Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11

RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Two questions:

1. Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Deletion process.

2. Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?

Relevant discussions: Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913, and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914.

Cunard (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?

 * It is not a question of "allowed". The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list.


 * I maintain that it is not appropriate. By sending the discussion to the top of the list, it doesn't get new views.  Relisting adds significant visual clutter, and meaningless relists only serve to shuffle list thus disrupting an orderly review.


 * A meaningful relist, such as with a re-focusing comment, or due to significant new information, is an appropriate relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What comment do you want? Do you want an opinion? Give me an example. I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You're demanding that an admin only relist the discussion if there is something for them to say when the admin is supposed avoiding being a WP:SUPERVOTE and not actually comment on the discussion. If I'm closing a discussion, you want me to add a "comment" which I presume is a vote and then close it myself? How is that not a super admin vote? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support relisting of MFD discussions. If consensus hasn't been reached, I feel like this is a logical MFD process that should be allowed to be done in order to try and help achieve it. It's allowed (and regularly done) at other deletion discussions such as AFD; why would we disallow it at MFD simply because less people participate in them?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:AfD is already overburdened with so many daily nominations that is has not been practical to review them in list format for many many years. AfD effectively requires deletion sorting and/or one of a variety of navigation tools, such as User:Snotbot/Current AfD's.


 * Other XfDs do not have the custom of indiscriminate comment-less relistings for no purpose other than making the backlog appear empty. CfD, for example, handles a huge number of discussions over 1 week old, see:  Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions.  And it has a navigation tool for old closed discussions at Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions, which does not involve scrambling the list order.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What is indiscriminate comment-less relistings? What comment do you want for the third relisting at Articles_for_deletion/Emídio_Brasileiro? It was relisted a week prior and no one said a word. "Hey, I'm relisting for the third time because ..." what? You're making a lot of crazy demands on admins to close these discussions, all of which really belong at DRV if you're actually disputing these closes. Instead, it feels like it's just complaining for the sake of complaining, to make up busywork for other people to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support allowing relisting. I see no reason whatsoever that MfD should be treated any different from any other XfD. BMK (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as MfD closers need all the tools they can get. Further the vast majority of stuff going to MfD is utter junk which most editors must find boring and therefore don't spend time at MfD. Any random one time "contributor" can create a page of nonsense in a few clicks but it takes at least 3 editors and more then a week to get ride of junk. One to nominate, one or more to vote, and an Admin to close and delete. Let's not make MfD even harder to manage. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support the ability to relist MFDs, but with the understanding that MFDs having had no opposition, and possibly only the nomination, may instead be closed as consensus (of 1) to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOFTDELETE. A soft delete equals a PROD delete that can be WP:REFUNDed.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"The RfC is asking the wrong question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * comment-free* *indiscriminate* relistings.
 * At RfD very few relisting actions come with a comment - we all know relisting is to get more input. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a second question to the RfC. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Offering no opinion because the references to "indscriminate" relistings are non-neutral and bias this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The question as asked is not at issue. Of course MfD relistings are allowed.  That has never been questioned.  Please close discussion on this question, it is irrelevant and distracting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is helpful to reaffirm that MfD relistings are allowed. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if is confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of what relisting should be allowed and what shouldn't? I've seen nothing but reverting of relistings so I have no idea what you want other than for them to be "discriminate" and "with a comment" without an explanation as to either of those requirements. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think we could agree on a single location to discuss? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to be reverting while calling me names otherwise? You have been arguing about this for close to two weeks now. Can you just give an example of what you are looking for? I may not agree but I simply cannot understand what you want. You've gone from "no relisting" to "no relisting that isn't indiscriminate and without a comment" to arguing about the location on the log to arguing this is some deletionist strategy of mine to delay I don't know what with a wild variety of blank votes all over the place. I get the overall view that every one of these discussions are a complete and utter waste of time and counterproductive and whatnot. I have no idea how fighting relisting these discussions accomplishes anything in either direction for that. It's no different than any other typical policy fight here. However, what do you want? You should be able to point to a single example, something more concrete than "SmokeyJoe can identify it when he sees it". And why are you renaming the header? It's been reverted by the bot but I'm guessing there's some rationale you have. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support- I don't see any good reason why this should be disallowed. Most relistings do get new comments. Reyk  YO!  07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Personally I believe relisting is simply a waste of time as unlike AFD/RFD etc no one rarely comments on the MFDs .... Too me (and I don't mean this in a dickish way) but IMHO Rickys time could be better spent elsewhere but I know I'm the minority on this so as much as I'd rather make a song & dance about it it'd be pointless - If the community's happy with it then I guess we're all happy... or we'll have to be anyway . – Davey 2010 Talk 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. That's fair. For me, I see more relistings resulting in discussions like this one than no new comments. It still ended up with no consensus but we do have more people keeping a watch on these. That's why I find that relisting to put these discussions in the middle of the page better than just ignoring them and leaving them down like here in the hopes that someone else goes down there and sees them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - MFDs that have had no participation other than the nominator should be closed as Delete, not relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The real question should be whether MFDs that have no consensus should be closed as No Consensus (default Keep) or relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that the question? The relistings that cause the most issues so far have been the "nominator says delete, one vote says something else" ones. Those could be either be 'no consensu" or "keep, ignore the nom" votes but I'd prefer relisting. I think I've had one go keep with more votes, the other go delete with more votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Disallowed We give the deletionists too many tools, as is. If there's no consensus for deletion, close the discussion "no consensus." Maybe I'm not understanding the process but we shouldn't be re-listing deletion discussions because no one wants to weigh in on the merits. If it can't be speedy deleted then it is a default keep. Go bemoan the fact that the entry exists on Wikipedia somewhere else. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support when used in good faith. ~ RobTalk 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?
The second question of the RfC (quoting SmokeyJoe): "The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list." Please write "Yes" or "No" in response to the question. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , , and who have already commented above, so they are aware of this second question. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Question How is this a fair question? "indiscriminately and without meaningful comment" is like the "do you still beat your wife, yes or no" question. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's clear that ricky and Ricky's relistings alone are indiscriminate and without meaning. Other admins are different though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.46.130 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 166 is apparently a community banned user, per WT:AFD. ansh 666 01:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, or Yes. It's very well-known that relisting a discussion with poor input (like at AFD, TFD, FFD, etc.) is to get more input and achieve consensus. Why require administrators to do this and make the process harder or make it take longer?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support no extra comment is needed to relist any XfD, in fact it is uncommon to see a comment on a relist. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cunard, I am disappointed at your filing of two inappropriate questions. The first was completely the wrong question.  The second is phrased so non-neutrally that is should be immediately closed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what you had changed the RfC title to. I reverted your change to the original question and moved it to a subsection so it wouldn't distract from the original question I posed. If you,, or have a more neutral way of phrasing the question, feel free to close this section and open a third section. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm really good with Smokey's own question which he now says is "phrased so non-neutrally that is should be immediately closed". Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A good question is one phrased in the positive, describing an appropriate style of relisting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I have stopped beating my wife... I mean no, I haven't stopped ... I mean I never beat my wife -- yeah, that's it.Look, if there's not been sufficient discussion to determine a consensus, then a re-listing is in the community's interest, so I'm not seeing where the second question -- which is, in fact, a piss-poor RfC question -- has any real relevance, since it assumes facts not in evidence. If any particular MfD gets relisted when the circumstances shouldn't have allowed it to be, bring that specific problem to the noticeboards and ask for the relisting to be overturned, but there's no way that the second question is going to end up with any kind of reasonable and usable policy. BMK (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisting due to lack of comment is not in the community's interested because it makes a systematic review of nominations harder. There are so many perfunctory nominations of worthless but harmless junk pages that a reasonable reviewing action is to pass them over.  Having someone indiscriminately relisting, that is adding viaully confronting lines, colours and text, and sending them up to the current data is disruptive to anyone attempting to review nominations systematically.
 * Relisting with a comment worth reading, that would be fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, what comment do you want? There's nothing to comment about other than "hi, I don't see a consensus here" or "can someone else speak". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are asking about Publicising discussions? Scrambling the MfD list will attract more attention from the few who review?  I keep telling you it disrupts an orderly review of the nominations.  Your need to advertise for immediate resolution unproductive discussions on worthless useless pages will be unappreciated by any advertising method.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you actually serious here? You want what, a notification at AN, at village pump that no one commented about the deletion of User:ARMendez/The ILLZ? Why in the world should MFD have such bizarre rules rather than just relist these things and move on? Do you want a category for relisted MFD discussions? That at least makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Advertising unworthy discussions is not worthwhile.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, are you objecting to the template? The coloring? That it distinguishes between week-old discussions and the recent commentary? If that's your issue, just say it. If it's a general "I hate the template and want it changed", go make a suggestion. Maybe someone will change it, maybe someone will agree to a separate MfD relisting template but I wouldn't. You're acting like this is some complicated difficult project. It should be easier to tell if you can see which discussions are week-old and which aren't visually on the page not harder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support doing it once for any specific discussion. The reason fr lack of attention may be no more than the fact that the users who would have expressed an opinion were away that day (especially around holidays). However, repeated relistings are unlikely to be any more successful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in the same way I'd support the relisting at Articles for deletion/Lia Andrea Ramos. It's a relisting with the nomination and the sole voter in agreement and I still think that's fair. I have no idea what's at issue here. If the issue is the close, then dispute the actual close when it comes and take it to DRV. If you think there's a consensus and the admin relisting it is being lazy about it, that's another matter. The relisting doesn't mean anything until it's closed and we have a final result anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mu- This question is phrased poorly. The issue is not about indiscriminate relistings, but about whether relistings at all are appropriate. But to answer the relevant half of the question, no, there is no need to add commentary about why you're relisting a poorly-attended XfD. Reyk  YO!  07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, nobody should be ' indiscriminately ' relisting poorly attended discussions, full stop. NOQUORUM requires editors to use judgement (=not just choosing the same option for nearly all the poorly attended MFDs) in choosing what to do.  The presence of a meaningful comment would be a useful signal that the re-listing isn't indiscriminate, but another useful signal would be one editor not mass-re-listing nearly all of the poorly attended discussions.  Or mass-listing ~90% of the discussions with expired RFC tags, for that matter.  Speaking of which:  Cunard, when you spam this RFC to ANRFC, please do recommend that it only be closed by an admin who is familiar with MFD.  We'll only get a mess if it's closed by someone who doesn't know what typical MFD participation levels have been for years.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and for the comment part? Is there some comment that should be made? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't look like you're mass-re-listing MFDs, then no one is likely to care whether you add a comment. Note the presence of the word "and" there:  The POV in the question opposes someone who is both engaging in indiscriminate relisting and not adding a meaningful comment.  I'm saying that the "meaningful comment" is a red herring:  you shouldn't be indiscriminately relisting anything.  You should not indiscriminately relist MFDs with a comment; you should indiscriminately relist MFDs without a comment.  As I said, "nobody should be ' indiscriminately ' relisting poorly attended discussions, full stop". If the point of your question is to inquire what a meaningful comment might look like, then "I've just left a note at WikiProject Related to this MFD" would be a good example of a meaningful comment that obviously explains why this poorly attended MFD can reasonably expect to be less poorly attended in the future.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, when done in good faith. A limit of one per discussion seems sensible. ~ RobTalk 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A history lesson
The current marker appears to be the closest thing we have to policy (excluding the Admin instructions for XfD which allow relistings) and looks like this: In 2009 the box was changed [] to say "Open discussions below this marker should be either closed or relisted above." however I'm not convinced that wording change was a policy change because before that it more vaguely said "Everything below this marker should be dealt with and removed from the workflow." , a phrase in use since the template was created [] in May 2008. Therefore since at least 2009 the prescribed procedure has explicitly allowed/encouraged relisting. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with limiting the number of relists, there are situations where relisting is pointless (unlikely to gain more comments). In such situations, I would encourage more use of "no consensus - due to lack of comment" closures. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My view is at least try once. Else, just close it rather than keep on trying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an older discussion, and was about AFD not MFD, but may be of some relevance here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also a parallel RFC was heavily rejected at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion → Miscellany for discussion – It's been over five years since the last discussion but since then, a number of projects have moved to a broader discussion. FFD has expanded its scope quite a bit but the only remainder is AFD which makes some sense. Similarly, there are number of discussions here that aren't directly deletions but also blank/userify/draftify or AFC discussions and other perspectives. In that line, I think we should be more broad in the naming to reflect more than just having a page be deleted but also whether a page should be blanked or userfied or draftified or moved to mainspace or merged or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose But the way it has been used lately it might as well be renamed to Drafts for deletion. — xaosflux  Talk 02:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which I am wholly in support of being a thing, primarily so I can never go there. — xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In favor of Split, specifically moving (pages in Draft: space) and (pages in User: space that primarily contain article-type content ). — xaosflux  Talk 03:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In favour of forbidding "draft management" from MfD. Actual WP:NOT violations are fine, "stale" is not a reason for deletion.
 * MfD is very important for Project Space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although he seems unable to see it, the nominator's proposal to a step to destroying MfD as being functional at all.  There are plenty of other ways to advertise discussions, WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc.  If drafts are driving this, create a WP:Drafts for discussion noticeboard.  I predict it will be at viable as the Notability/Noticeboard, except worse, because there are now many less active editors.
 * More importantly, it is deletion that is the main exception to the principle that Wikipedia is a wiki that anyone can edit where decisions are made by consensus. Deletions is the administrative removal of content from access from the ordinary editor,  and needs special forums.  AfD and MfD specifically.  Redirects, templates, categories, they are not even content, they are nowhere near as serious an issue when it comes to needing to protect the wider community of small groups of deletionists.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above - I personally prefer "deletion" over discussion", Having looked at Deletion_process It seems this and AFD are the only ones to use "deletion" so I'm not entirely sure but I'm more or less with Oppose atm. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, and strongly disagree with the "drafts for deletion" assessment. That might be what's been numerically "popular" lately, but that has little to do with importance of function. One of the most important uses of MfD is dealing with anti-consensus essays and other claptrap, and this is most often userspaced, and nominated explicitly for userspacing, not deletion.  Merges also come up, and marking moribund pages as, and various other things.  This, like so many other XfD's that started with a "deletion" name, has long been about much more than deletion. The current name is simply inaccurate and misleading. There would also be considerably less WP:DRAMA without such a panic-inspiring page name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MfD for ProjectSpace essays is justified because the nomination is to delete them from ProjectSpace, including the redirect. Userfication is an option for the author, but as pages are never put in userspace against the wish of the user, userfication is an option for a user.  The !vote "userfy" (from ProjectSpace) effectively means "Delete but allow userfication".
 * Marking moribund pages as etc is not an example of good use, but process wonkery, because moribund pages can be so tagged by any editor.  Disagreement on tagging should be a matter for discussion on the talk page.  MfD discussions resulting in "delete" can't be held on the talk page because the talk page is to be deleted.
 * Agree that "One of the most important uses of MfD is dealing with anti-consensus essays and other claptrap", but the proposal is to allow a huge increase of other unimportant matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was being sarcastic about renaming it to Drafts for deletion - but I am agree that this page is important for dealing with the type of content you specified above, that is why my recommendation is to move all the "article" type content out of this venue to its own. — xaosflux  Talk 02:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – As Mr McCandlish notes above, the result of many MfDs is something other than deletion, such as userfication, merging, &c. Given that these results are possible, and enacted on a daily basis, there seems to be no reason to keep the "deletion" label, which simply does not describe the totality of what this process does. I'm not sure what this "drafts for deletion" business is about, and don't see how it is relevant here. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both supporters, why don't you review the existing list of MfD nominations to get an idea of what the nominator wants to add? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding anything. I think the name should better reflect the current variety of discussion. The majority of CFD closes as delete/keep but that doesn't mean it isn't worth calling it categories for discussion rather than deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have, since 2015, added a very large number of things that lacked a WP:DEL. You appear to want to broaden / defocus MfD to include management discussions for individual drafts.  MfD already has too few reviewers, defocusing will only make that worse, things that should not be deleted will start being deleted just due to lack of review.
 * I have experience at WP:CfD. At CfD, there are a lot of discussions that are for deletion but require admin actions, upmerging, renames, etc.  These CfD discussions are very serious, in terms of consequences to the category system, and work required to clean up bad decisions, so these things are definitely best discussed in a formal environment.  This is very different to a discussion what to do with an orphan worthless harmless draftspace draft.  CfD is actually so serious, an overburdened, that my considered opinion is that category creation should be a special privilege, an opinion so far agreed by a few CfD regulars and disagreed by none.
 * TfD and FfD similarly involve technically significant discussions that are best centralized, not left to talk pages, even if deleted. RfD is pretty unimportant.  Redirects are cheap, unimportant, and often superfluous due to the improvements to the Wikipedia internal search engine.
 * But draft management discussion are by far the most unimportant. Unworthy drafts can be very safely ignored, and if they can't, then DraftSpace was one big bad idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In spite of your incessant arguing, they have been deleted, not just here but in thousands on the basis of speedy deletion criteria that are quite similar. Just because you don't agree with the reasons doesn't mean there weren't any provided. Your repeated !votes for "speedy keep" citing the instructions for Articles for deletion does not inspire confidence that you are actually acknowledging the prior consensus of appropriate reasons instead of just trying to bully your view into place. If you truly think that no reason for deletion was there, I suggest taking those cases to DRV and asking for them to be overturned. If you can obtain a consensus that these are not things that should be deleted, then they won't be. Otherwise, just because you ignore the reasons provided doesn't mean other people have to as well. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the actual name of the discussion system, just as none of the RFCs you so demanded about relistings had anything to do with actually improving the procedures here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep but then deleted? Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ttina2894/Kane.  That was a proper SK point, the nomination did not set out a rationale for deletion.  Subsequently, you came along, discovered a deletion reason and noted it.  After you did that, it was proper to delete, but is it really reasonable for someone to nominate random looking userpages but leave it to reviewer to discover for themselves the problem?  I think deletion discussions, whether for articles or someone else's userpages, are serious matters that should be discussed in a high profile place, and to initiate that discussion the nominator should at least articulate a deletion rationale.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are being disingenuous. The things that should have been deleted were deleted, others were not.  Subsequently, you have go the message and have been blanking things that don't need discussion.  Virtually nothing in draftspace needs discussion.  CSD criteria for drafts should be expanded, and we'd have long since done that if you could understand what WP:UP#COPIES says.  NB your most irritating nominations are when the page should be deleted, but one can't guess the reason from the nomination statement.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Apparently, even AfD was supposed to have been changed after a consensus to do so was reached but wasn't due to "technical reasons". Well, those certainly don't exist here and now. Mdrnpndr (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - makes more sense than the current name given the reality of the results handled there. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this move happens, Legobot (run by Legoktm) may need to be updated to accommodate the name change since it manages the discussion archiving. Otherwise, "stuff might break". Steel1943  (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose while MfDs obviously don't always result in deletion, the reason they're there in the first place is to work out whether they should be deleted or something else. Renaming it to "discussion" is pointless change for change's sake at best and downright misleading at worst. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support to bring MFD in line with the other non-article XFD forums and per SMcCandlish. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If this passes, someone please notify WP:TW about the page change. We wouldn't want this to break it or any other existing automated tools that make us so productive. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 04:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose People only bring things to discuss here if they think it should be deleted. Even though other outcomes are possible, the most dire outcome is almost always whats the nominator wants. Other things can be discussed on talk page or done on a WP:BOLD basis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why are there so many new listings by one user?
It seems like there's a lot more stuff now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mmyotis/Amalia Marquez
I am an unregistered user and am posting here to complete Stage I of the MfD process, as per Wiki instructions.

Reasons for nomination: the page in question is a copy of an already-deleted Wikipage (which the same user also created), which was deleted due to contraventions of WP:BLP.

The woman concerned has a paramount right to privacy, which is contravened by this article. Since 1998, she and several of her colleagues have been hounded by certain media outlets, including WikiPedia and the page creation and editing of the User:Mmyotis.

The woman has the right to remain incognito and not to be subject to this harassment. She is not a 'missing' person.

I now ask a registered editor to continue the MfD process with Stages II and III. (I am unable to do so, as unregistered editors do not have such permissions).

I have notified the user on their talk page. 78.145.157.186 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mmyotis/Amalia Marquez. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mfdx
Template:Mfdx has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. P p p er y (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move crosspost
I am posting here to notify you of a requested move I made regarding a bunch of deletion discussion templates. The discussion is at Template_talk:Cfd-notify P p p er y  (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Help needed
I tried to nominate Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)/13 Secret Families for deletion... I thought I was following the directions... but something keeps screwing up... tried to fix it myself, but I ended up making it worse (I even ended up nominating my nomination page for deletion - see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)/13 Secret Families). Not sure what I am doing wrong. Can someone help?

My rational for the actual nomination is as follows: "Talk sub-page is one huge WP:SYNTH vio... the page creator has a unique (original) take on the "13 families" (a sub-theory within the broader NWO theory). He created the sub-page to lay out the "evidence" supporting his original theory. While he does cite sources... he does so as "evidence", not verification. The problem is that the editor is the one making all the connections, and reaching conclusions... not the sources he cites as evidence."

Thanks Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it now. Doug Weller  talk 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

MfD page trancated again
The MfD page is truncating again, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikiszlsmall. This sort of thing has happened before, eg Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Archive_9, when User:xaosflux fixed it. I don't know what he did to fix it then, or what is wrong this time, although I suspect the hat template in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikiszlsmall is breaking something? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * inside of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikiszlsmall. — xaosflux  Talk 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisting MfDs continued
Following up from User talk:Godsy: I've relisted four discussions today that had little partipation (all had a nomination and one !vote that were diametrically opposed with no back and forth discussion). I find this action helps solicit more participation (e.g. WP:MFD/D:OLX, WP:MFD/W:Copyright problems/Header redo, and WP:MFD/D:List of Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) of Ireland) and is in line with the relevent guidance. The issue (i.e. whether or not relisting MfD discussions is a good practice) can be raied at e.g. here or Wikipedia talk:Deletion process if desired. If a request for comment is initiated on the matter, I'd be happy to refrain from relisting MfDs pending the outcome. Please ping me or leave a notification on my talk page if a discussion is started. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care enough about this issue to start an RfC, and I think making a rule about it would be instruction creep. The existing guideline "it may be appropriate for the closer to relist" is fine. In the case of MfDs, the "tail" of unclosed discussions is quite short, the infrastructure doesn't facilitate relisting (a timestamp has to be added to prevent the bot moving it, and I have found the closing script is sometimes confused by relisted MfDs so that they have to be done manually), and I don't think it's generally useful, which is why I asked you not to; but if you want to do it, go ahead, I'm not going to start a fight about it. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting.2FBuildings
I've brought a non-working (from what I can see) Wikipedia page redirect to RFD. I really wasn't sure whether to bring it here or there. If you like, see Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_9. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Involved editor dubious "speedy snow" close
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner looks like a problem. While the nomination was not very clear, the nominated page does look like a problem. The MfD was closed "'No policy reason underlying this request. WP:SNOWBALL & WP:Speedy keep Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)'" by User:CFCF, who is an author of the nominated page. With no discussion, SNOW cannot be invoked, and WP:SK does not clearly apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur. CFCF also used did not use the correct closing template (they used archive top instead of Mfd top). As with any non-administrator close, "an uninvolved administrator [may reopen the discussion] in their individual capacity, giving their reasons in full". — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — You An administrator may certainly reopen it, but I don't see the purpose of doing so on a technicality. Especially as the issues raised around the template are no cause for deletion. I find I have a good understanding of policy and am not aware of any that prohibit this type of project-userboxes from including links. Neither is it possible to consider me an "author" of the template, as much as a user (it is displayed at my user-page as a fancy userbox). At the time of closing I did not recall, but it seems I have made some minor grammatical changes in the template — but this is not normally enough to be considered WP:Involved. Thus I fully stand by this WP:SNOW & WP:SK-close. I will also note that both can be invoked with reference to prior WP:USERBOX-discussions. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 15:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I reopened the discussion. Zero input for a discussion, started one hour and twenty minutes earlier, is not what wp:snow closes are about (they are to avoid long unfruitful discussion, not to avoid discussions). Also a page advertising a android app is hardly something that we do so often (first time I see one...) that it is out of any chance that the discussion becomes enlightening and may result in a deletion, or anything other than a plain keep. On top of it, if discussion does not hurt, let it go. - Nabla (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to notify you, I am sorry, here goes:, , . - Nabla (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Misspelled, the nominator. - Nabla (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW is to avoid any pointless discussion, not only long discussion. This isn't going to be deleted. I'm not going to contest the reopening, but I wish there was more respect for editor's limited time… Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 14:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass listings with identical rationales, disruptive
A Certain White Cat is listing a large number of pages, all under exactly the same rationale. Some of them are blatant NOTWEBHOST violations, some debatable, and some not violations at all, or are reflective of an odd and extreme view of what constitutes NOTWEBHOST. As they are dissimilar cases, the non-discerning nominations are disruptive. I note that he has been doing a similar thing at FfD. I trust that closers will note the lack of attention to nomination statements reflecting a lack of attention to whether there is an actual problem, and will not be prone to agreeing to unagreed deletion nominations. Note also, most of the immediately agreeable nominations should have been tagged db-u5. My concern is that the user's lack of attention to details is reckless indifference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've noticed as well, and find it mildly concerning. The files listed at ffd that you mention were uploaded by contributors whose userpages are nominated here. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have any more of these mass-nominations, can you make them all on one page at least? — xaosflux  Talk 05:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

New closure script
I'm in the process of adding support for MfD to my XFDcloser script (which already works with AfD, CfD, FfD, & TfD). I would be interested in any feature requests, questions, or other comments you may have, so I can make the script as useful as possible. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC) If, please ping me by adding to your message, and signing it.
 * Basic support for MfD is now available. Closing the discussion and relisting can be done by script, but edits/actions to actually implement the close need to be done manually for the moment (still working on providing full support). Pinging PMC who asked about it at WT:US. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hell yes this is good stuff. I tried it out at AfD as well and I actually like it better than the AfD closer script I've been using. Thanks for the ping! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated implementation of MfD closes is now available! Including adding old mfd to talk pages (non-delete closes), removing nomination templates (keep / no consensus closes), redirecting with option to add rcats (redirect closes), adding mfd-mergefrom / mfd-mergefrom (merge closes), and deleting nominated pages / talk pages / redirects (delete closes). Please direct bug reports, comments, etc to WT:XFDC. (Ping @PMC) - Evad37 &#91;talk] <
 * Nice, and thanks for the ping. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

, I've noticed the tool acts a little wonky when I'm closing MfDs that have a closed MfD beneath them in the queue. It will attempt to treat the closed MfD as a page bundled with the closing MfD. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The wrapping of closed discussions in collapsed tables is a bit different to the other XfD venues – i'll just need to adjust the code to account for it. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I screwed up somehow
Can somebody please tell me what I'm doing wrong with the nomination of User:Nelajanceska for deletion? I think the page falls squarely into "stuff we don't want" but I can't get the MFD discussion page to appear like it should. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind. Somebody deleted the userpage for being a creepy piece of junk, and so the MfD can be deleted as unused. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That was me. For this: ~ I think you accidentally deleted the ending }} and it snowballed from there. --Neil N  talk to me 22:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've only filed a few AfDs and although this is basically the same thing for userpages, it's been a while since I filed one and I couldn't figure out what I had done wrong. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fails WP:GNG without sig... nominations
In regard to the ~20 nominations beginning with that, see WP:NMFD. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Request for comment
I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Miscellany for deletion. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

How to bundle MfDs?
There are still over 30,000 userspace pages tagged as STALE DRAFTS and I'd rather not break MfD. I'm thinking of creating lists of similar pages and group nominating them. Like 20 WP:YAMBs at once or 25 WP:FAKEARTICLE or UP at once. All nominations would be ones that are unlikely to be controversial, but not CSDable. This should cut down on the amount of voting and increase productivity.

Questions: 1. any reason not to do this? 2. Is there a technical best practice? 3. If every userpage and creator talk page needs to be tagged, can I paste in a standard notice that points to the group nomination page? Thanks for your feedback Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think there is a good reason to not break MfD, and I much appreciate your efforts to not do so. Lists of similar pages, all of which should be deleted for exactly the same reason, is a very good idea.  The only strong argument against making a list of things to be deleted for identical reasons and deleting all the pages per a single discussion is that sufficient notification may not happen.  This is a borderline concern for so-called STALE (I hate that term, it has multiple different reasonable meanings).  You could, I guess, MfD all the pages at once, then edit the MFD page to move all the transclusions into a single super-MfD page.  It would upset the bots, but manually managing the archiving or 100 MfD deletions would be much better than listing 100 separate pages.
 * Alternatively, if you could establish that you can identify, objectively and incontestably, pages that should be deleted, we might just succeed in establishing new CSDs, or sub-CSDs. WP:YAMBs, but they must have no reliable sources, though as such they actually fit CSD#G11.  WP:UP might be easy, I  have never seen a case of an old copy being kept.  WP:FAKEARTICLEs have often included contestable nominations, as they readily blur into drafts.
 * I do think that abandoned FAKEARTICLES would be, as a rule, best blanked. Use Inactive userpage blanked (for gentle wording suitable of possibly OK but abandoned) or userpage blanked (worded suitably for borderline unsuitable).  I see on you talkpage a sign of some pushback on page blankings?  When this happens, I urge you to bring it immediately to MfD for feedback.
 * I am unsure of notifications for old pages are necessary, if the deleting admin could ensure that mention of "presumption that it should be deleted" and a link to WP:REFUND was provided in the deletion log summary. Every deleted page will need a deletion log entry anyway.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you would comment SmokeyJoe.
 * We could try combining a few MfDs together right away. Worst that happens is we need to revert the combination.
 * Creating new CSDs would be welcome but seems exceedingly hard to get approved. YAMB seems like the most obvious, but a handful of editors throw up that YAMB is not policy only essay. At just above the alphabet box is a random article link = please see if you agree with my estimate.  I'd estimate at least 1/20th of 30,000 plus pages = 1,500+ in the category are YAMBs or similar solo wannabe famous singers. When taken to MfD they 100% get deleted, but I'm advised can't be speedied.
 * I've CSD'd, MfD'd, or blanked several hundred pages a day with minimal CSD declines or user pushback. In contrast, I read one Admin say they decline 25-30% of CSD tags generally, but best I can figure my CSD accept is 95% plus now.
 * Definitely different levels of FakeArticle. The easy ones are User:Article Title for the user name followed by blah blah blah on some non-notable topic.
 * Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I pulled up User:Nuitetjour/draft article on Griffith. At a glance, borderline notability, borderline promotion.  A real pain to evaluate.  Searched.  He's in mainspace.  The author did a copy-paste.  I redirected the draft.


 * Minimal pushback sounds like your balance is OK. MfD is well suited where you disagree with the pushback.  Be careful though, for every case of pushback, there are probably ten people who were intimidated and stayed quiet about it.


 * I think there is appetite for a CSD D* series. My first attempt was killed largely due to the wording not being fully amended to speak to drafts instead of articles.  I copied too quickly text from a few of the A* series.  The best evidence for need for a CSD is a long series of deletions that went through uncontested.  That's how I got CSD#U5 up.


 * I don't think you got User:Legacypac/CSD log set up right. You have to go to Twinkle/Preferences, "Speedy deletion (CSD)", and check the box for "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations"; then hit the save button far down at the bottom of the page.  I don't know why checked is not default.  If most of you CSD tags are correct, you have an impressively red-filled CSD log.  It is good to check the blue ones for your own feedback, or to detect recreations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I want to log my CSDs for lots of good reasons. I found the problem! You can turn off the log for each X# and I had all turned off by checking all the boxes. Let the sea of red begin. Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Be careful though, for every case of pushback, there are probably ten people who were intimidated and stayed quiet about it." If they have not edited in years or often just one edit or two ever in a throwaway acct, something other then spam deletion is preventing them from editing. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfunctory delete closes of un-participated MfD nominations
At the bottom of MfD, it shows that User:Premeditated Chaos and User:CambridgeBayWeather have been closing as "delete" on the sole contribution of the nominator (Legacypac). Are closers treating unparticipated nominations as uncontested PRODs? Are the closers doing their own check, and if so, why no mention of it in their close, and with multiple closes in the same minute?

Likely, few of the drafts contained material that needed keeping, but some, such as Draft:Manakamana, by default should be redirected to Manakamana, per WP:ATD, plus any reasons associated with being help to the author should he return. Feeding that through MfD is a misuse of MfD, and causes reviewers, and closers, to become blasé, with increaing risk that things that seriously should not be deleted slip through. From many past cases, Legacypac is known to be unreliable in checking that there is actual version article history in the draft.

I think the closers should:
 * (1) Close as "delete" if they agree with the nomination and say so in the closing statement; or
 * (2) Close as "no consensus" if the nomination statement is weak; or
 * (3) !vote; or
 * (4) leave the discussion be, in the backlog, and not cover over the excessive unnecessary nominations.

Please don't relist due to non-participation. You don't improve your digestion by eating undigested food from your anus. Process failures need to be addressed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are heaps of abandoned drafts and no-prospect pages. Some think keeping the crud (either by voting keep or by opposing deletion) is useful, presumably because a gem may be found lurking among a thousand pages. Others think that cleanup helps maintain WP:NOTWEBHOST and helps anyone searching for useful material. That is the fundamental problem, and debating what procedures should be used is pure bureaucracy. The delete discussions mentioned show that an admin deleted the page so it can be assumed they agree with the nomination. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, part nonsense. Debating how to proceed with deleting crud is essential.  Essential, not "pure bureaucracy".  The bulk of it simply can't be fed through MfD in total.  Part, yes, obviously.  You appear to advocate sacrificing the rare hidden gem?  Great, that sounds a fair way forward, but that will be a policy discussion, not something allowed to be done BOLDly, it has been opposed before.  "an admin deleted the page so it can be assumed they agree with the nomination"?  I wish to hear it from the admin.  Note the time he spent on it amongst other deletions.  Maybe he is a quick reader (it is plausible), but I think he has a duty to report that he did.  Maybe he believes like you, that at 99% crud, stuff the not-quite-crud?  Maybe he believed "no opposition justified de facto PROD, despite PROD not being authorised in DraftSpace?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to since he was mentioned above but not linked or pinged.
 * If there's a process failure, it's due to lack of participants. Not enough editors care enough to come here aside from the few mainstay regulars; far too few to expect a full discussion on every item listed. I'm pretty sure myself and Cambridge Bay Weather are the only admins here on a regular basis - there was a point a month or so ago where he was away for a bit and I had to beg at AN for closers because I'd commented on quite a few discussions and they sat for ages (which, by the way, is the situation we'll be in again if you want CBW and I to !vote instead of close). Frankly, if no one, not even the regulars, comments on a given discussion in over a week, I think that's pretty telling.
 * You are not an admin, so you can't see the history of Draft:Manakamana, but it is this, in full: "manakamana is a place in which we go through micro bus or buses or minibus. we can reach there from kathmandu also. so, it is very beutiful and attractive place for tourists and nepalese as well.. thankyou for your help!!!!!1". There is nothing there to preserve for attribution purposes, unlike most drafts that have corresponding mainspace articles. It is garbage. Otherwise, I always redirect or history merge drafts to their mainspace articles when they exist, to preserve history. Picking on this one unusual instance is disingenuous.
 * With regards to your proposal for closing: I regard option 1 as process creep. Closing as delete is by default an endorsement or at least a tacit agreement with the nomination. We shouldn't have to spell out "and by the way I agree with this which is why I'm closing," because that is implied. If I disagreed, I would comment in the discussion. Otherwise, when closing, if I have something relevant to point out about the nomination statement, I typically do so.
 * In regards to letting things sit until someone cares, that is functionally equivalent to relisting things until someone cares, except I guess it's like sitting in undigested anal product instead of eating it. We're back to the fundamental problem of not enough people participating. If no one cares to comment on relisted items, who do you think is going to comment on old business sitting for days and weeks? Still no one.
 * I am happy to undelete any draft at the request of any parties actually interested in improving it; so far in my time here I have never had such a request. I think that's also fairly telling. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you PMC. I think MfD review is important, but sometimes it gets mindnumbingly boring that I get a bit cranky.  I am very pleased to read your closes as tacit agreement with the nom.  I guess I fear lower standards, not that I can point to any admin.  I think the process failure sits with the draft pages.  There are enough participants for non draftspace pages.  I think the solution is to ask Legacypac to continue CSDs where appropriate, WP:ATDs where possible, and maybe tag the rest to deal with collectively.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm using CSD whereever possible and I normally redirect to mainspace anything that could plausably be attributionable or remotely useful. I'd rather not create pointless redirects (Neelix style) or leave real junk under the redirects that could be easily resurfaced by a quick undo edit. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I understand. For what it's worth, I tend to over-explain myself and get a little formal when replying so for my part I hope I didn't come off as too up my own ass :) It is kind of a frustrating exercise - I totally understand where you're coming from and I also wish we had a better way to CSD obvious crap from draftspace instead of having to MfD every single one. But it seems like the prevailing view is that expanding CSD is to be avoided at all costs, and that the community accepts that the cost of that is an increased number of deletion discussions.
 * Not sure there's a good way for Legacypac (or anyone really) to do collective noms for drafts...maybe by topic, or by date...? Like, "MfD bundle, drafts created Oct 2016" or "MfD bundle, YAMB" or something? I dunno. Not sure it's workable. I'd love to see PROD expanded to draftspace, I wonder if that would fly? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is hope. I was serious about a two-NPReviewer requirement for drafts to be deleted.  If any two reviewers agree that a draft is hopeless, it gets deleted, quickly.  I have lost track of where I said it.  AfC reviewers pass things that I think they should have deleted more quickly, the reason they don't is a lack of CSD#D* criteria, but a reviewer PROD might be more palatable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love Draft PROD but I'm not really the type to get out and stump for a new process. I see there have been discussions on the matter, including this RfC which closed with consensus to implement but seems to have lost steam before it ever came into play. Worth resurrecting? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * AfC not CSDing a page quickly is a different issue that does not excessively add to clutter. Those pages get axed in 6 months and remain catagorized by decline reason in the meantime. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)