Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion of drafts

"Opinions" section
I think the "collection of opinions" part should be done here, on the talk page. That keeps more with the usual essay format, which generally works fine. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought on this, and have decided otherwise. That is my opinion.  Much like various other workshops, people have positions, and it helps to have positions written down separately from flowing discussion.  There are some divergent, conflicting opinions, and it is not efficient to expect everyone to repeatedly state their position.  Feel free to add your opinion to the project page, or not, and to post whatever you like on this talk page.  If you don't have a considered or developed position, it makes sense to only record your current thoughts on this talk page. In time, if this works, the project page can contain an attempt at a "consensus statement".  A consensus statement does not necessarily fit perfectly with individuals' statements.  I have invited User:Legacypac first and prominently, because he is providing the strongest driver, bringing to light a lot of difficult pages for which there is no current good solution.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, we can see how the format works out. Thanks for getting it started! VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The "A" criteria
The "A" criteria seem to be the most critical to this, since the "G" series already apply to drafts. Some thoughts:

A1/A3
Straightforward, but a longer or more formalized time delay before proposing under these criteria is probably appropriate outside of mainspace. Maybe a week? VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A1, when A3 does not apply, is tricky, because it would include cases where with a little effort, context could be added. Then, where the context proves that the topic is not suitable, another criterion should be applied.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For a true A1 candidate, there is so little context that the subject of the article cannot be determined. To quote: "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate." In my opinion is should be a G* criterion because the problem statement doesn't apply only to articles. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A3. I think in practice these are being deleted under G2.  I support adapting A3 to apply to drafts, with a week or so delay.  Deletion should result in a friendly message on the authors usertalk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hundreds of A1/A3 type Draft and Userspace subpages get started and abandoned. If you are not going to type more than the title or some no context words within the first 10 min of saving a new page it is unlikely you will ever type more. As far as I know I pioneered using G2 to delete blank Draftspace pages. One admin expressed shock but no one has objected or rejected the G2 tags. G2 could be recast to be “Test or effectively blank pages”. We also have WP:G6 “Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text, where the author of the page has been inactive for at least one year.” which is ridiculously restrictive. Why should an active user be able to or want to keep a blank draft forever? Checking that these conditions are met is a time waster - just allow deletion of blank or effectovely blank userspace subpages and Drafts on sight. There is no content to restore anyway and a notification of the deleted title gets dropped in the creator’s talk anyway so they can restort from the link anytime. How about rolling A1, A3, amd G6 userspace drafts plus G2 (unoffical blank draft) together into a “G? Blank or No Context” that covers all name space with no set delay other than the time it takes to find, CSD tag, and delete the page? Creator would get a message “The page you created at LINK has been nominated for speedy deletion because it was blank or included insufficent context to identify the topic. You may have created the page by accident, however if you wish to actually develop this topic click on the link to restart and be sure to include sufficent content to allow others to identify the topic.” Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A7
Probably the most contentious criterion in mainspace. Leaving it out of a "Draft CSD" proposal altogether could be a pragmatic way of improving said proposal's chance of passing, but of course A7 is very commonly applicable to new pages so omitting D7 would make the draft criteria less useful. A9 is basically a parallel to A7 so recommendations to 7 probably apply to 9. A minimum time delay could be appropriate here, too, to avoid biting. There is simply less urgency outside of mainspace. Maybe a week? VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A7. I support the same standard of A7 applying to draftspace.  It is not hard to get above the A7 threshold.  A delay of a week or so might be appropriate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I also would support applying A7 to draftspace (with enough of a delay to avoid WP:BITE). The idea of leaving it out was purely pragmatic. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A10
Unnecessary to adapt to a "draft" CSD, just redirect to mainspace and move on. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A10. Agree, someone drafting redundantly to an article means that it can happen again.  Redirect and move on.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * use of draft or userspace to develop material for an existing mainspace topic is great, short term. When it turns into a alternative FAKEARTICLE is should be redirected. Legacypac (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A11
Should apply to templates too; I've proposed converting to G14 at WT:CSD. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 11. "Obviously made up" should be speediable in any WP:namespace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find lots of this in userspace. U5 covers it, but you habe to know that as its not obvious to new and less experienced users who can be confused by a NotAWebBost message. Turning it into a G would not increase the total CSD criterias but make it clear that hoaxs and made up material have no place in a fact based project. This is classic failure of V and N stuff. Legacypac (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)