates a page of waffle with a plausible title and puts this template on it, what happens next? The new page patrollers skip it in accord with the request, but what will prompt them to return later? Is an NPP supposed to watch every page with this template, then somehow remember to return in a day/week if nothing has happened? The template puts the page in Category:Pages actively undergoing construction (which currently contains 270 pages). A bot will be needed to sort out what pages in that category need attention, and I think that bot is needed before this procedure is implemented. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you responded to my suggestion instead of criticizing me personally. We can both get what we want from userfication; time to work on articles and satisfactory quality in the mainspace. The Article wizard 2.0 makes this really easy even for newbies. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was criticising your thinking in this case, I've no opinion on you or your editing. I disagree with you and think that NPP should be less triggerhappy for brand new articles, especially considering the weeks long backlog of unpatrolled articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You still haven't addressed userfication. Your first article is in big bold letters at the top of the page whenever you create an article, and it warns users not to submit work that isn't ready for NPP. Tying NPP's hands for an hour would systematically leave open an hour-long window for poor quality at best and abuse at worst. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfication works when you have someone who is spending several days creating a page and is still looking for sources in the process. What this is intended for is when one is creating a page, and one of several situations arise, such as the need to go "back and forth" to get the URLs to their sources. In all, the point of this is to allow a grace period. I can't see how anyone in this day of age would not believe in grace periods when no life is on the line. Sebwite (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If a situation arises, just copy your work to the userspace then instead of clicking "save page" in the mainspace. If you're working on a device without copy/paste functionality, you should always start out in the userspace. Grace periods aren't applicable here since there is no deadline. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm obviously being a bit slow, I'd missed your focus on userfication. If someone at NPP comes across an article that looks like it might meet our criteria but doesn't yet, then userfication would be preferable to deletion by a long shot. Much less bitey. Indeed, userfication is being proposed to be added to Twinkle to make it easier to do. I just think that users could have some grace if their efforts look like they're not in bad faith - whereas vandalism, attacks, hoaxes, obvious advertising, and total gibberish can of course all be stamped on as fast as they can manage. I don't think articles should go unpatrolled, I just don't see the advantage of leaping on them within minutes of creation when there's a massive backlog of unpatrolled articles, which is where I look when I do NPP work. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, absolutely agree that we have a problem with stuff being deleted before people have finished their editing session. I think there's a simpler way to achieve the same ends strategy:Proposal:Speedy deletion - 24 hour pause for some articles. But I'm also interested in User:Explodicle's suggestion "Every single article should have established notability by the time it appears on the mainspace." That would be a radical change to current policy, and would bring us more in line with the German situation, - which is itself currently controversial. But if we did make such a change, and make that change clear to new article contributors, it would be a possible solution to the problem of newbie biting at newpage patrol.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly opposed to changing the guidelines from the August 29, 2009 version. How can an essay talk page discussion by five editors be used to change a policy that's worked and worked well? I propose that that a newpage page should be eligible for all of the General speedy deletion templates G1-G12, A1-A5 and all markup templates as well. A3 (no content) should be given some leeway, at least initially. I also propose that a RFC be put together so this be decided by the general public and possibly ratified in a guideline. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Need for a template?
I've been thinking about it, and do we really need a template for this? Anyone who would know enough to use it would also know enough to make a userspace draft; requiring a template (instead of just changing our deletion guidelines) seems like instruction creep that will hurt newbies the most. If we're going to get consensus to adopt this as a guideline, then we should change the deletion process while we're at it.

I realize this is somewhat beyond the scope of this page, but we might want to consider replacing all but the unambiguous cases for speedy deletion with automatic userfication. It might annoy some editors to see their work dumped onto the userspace, but it's better than deletion and should appease people like me who insist on articles that pass a standard. If the work gets abandoned or is a lost cause, then we can send it to MfD. I'm sure I haven't considered all of the consequences of this idea, so please let me know what you think. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole debate is rendered meaningless by the introduction of the new article incubator. It solves the whole issue, as well as any problems associated with userfication. Lampman (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do otherwise deleted items get sent to the incubator automatically? -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's up to the individual editor. If you find an article that's too poor to be in article space, but could be rescued by some constructive editing, then send it to the incubator rather than nominating it for deletion. It could probably have been better advertised though. Lampman (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that the "newpage" concept is not going to work for many of the reasons stated above; namely:
 * New users won't know about the template and are thus unlikely to use it;
 * New page patrollers are unlikely to watch an article for the required time (an hour? a day?) to see if it comes up to snuff. And since they are not likely to watch it, it will simply go unpatrolled.
 * A better solution would be to update the guidelines for speedy deletion, and perhaps to make the tools used by NPP (Twinkle and Friendly) less bitey. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We definatly need template and need to use it wiser. Frist, all of pages related to how it's used need to come to a consencus. Of course new users don't know about, maybe the instructions should be displayed at the top of the new page creation screen? Page patroller right now are ignoring the template, essay, and help page and rushing to deletion. Next, newpage patroller who recognize a good faith creation by an inexpericned edit can place the newpage tag, as well as other markup tags and continue to check back. This is what I do.

There needs to be a guideline regarding removal of Newpage tags or editor will coninue to do it. I advocate that Deletion of newly created pages be finished and ratified.

Next, we can use technology to monitor the removal of Newpage tags. There's already a Bot that removes the tag when it expires at the end of a week of not editing. The time interval could be shortened to 36 hours. There can also be an automated list form of pages with newly removed Newpage tags. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 36 hours sounds good to me. I had originally been removing those after 24 hours, but I see the point here. Sebwite (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

'This tag should not under any circumstances be used for biographies of living persons.'
Is there any good reason for this rule? It seems to me that BLPs have more need of this template - it alerts other editors to the fact that the article is new and under construction, and may not meet our policies. If it isn't to be used on new BLPs, those articles might go unnoticed for longer. Robofish (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall, Wikipedia has tougher standards for the accuracy and sourcing of BLPs. If you feel this should not be the case, let's discuss it, and see if this is really an issue. Sebwite (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Marked as failed proposal
There have been no edits to this talk page in about a year, so I've marked this as a failed proposal. Chick Bowen 17:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)