Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 13

Promising Drafts of Mathematical Articles
I am puzzled. We have a number of draft articles on mathematical topics that have been designated as promising drafts to be exempted from G13 that have been nominated for MFD. Why? That is, what is being gained by nominating them for MFD? If they are kept, will that exempt them from future G13? Most of the mathematical drafts appear to be by one author who hasn't edited for some time. I can understand that they may be waiting for someone to finish them. However, what is the point to sending them to MFD? Why not just leave them alone? Why not have someone tweak them every four months (like a paid editor has been paid to do about an article on a particular company)? I don't understand the reasoning to nominating them for MFD in the first place if they are promising, unless there is a guideline that I haven't seen that will exempt them from future G13 if they are kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that the author of many of these drafts has responded. That is useful.  If they might want to work on the drafts in the future, they can tweak them every four months.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the point to the bulk nomination of plausible math stubs. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no puzzle.  and  have conflicting approaches that consistently bring them into conflict.  One of them wants to clean out any and all old cruft from DraftSpace; the other wants to keep a large collection of his old cruft indefinitely in userspace.  I propose that TakuyaMurata be obligated to move all of his mathematics drafts and notes and another other pages from DraftSpace, and put them instead either in his userspace, or in subpages of WikiProject Mathematics.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I take exception to the idea I'm trying to provoke anyone. I'm doing exactly what I agreed to do which is the lowest drama path. Look at the discussion at Wikiproject Math. There is no consensus for even maintaining a list of such drafts. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "exception to the idea I'm trying to provoke anyone"? Did I say that?  No, not "trying".  You are doing a job in good faith.  I might call you clumsy, but you do it very efficiently.  Doing your job is provoking an unfortunate response from an obstinate Taku.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sending to MfD has proven to be a productive way to get the math pages promoted, merged or deleted. Best solution all around. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But it causes TakuyaMurata a lot of stress. Do you understand that he doesn't think or working anything like the way you do?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully submit that User:Legacypac is writing nonsense and wasting electrons in saying that sending them to MFD is a productive way to deal with them. If they are kept, they will still come up in six months.  Why doesn't User:TakuyaMurata just move them back into user space?  The MFD is just asking the MFD community to !vote on whether to delete possibly useful material.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears to me, to agree with User:SmokeyJoe, with whom I usually disagree, that User:Legacypac is trying to drive square pegs into round holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, my current practice seems to be acceptable to Taku (the creator of all such drafts) actually moves things forward (unlike any alternative), and beats the alternatives which have involved serious drama. Your suggestions are not new, but have been extensively debated already. If a page is kept as a Draft at MfD, fine. If it stays unedited for 6 more months we can revisit. Don't sweat it - let the math people sort out each topic. We are getting both articles and deletions from the MfD process and no drama which is great. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of records, the current practice is not acceptable to me (is this a joke?): I'm not really permitted to object to, say, invalid nomination reasons (G13 cannot be cited as a deletion reason since it is a deletion mechanism.) I also don't think MfDs are the tools for content development; it would be simpler to expand/merge/redirect without going through MfDs. Productivity gain is illusion; I merely spend less on more important stuff in the mainspace when I react to MfD discussions. At this point, for me, the simplest solution is a sort of interaction ban proposed at at least at MfD. So the term would be User:Legacypac agrees not to nominate drafts started by me; other editors are still allowed to nominate those drafts and if Legacypac really has concerns with particular drafts, they can ask some other editors to look into the issue. -- Taku (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not put them into your userspace, or as subpages of WikiProject Mathematics? Using DraftSpace is not working well for you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the userpage. For the reasons I gave at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics; in nutshell, they are not my drafts and those drafts do receive edits from the other editors (if occasional). I understand the "not working" part: but, as I see it, there is only one factor (Legacypac) that causes this issue. My preference would be to remove that factor (interaction ban as above). -- Taku (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if my first choice is not available, I can agree to use a WikiProject math subpage as a draftspace substitute. -- Taku (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please move them into the WikiProject then. Index them, categorise them, catalogue them, make them look inviting for everyone in the WikiProject to work on. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no, I prefer the above interaction ban with Legacypac on MfD. They is the only person who nominates reasonable math drafts. Also, if Legacypac’s only concern is staleness, they can simply ask me or the other editors at the math project: they can put a post saying: “this is a list of 6-month-old math drafts; can someone in the project look at them and expand/merge/redirect each of them?” Recent experiences shows there are editors in addition to me who happily work with old math drafts. By “interaction ban at MfD”, this is what I meant. — Taku (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is still a puzzle to me. Nominating draft articles or draft stubs or anything in draft space for deletion because it has some value doesn't make sense to me.  I have begun nominating drafts for deletion because they are crud.  To paraphrase Judge Stewart, I can't define crud, but I know it when I see it.  However, it appears that User:Legacypac is nominating stubs or drafts for deletion because they aren't crud.  That doesn't make sense.  If there is a request at WP:AN for an interaction ban as describe above, I will !vote for it.  Nominating pages for deletion because they are not crud doesn't make sense.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon seriously drop this line of discussion. I don't want to detail all the significant history of this group of drafts, but Taku has been blocked a few times and is now banned from discussing Deletion Process. It takes specialised knowledge to sort out what is and is not crud on these math topics, and MfD has proven an excellent forum for that. The recent batch all came off the stale draft report, and all came up together because there was a batch of refund requests and than some G13 tags removal to avoid the inevitable refund requests. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - No. I see no reason to drop this line of discussion.  I have looked into the history of this group of drafts.  I haven't been blocked for edit-warring in that group of drafts and am not subject to any interaction bans or topic bans and don't like being told to drop a plausible line of discussion.  As to specialized knowledge, if you are saying that I have forgotten more higher math than most editors have learned, that is true; my guess is that User:TakuyaMuratu knows more than either of us.  If you can explain to me why MFD is the right forum for dealing with the math drafts, go ahead.  However, the stubs are not crud, and, in my opinion, do not deserve to be dealt with as crud, and MFD is for crud, or for stuff that is what Wikipedia is not, or is otherwise not worth keeping.  If you can explain to me what the value is of tagging the math drafts because they are not crud, go ahead, but don't tell me to drop the line of discussion without a better reason than that you are casting aspersions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you - one editor - is complaining about using MfD for these, I tried G13ing one today. Taku promptly requested a refund, but without the normal wording he "intends to work on it". I redirected another one at the mainspace version, but Taku immediately reversed the redirect. I have no idea about your math skills but I know I'm not qualified to tell junk from gold on these topics. I can see abandoned and I can see disruption though. Legacypac (talk)
 * You are deliberately provoking Taku. You are abusing MfD by nominating pages without a reason deletion.  G13, not CSD criterion, is intended to be used to game a dispute, you are therefore being disruptive by using that tactic.  You may be right, but this is not the way to act.  I believe the solution is for us to agree to compel Taku to move all his maths drafts to WikiProject_Mathematics subpages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I can see abandoned and I can see disruption though." This is why the interaction ban can be a bless (as my topic ban was a bless, well, to some extent). You can choose not to see. Even with the ban, other users are still allowed to use MfD if there is really an issue. -- Taku (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Legacypac, I mentioned at a related MfD (probably around six months ago) that handling these at MfD, individually, is probably the worst possible way to manage them. That opinion seems to have been independently expressed by a couple of editors here. At a minimum can't you hold of on nominating more while the subject is being discussed? VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No no it is the "best possible way" if Legacypac's aim is to create appearance of disruptions and put all the blames on me. I'll try to stay away from this thread if possible. -- Taku (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:VQuakr How would you deal with pages all together when different outcomes are appropriate? My only aim is to see each old draft handled in the best way possible - delete, merge, mainspace or perhaps keep as a draft for more time. I've been addressing only the history of each draft and only nominating as they come up as 6 months stale. I'm pretty happy quite a few have been expanded and mainspaced and some deleted as not useful for various reasons. A global discussion could only focus on editor behavior and would do nothing to reduce the number of old math fragments in draft space, eventually eliminating the need to discuss editor behavior. Now if the aim is to keep untouched math fragments in Draft indefinitely... dealing with them systematically is an incredibly bad plan. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Any page that hits this report User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report is going to be processed by someone. We got it to basically zero a few days back. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * For example, you could group nominations into batches of ~10 that are similar in terms of level of completion and/or sourcing. That wouldn't mean that every draft in that group would end up with the same result, but it would simplify the logistics of handling them. That isn't my preference - I do not think MfD is the correct forum for these drafts at all - but it would still be better than what you are doing now. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 10 different math topics in one MfD sounds like a WP:TRAINWRECK. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And yes, I do think that you should let someone else handle them given the history of conflict between you and Taku. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please add User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report to your watchlist and watch for math drafts. I'd love the help - implement any plan that in your judgement is better. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Legacypac nominating drafts provocatively to get the community to work on them is a bad idea. It's sort of a blackmail approach.  Volunteers are free to work at their own pace and there are no time limits.  Legacypac sifting through the crud to concentrate the collection of possibly useful stuff is a fantastic thing for him to do, for which we should all be grateful.  Taku should get out of DraftSpace.  DraftSpace is for crud sorting.  Anyone who knows what they are doing should be doing it in mainspace, userspace or a WikiProject.  Others have already been saying this to Taku.  Taku keeping very odd looking stuff indefinitely in DraftSpace is disruptive to Legacypac's efficiency, and for that reason alone he should get out.  Put it all in subpages of the WikiProject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No provocation intended. Please add User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report to your watchlist and try other approaches that in your judgement are better. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(For clarification, I will not be participating in this discussion here as there is a talk that doing so is a possible violation of the topic ban (though I and the others disagree). Hopefully my positions are clear. —- Taku (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

Assessment
I have researched some of the history, and I see that there are two issues, one of which I understand, and one of which I don't entirely understand. The one that I understand is the pushback on the nomination of the math stubs for MFD. If they are promising drafts, or even useful stub definitions, I can see why Taku and some of the other mathematicians are pushing back. I don't think that nominating them for deletion is a useful way to get anything done about them. The issue that I don't understand in the first place is the need to do something about the math stubs in the first place. They may be dictionary definitions. They may be stubs. So what? Leave them alone, or let them be tweaked every four months. They do no harm. They are not spam. They are not WP:NOT. They are just math stubs. They do no harm. They are just dust in corners or dustbins. Leave them alone. That is my thought. It seems to me that a one-sided restriction on Taku is unfair, and I don't think that it is appropriate to tell me to drop this line of discussion, when I didn't start it, because User:Legacypac started it by nominating the stubs for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I intend to !vote Keep on all of the stubs unless there is a real reason to delete them or promote them. That is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just provided yet another solution User_talk:Legacypac for Taku to keep his drafts off the User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. Keep a list of drafts and G13 dates. Make some little edit before the G13 date and update the date on the list. If he does very basic draft management no one will ever see a math stub at MfD and some good content will be created without drama.

If he does not take that suggestion or one of the many others offered to him, why is he really here? This is an editor that refuses to follow normal reasonable procedures who is willing to disrupt the project to get special treatment. The disruption was so bad he was banned from discussing deletion process. Now, get off my back for trying to manage his disruptive behavior and recuring bull crap accusations against me as best as I can. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (For the sake of the others: because it is a responsibility of those users who find stalaness to be an issue to address the issue, not those who do not share the view. It’s not because of the laziness, absolutely not because I intend to disrupt Wikipedia. The analogy would be: you want the room to be clean while I don’t mind some dust. Then it is you who needs to clean the room; I can at least agree not get in the way when you’re doing the cleaning, but nothing more. —- Taku (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC))

Yet More Thoughts on Templates - G4
This isn't directly relevant to MFD, but the following is relevant to our discussion about whether the decline templates are too encouraging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Request_on_13:57:44,_8_March_2018_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_MrUntitled I declined the draft on grounds of a lack of corporate notability. The AFC tool showed me that there had been a previous deletion of the article, and that it was deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. After viewing the deletion discussion, I concluded that (although I hadn't seen the deleted article) the deletion discussion almost certainly applied to the draft also, so I tagged the draft for G4. As my discussion with the draft author shows, this is a case where an encouraging decline message is misleading. The community had already decided that the company is not notable, and the article was deleted due to lack of notability. It is misleading to encourage an author to improve a draft if there has already been a formal discussion of notability. Just one more case where the author of a draft, who in this case may be a good-faith editor, should not be encouraged to keep trying. It would be like encouraging someone to try to run 1500 meters in 4 minutes. (A world-class middle-distance runner can do it, and it is done every time that there is a world championship track meet, but no one else can. To encourage someone to try to improve their time is fine, but they won't get into world-class time unless they are already in world-class.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See Miscellany_for_deletion Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Race Winning Brands, Draft: ProX Racing Parts, etc.
Can someone please check this package? I have tried to pull together a package of nominations of deletions for the subsidiaries of Race Winning Brands. I know that sometimes mistakes are made in pulling together deletion packages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks right except you nominated Draft:Race Winning Brands separately as well. I've requested speedy delete on it so you might just exclude it from the package. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your G6 tagging. I think you are abusing the G6 criterion.  Duplicates should be redirected, not MfD-ed, not G6-ed.  If a lesser quality draft is at the preferred name, move the lesser quality draft to a different title, such as its current title disambiguated by its creation date, and redirect.  This is trivially done, not much work, easy to follow, retains the authors' edit histories and possibly essential attribution.  Filling the deletion logs with bad G6 deletions is bad practice, opaque to the authors, and highly objectionable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is another way that preserves the junkier draft content at yet another Draft page, but the preferred title - or what would be a redirect - still needs to be deleted to get the better draft to the preferred title. Otherwise we now have two versions plus a redirect at the correct title = 3 pages out of 2. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We would like more editors to assist with cleaning up draftspace, surely? Well, requiring these more editors to be conversant with deletion policy is not consistent with that.  Deletion doesn't save space anyway, it just hides the page.  Redirection does the same thing, except it is easy, transparent, and any new draftspace enthusiast can be trusted to do it immediately.  WP:ATD is policy for a reason, and much of the reason applies very strongly to drafts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I support speedy redirection as much as you do. One could: Now of someone tries to create the mainspace title they will see a link to the correct Draft. I don't know that all of this helps the new editor who may not know how to look at the page history and likely created both Page A and B. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * move Page A (preferred title) => Page C with redirect from move
 * Redirect Page C to Page B (preferred text) preserving the history under the redirect
 * Delete Page A (the redirect from move) G6
 * Move Page B => Page A (preferred text into preferred title)
 * Retarget the now double Redirect at Page C to Page A from Page B
 * If the G6 is only applied to a redirect without a history, I am very happy. Will it help someone?  It could do.  But what is important is that this shuffling can be done quickly and easily by any editor without having to call an admin to finish cleaning up after your cleaning.
 * I don't think the G6 is needed:
 * (1) Draft:Preferred title (hosting bad version). Move to Draft:Preferred title (created yyyy)
 * (2) Move Draft:Bad title (holding good content) to Draft:Preferred title (this will overwrite the history-free single edit redirect, even if you hold no cleaver permissions)
 * The new redirect at Draft:Bad title pointing to Draft:Preferred title? Leave it there.  The author of the good content that used to be there may very well have a bookmark to that url.
 * (3) Convert Draft:Preferred title (created yyyy) to a redirect to Draft:Preferred title, hiding the bad version, and pointing anyone searching contribution histories to the preferred version at the preferred title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't do SmokeyJoe's Step 2 without deleting Preferred title page, as far as I know. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh. My mistake.  I can move a page back over the redirect, but I can't move a third page onto a redirect.  The tedious G6 would be required.  Perhaps you could request Page mover permission so you can suppress the creation of the redirect, when moving the bad content off the good title?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(Ec) Ok SmokeyJoe, I moved Draft:Race Winning Brands to Draft:Race Winning Brands (early draft) and redirected it at Draft:Race Winning Brands (2) (the preferred text). Now an Admin is required to move Draft:Race Winning Brands (2) to Draft:Race Winning Brands (the preferred title) because the target already exists. A copypaste is not permitted of course. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think one of the 209 pagemovers (or an Admin) could do it as a WP:ROBIN. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to apply for pagemover, I will come along and add my support. I'm assuming you would do this round robin more than once in a blue moon, and in the end it is much easier and faster than getting an admin to delete a redirect.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The inferior draft has been shuffled off to Buffalo as Draft:Race Winning Brands (0). The draft that is to be kept and worked on by neutral editors is at Draft:Race Winning Brands.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to request the WP:PERM than Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Between what Robert did and I did the (0) version is not needed so I've sought deletion of it. Inthink we got it now! SmokeyJoe and Robert should also have pagemover as we all see these messes regularly in Draftspace and MfD amd then we can just fix it. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

See Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Process and on Crud
This is a follow-up to my reply to User:SmokeyJoe and User:KJP1 in response to CardConnect, and their comments about a systemic problem. I agree that there is a systemic problem, but part of the problem is an overall Wikipedia culture that encourages dumping on the reviewers, and that attaches excessive value to being welcoming to new editors (which is good in general but is not the only virtue). The reviewers are commonly dumped on for not being sufficiently welcoming to new editors and not going out of their way to help new editors, but not all new editors need, want, or deserve help. More specifically, most of the standard decline messages are too polite, and encourage the author to rework and resubmit. However, some drafts should not be reworked or resubmitted, just dropped. We need additional standard messages for AFC declines, a few of which should be pessimistic.

I personally think that the guideline not to bite the new editors, while a good guideline in itself, is taken so seriously, as a commandment rather than a guideline, that it does more harm than good. Some new editors really do need to be bitten. Also, some relatively new combative editors use WP:BITE as a cudgel to attack other editors who try to caution them. However, my issue with WP:BITE isn't the main topic here.

The AFC process needs at least two adjustments. First, we need decline templates that, while not saying that a submission was invalid, have the effect of discouraging its resubmission. We need at least one template for subjects that are not likely ever to be reasonable article subjects. We probably need two or three such templates, but we can discuss those details. We also need to encourage the reviewers to nominate drafts for MFD on three strikes. We also need to consider encouraging reviewers to nominate drafts for MFD on two strikes, and perhaps on one. We also need to encourage reviewers to use G11, G10, and G3 when appropriate.

Those are my thoughts for now. More will probably follow. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we could use to be a little more discerning with regard to new drafts by new users on topics where notability is far from being established. Like the barrage of articles on very minor businesspeople or "Youtube celebrities" or what-have-you. I'm not sure if an AfC decline template that says "this is a topic that will never meet notability guidelines" is better than "this draft has been nominated at miscellany for deletion because ". I guess, do we want to educate new editors that their non-notable topic might be accepted on the next go-round if they try harder, or plaster the draft with more fluff PR pieces? Or do we want to educate that non-notable topics get deleted? Because they do get deleted. As for BITE, I think it's a good problem to have that people are too nice to newbies, but I get the point.
 * I guess what I'm thinking is that we're not too nice with newbies, but we are too lenient with unacceptable drafts. My opinion is that new drafts should have to establish a claim to significance (WP:CCS) on the first edit, or within a very short period of time (hours), or at the latest after one pass through AfC. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 05:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This would be in response to the tangential discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:CardConnect_(company). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that we should do more about useless drafts. We have at least two choices.  The first is to follow the standard Wikipedia culture approach of dumping on the reviewers, of saying that the reviewers should do more (at the same time as it is popular to dump on the reviewers for not being sufficiently gushing in their welcoming of new editors).  The second would be to address the system.  I notice that the standard wording of nearly all of the decline templates, even a Test Edit, states:  "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the 'Edit' tab."  Why encourage editors to make improvements when the basic problem is either that it isn't even really a draft or that the draft will never get anywhere?  The standard decline templates are too lenient with unacceptable drafts.  Yes, you can dump on the reviewers and say that the reviewers should be doing manual declines or manually editing the decline messages, but all that dumping on the reviewers will do is get fewer reviewers and stretch them out more.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not fair to dump on reviewers doing the reviewing according to the instructions.


 * I think every new registrant should be welcomed on their main userpage. That template gives very useful links.  Why wait for a first edit?  I think there was once some PERFORMANCE argument for there being an overwhelming number of registrants, but I don't image there is much substance in that.


 * I think the standard decline templated responses overdid it on AGF. So many new drafts don't deserve good faith assumptions, and then there are the WP:CIR failing submissions.  Somebody who has failed to read basic information should not be advised to fix and resubmit.


 * I agree with not BITING newcomers for small mistakes, absolutely. However, I do not believe in mincing words for someone who needs correction.  If they have just submitted an article on a high school band, they need an appropriate response, not something less.


 * Decline templates that discourage resubmission? YES.


 * We also need to encourage the reviewers to nominate drafts for MFD on three strikes? No.
 * Based in these pre-conditions: (1) the author was welcomed, preferably auto-welcomed; (2) the decline statements were on point, and on the talk page where human discourse is normal; and (3) two or more independent NPR-qualified reviewers agree, I think the page should be listed for speedy deletion (a new criterion).
 * We can walk towards this with MfD if people like Robert agree to try working through the preconditions. If they work out, if the MfD nominations are collectively SNOW deleted, its then just a step away from a new CSD criterion.  With these preconditions, I would speedy on two strikes.  One on a crap submission, two on its re-submission, its gone.
 * I disagree strongly with a CSD criterion having to do with two reviewers. That isn't unambiguous, which is one of the necessary qualifications for new CSD criteria.  If there isn't a criterion that can be dealt with by any reviewer and any deleting admin, just go to MFD.  I will !vote against any two-reviewer CSD criterion, and if it is approved, I probably won't use it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, how do we get new registrant auto-welcoming happening? And how can we get the AfC reviewing process to put talk on the talk page?
 * That's what I am thinking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - What do you mean by new registrant auto-welcoming? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It means that whenever a new account is registered, a welcome template is placed on their talk page. Newcomers usually need the links for basic reading. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya I like the idea. Have no idea how to get it done. I'll support it if you want to propose it somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean for the AFC reviewing process to put talk on the draft article talk page, which will eventually either become the article talk page or will be deleted? The AFC review comments currently go into the draft page itself, but are stripped out if the draft is accepted into an article, and also go onto the user talk page of the submitter.  Please explain the reason for wanting the comments to go into the draft article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , - I'm certain you're right that the templates can be part of the solution. There are probably others as well. I think the problem with the "don't bite the newbies" mantra is that it's 100% correct for those newbies who come here with the aim of building the encyclopedia. But it's not the right approach for those who are coming here with the sole aim of promoting themselves, their clients or their businesses. And Afc sees a high proportion of those. So a decline template that runs something like, "This draft isn't suitable for Wikipedia and is unlikely ever to be suitable because ....." It needs to break the expectation that the templates seem currently to create of "with a little more effort, this can get over the line". Not sure how this can be progressed but very happy to help if I can. KJP1 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of dogma in Wikipedia culture, and therefore not subject to question by reason or by observation, that new editors come here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. I would like to see that dogma changed, but it probably won't be.  It is my observation that a minority of AFC editors come here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and the majority are either clueless or self-promoting or both.  However, my observation differs from dogma.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be useful to have a few templates on the nature of "not likely ever". However, that shows that I do not have faith in the true religion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

All the decline templates are here Template:AFC_submission/comments We have "not" "This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information."

There may be a case for improving the templates - just post up the proposed wording if you have a good idea.

I thinking CSDing the declined pages that have no hope sends a stronger message, removes the spam/spam links quicker and really helps make processing the G13 list more productive. Have a go at the declines here Category:Declined_AfC_submissions Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the NOT template encourages the editor to resubmit. That needs to be changed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For sure! User:Primefac can you make it so the NOT template no longer tells the user to resubmit but instead tells them NOT to resubmit? Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac, User:Legacypac - Not just the NOT template. As noted below, there are other templates that should be discouraging, or being discouraging should at least be a choice.  I don't want to use NOT on 80% of all submissions, but 80% of submissions in sandboxes (which I normally work) are crud.  If they are are garage bands, I would like to use the "music" decline, but without the encouragement to please keep trying.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In its current iteration, no. I see someone has mentioned taking the "resubmit" comments out of the template itself and put them into the comments, but before we start tinkering with the template as a whole I think we need to have an actual discussion about the language of our decline notices, which is not a conversation to have here. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:SmokeyJoe I'm not disagreeing with you but the comments that go on the draft page and are stripped on acceptance often don't matter anymore because the issue is fixed. They might confuse or mislead NPP editors. Sometimes i copy the comments to talk if they point out notability or would otherwise be helpful to NPP. If all AfC comments went to Draft talk it would double the number of pages to delete, and as it is Admins regularly miss the talkpage so it gets tagged G8 (i see it across my watchlist as I CSD so much). Some points to consider anyway. Finally when declining we have the option to Welcome the user. That Welcome option should be added to the Comment function in AFCH tool. Legacypac (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The practice of comments on the draft header comes from when AfC drafts were all subpages of WT:AfC. It’s a simple matter of history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Long-time AFCer here, and I very much support keeping all Draft comments in the Draft header for max visibility, not on the Draft Talk page where newbies might never look. Aside from just the templates, I and other editors will often post just regular messages with a Ping up at the top, for cases where an immediate Decline isn't necessary, where the article is pretty close and it would be less-discouraging to leave a friendly message vice the Pink Box. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Allowing newbies to persist unaware of the Wikipedia culture of talk pages keeps them culturally separated. Also, do you find they converse much when you post messages in the header?  Do you find that they read and understand your messages?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

More Template Comments
I looked over the list of template comments. There is a problem with the standard wording that the template comments add to. The standard wording says, 'You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page.' I declined a sandbox draft less than an hour ago with "joke" as the reason, saying that it was some sort of joke and not a real draft article. It still says that the author is encouraged to make improvements. That is fine for many of the decline reasons, but some of them should not be encouraging. Either always give the reviewer the choice of being encouraging or discouraging, or have two sets of comments. This really is a case of just going too far to be welcoming to new editors, some of whom really should be welcomed and some of whom should not be welcomed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If we moved the Resubmit wording into the decline templates we need it on, amd put Don't resubmit wording in the ones that need that, problem solved. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that would work well. We'd then have one that could be used when it's not appropriate to encourage resubmission. I've just used NOT to Decline a memorial page for an individual killed in a car crash. Encouraging work on the draft prior to a resubmission clearly isn't appropriate in such a case. KJP1 (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * makes a good point, and the wider discussion should take place over at Afc. Would it help if we framed a proposal for discussion? KJP1 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Stupid Essays and Stupid Sentences
We have a number of stupid essays, some only one sentence, nominated for deletion. Go ahead and delete. However, they are not vandalism if they were created in sandboxes. Some of them were created in sandboxes, submitted to AFC, then moved to draft space by a reviewer and declined. The improper action then was not creating the page, but submitting it to AFC. Go ahead and delete, but don't call them vandalism. See What is not vandalism, even if it is an inappropriate stupid use of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sathish1127
I have consolidated all of the drafts prepared by User:Sathish1127, who has been blocked and is socking, into one package. I hope that this doesn't mess things up any more than the paid editing and socking already has messed things up. Of course, any drafts developed by sockpuppets can now be speedied as G5, so the package is only drafts (and articles moved back to draft space) that were developed before the block. If anyone wants to develop a neutral article on any of the topics, that is their right, and they can be thanked. I am also requesting that the titles be salted as a line of defense against re-creation by sockpuppets. If a neutral editor wants to develop articles, an administrator can unsalt the titles or bypass the salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Stupid Drafts
Continuing a discussion here that was in a deletion discussion (which will therefore be archived within a week). User:SmokeyJoe wrote: "I agree. Idoh shouldn't feel dumped upon because I think non-drafts should not be moved to draftspace." No, no, no, no, no. SmokeyJoe was dumping on a reviewer, User:I dream of horses. The reviewers get tired of having difficult criteria set and getting dumped on for not having superpowers. I don't entirely know what SmokeyJoe means when they say that non-drafts should not be moved to draft space. Does that mean that sandboxes that have been submitted to AFC should not be moved to draft space for review, or that there should be some objective criterion as to what is and is not a draft? At present, if a sandbox has been Submitted for AFC review, the tool encourages the reviewer to move it to draft space. In fact, I completely agree that a sandbox that has been Submitted should be moved to draft space if possible, for various reasons. The tools provide various useful features, but only if the draft has a title in draft space. The tool shows whether the title already exists in article space, and whether the title has previously been deleted in article space. These are very useful information. If the article already exists, it is very useful for the reviewer to see that it exists, and to compare it to the draft, and determine whether the draft is an improvement (urge the editor to improve the article boldly), or the article is better (the more common situation, just decline the draft). If the article has been deleted, it is very useful for the reviewer to see why, and whether this draft is worth reviewing in detail, or may be no better than the previous A7, or may even need G4. None of these useful features are available until the article is moved into draft space. If User:SmokeyJoe is saying that reviewers should not move Submitted sandboxes into draft space, then maybe they don't understand, or maybe they should explain why Submitted sandboxes should not be moved into draft space.

There is even an advantage to moving hopeless drafts into draft space before declining them or before tagging them for CSD. That is that sometimes the titles need salting. It really does help to move Submitted sandboxes into draft space and treat them as drafts once they are Submitted.

I'm sorry, but it does appear that User:SmokeyJoe is dumping on the reviewers by saying that we shouldn't use a very useful feature, or is saying something, such as that the reviewers should use some sort of superpower to treat Submitted sandboxes differently than other drafts. Please explain in more detail why you are not dumping on the reviewers, and what you think the reviewers should and should not do with stupid stuff and with smart stuff. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert, this page is for discussion of the MfD process as a whole. If you want to demand explanations from SmokeyJoe, do it on his talk page. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Maybe I will take the discussion to the AFC talk page, because it seems that his issues actually have to do with putting the pages into AFC rather than putting them into MFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm sorry, I start out with a low opinion of AfC. While some good comes out of it, it burns a lot of volunteer time and a keeps enthusiastic newcomers fenced into that weird place and away from the community.  I would have it shut down, archived, just like the article incubator, and delete and remove the Draft namespace.  Newcomers should be sent to dive into mainspace, and only autoconfirmed users allow to start any new page.
 * I commented on the end result foolishness of a users' sandbox test being moved to draft space, then from draftspace taken to MfD because it is not a draft. I maintain my opinion, material that is not draft material should not be moved from sandboxes to draftspace.
 * Busywork like this will be the death of MfD, and I think it is right to call out the busywork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck trying to get rid of AfC. It has enough consensus to continue existing that trying to get rid of it is beating a dead horse. It would be more productive to try to improve the AFC helper tool. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  05:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Patrick Birch
Not edited in over 6 months and not useful. Created by a IP that was blocked, does not exist in real world and looks like a hoax. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:91B9:158A:7BA4:ADA9 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ been deleted thanks Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Consider Speedy Comments
I am replying here to a comment by User:SmokeyJoe, who said to consider speedy criteria before starting a discussion here. I agree. In particular, he said to consider G11. Yes. I would also note that there have been a few drafts of articles that were already deleted in article space. They should be tagged G4. Also, if a living person is named in an unfavorable way, it can be tagged WP:G10. Unfortunately G1 and G2 are not available on sandboxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure that G4 is easily applied in draftspace for a page deleted in mainspace. I have understood that it is not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For inappropriate user sandbox content, consider first G11, then U5, then blanking, before MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:EverythingEpan User/sandbox
Clone of Main page, not suitable for Wikipedia, WP:NOTWEBHOST. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:68E2:5C3:8EFA:B178 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Renamed user 2560613081
Vanished user talk page. Sent to the MFD for a discussion for deletion. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:5E9:CC98:B706:68EE (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VANISH, user talk pages should only be deleted while vanishing if there is a compelling reason to do so. Can you provide such a reason? I do not see one for this case. 76.123.2.127 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:2021 in film
WP:TOOSOON, all it listed is in filming or in development/pre-production. Also, title deleted 3 times and salted in mainspace. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:FC40:56CC:A70C:9CE6 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft space seems the best place to harbour this page, and 2021 isn't that far away anymore. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

An Example to Illustrate the Problem with the Decline Wording
I just reviewed a submission that was tagged for G11 that had been resubmitted by the author while contesting the speedy deletion. I had to decline it again. I think that this illustrates the point by User:SmokeyJoe that she felt encouraged to resubmit, because it said that one is encouraged to improve and resubmit. In this case, I agree that the resubmission shouldn't be held against her (but it also shows why the submission of autobiographies is discouraged). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Courtney Randolph I presume. There are so many problems here, it can be confusing throwing everything out there at once.
 * It is G11 eligible, but de-tagged by the author. In this case, it is welcome at MfD, and the de-tagger should be invited.
 * COI, autobiography, etc. We have essays that give very good advice on this, but newcomers don’t start out reading Wikipedia essays. Not sure what do do about this.
 * A newcomer, with one or two previous edits, lacks experience required to write their first article, let alone a promotion-problematic autobiography. Non-autoconfirmed accounts, if allowed to start pages at all, should be made to walk through some extra steps.
 * This draft should be Rejected.
 * The draft still has the saccharine encouragement to improve and re-submit, with a big blue submit button, in a large font, that conveys the subliminal message “if you skip the smaller text, just come here and do this”
 * There being no default “Reject” response option, reviewer’s understandable reaction is to MfD it.
 * AfC needs the “Reject” option. It is a frequent required response.  The rejected drafts do not need deletion.  Reviewers can be wrong (per User:Egaoblai 00:05, 5 April 2018 above for example).  Let the author respond to the review, all should be on the draft talk page, or leave it for the G13 process.
 * MfD has no role here, except for reviewing the G11 de-tagging. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was Draft:Courtney Randolph and is one of the few cases where I agree that there the AFC process is the issue. When I saw it, the author had not de-tagged it.  She had contested the speedy nomination on the talk page, which is what she was supposed to do.  She then went ahead and resubmitted it while it was still G11 tagged.  This is one of the very few cases where I agree that the AFC templates are the problem.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Some people have an overwealming desire to get themselves a Wikipedia page. They have no interest in learning about our policies or otherwise contributing. They seem to see the resubmit button as a free spin that might yield a different result. CSD or MfD is the only answer for these people. Sometimes an MfD is better so we can delete the next version on the basis of recreation. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that trying to get a Wikipedia page is an obsession with some people. I agree with User:Legacypac that in some cases MFD (or AFD they mainspaced it) is better for preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia because it establishes the precedent for G4.  Usually it is better to go with CSD, but if someone is sufficiently persistent, MFD (or AFD) has the advantage of being a precedent.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am not recommending moving anything into mainspace in order to delete it. That isn't right.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Fastly
Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:COMPANY, read likes an ad. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:7191:7D1F:2C3:4FA2 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC) ✅ taken to MfD correctly Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Eyu Kassa
No reliable sources to pass the notability guidelines, uses personal website and IMDB which Wikipedia says is not reliable source. Rejected 2 times, most likely be deleted under A7 if was on mainspace. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:C1C6:47D6:2DA1:EB05 (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The creator has created the Mfd page but I have replace it so ✅ 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:C1C6:47D6:2DA1:EB05 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Bundling Question
I have a question. Sometimes multiple copies of drafts are developed, and submitted to AFC, and another copy is moved into article space and is tagged for AFD. Can the drafts be bundled into the AFD nomination, or is it necessary to discuss them separately at MFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bundle the drafts into the AfD. AfD can decide to draftify an article.  AfD can resolve a clear and strong delete, which is a decision that carries over to drafts.  If it is a weak delete, such as TOOSOON, it is better for the AfD discussion to be aware of the drafts.  If the drafts are identical, convert to redirects, which allows them to be deleted per G8 per the AfD discussion, but for good practice note that redirects in the AfD discussion.  If there is an AfD discussion, there should be no need for a MfD discussion.  The reverse does not apply.  AfD has higher standing, being qualified to decide on notability questions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This really should be a single discussion, with a link from the other venue, and there has been more discussion at WT:AFD. My view is that such bundling is not acceptable, and any such bundled nom should be speedy closed as out-of-process. Such a situation should be handled by doing one or the other first, probably the AfD. If that is closed as keep, the draft can be redirected without discussion. If it is closed as delete, it may well still be acceptable for a draft to exisat in hopes of improving the text so it would pass a future AfD. Thus to delete the draft would require a separate discussion focused on the MfD issues. The noms should not be bundled becaue the issues are different, and because editors watching AfD may not watch MfD, and vice-versa. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest closing this thread, with a pointer to the thread at WT:AFD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)