Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Proposed minor modification regarding G13

The rule for G13 says "that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits)"

I'd like to propose a change. I will give two options, and at the moment I'm indifferent between the two.

Option 1. Change to "that have not been edited in over six months". In other words, remove the bot exclusion.

Option 2. Modify the bot which adds the template, so that it ignores bot edits.

Rationale— at present if an editor checks the edit history and finds that it has been six months since the last substantive edit they can nominate it for deletion, but the page will show up with the template with a big red bar through it. That red bar indicates that it has been less than six months since the last edit.

This will undoubtedly sound like trivial tinkering to anyone who does not work on removing these.

Let me explain my process so you understand why it is not trivial.

I helped with the development of the bot, and reached a significant level of comfort with the ability of the bot to get it right. If I open an article and it has a green bar, I will look at the identity of the editor who added it. If I'm not familiar with them, I will double check the history to make sure it qualifies. (It always does). Because there are only a handful of editors who work on identifying these articles, in 95% of the cases I am familiar with their ability to identify them correctly, and I can delete without double checking the history.

It takes less than a second, on average, in the case of articles with a green bar and an editor I recognize.

If it has a red bar, in order to delete it, I have to check the history and confirm that the offending edit is a bot edit. This doesn't take long, and I can probably do it in 15 seconds.

A 14 second gain doesn't sound like much but I've done many thousands, and it adds up.

There may be a good reason for the bot edit exclusion (it was added here and discussed here) but this means we have a mismatch between the criteria for deletion and the criteria for tagging.

Unfortunately, the bot creator @Hasteur: has a retired notice on their user page, but I see recent edits.

If you are wondering "why now?", on most days there are no red bars. At this moment, there are 21 items in the cat. That's less than a minute, if they all have green bars. But 10 have a red bar, so we are talking closer to 4 minutes. Still, not a lot of time but it adds up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 1, Support 2 - I am opposed to this because of the fact that bot edits would not help improve the article enough as to reclaim it from a state of abandonment. The second one does sound reasonable, although. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Note HasteurBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in 11 months. I don't think there's any bots working on G13 at the moment, it's all human editors. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been doing a whole bunch of G13s and now Crypic declined a few for what I assumed were exempted edits. In one case the page was correctly tagged G13 but an IP removed the tag less than 6 months ago. In another User:Northamerican1000 removed 7 random letters less than 6 months back on a page not otherwise edited for 11 months. According to an even narrower interpretation of G13 (I can imagine this being said) the act of tagging it G13 is an edit that invalidates the tag itself. If I see a 3 month old draft and post a review that says "this should be deleted" does that reset the 6 month countdown? Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Summoned I respond. Been a little disenchanted with wikipedia for various reasons and reduced my focus again. The nominating bot takes the strictest interpertation of the rule that any edit less than 6 months prior to nomination resets the clock. Nominating for CSD doesn't invalidate the CSD criteria because it has to have lied unedited for 6 months 'immediately prior' to the nomination. Legacypac's comment on the page at 3 months will reset the clock. Rather than take the time to look at the list of most recent edits and work backwards throwing out bot edits, I decided (in conjunction with the community) to go with the assumption that any edit is enough to potentially spark interest from people who have it on a watchlist. I could go through and discard explicitly flagged bots, but the extra pages this would gather does not feel like a good investment of time. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1, Oppose 2 I personally think 6 months unedited should mean 6 months unedited. I'd rather not get into "6 months unedited, unless it's a bot, unless it's a trivial edit" because that gets us into dangerous territory with discretion. If editors want to get into discretion and considerations, that is something a set of eyes and brain can do (and administrators can evaluate). Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Hasteur. The complications are not worth it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 - There are two different issues here (1) What are the criteria for G13? and (2) What will the bot do? Pages can be deleted under db-g13 whether they have been tagged as such by a bot or a person or neither, as long as they meet the criteria. There are many bots that go around making changes to pages for a variety of purposes, but they don't demonstrate that any human editor is interested in the page. If it's complicated to make the db-g13-tagging bot make exceptions, then leave it alone and let it tag only totally unedited ones; let human editors look at the others and tag them if appropriate. As to having pages with trivial edits that don't actually change the text of the page be eligible, that would be okay with me, since, as Hasteur points out, administrators are expected to check first before deleting, and also because db-g13 is a "soft" delete, so it's easy to get back the draft.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both - just dropping by with my perennial "G13 should be deprecated" comment; I oppose all changes to the criterion which are not deleting the criterion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Trivial bot edit changing "Its to It's" currently resets the clock. Delinking of deleted pages resets the clock. It's a race to find the pages over 6 months before some trivial edit makes them non-G13. Otherwise we have to run it through MfD to clean up the declined garbage. Legacypac (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: Do you know how often your examples of resetting the clock actually happen (Hint: it's on the order of about 1 page per 10k). It's not that competitive of a race to get all the eligible pages before a trivial change comes along Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No I don't know. I'm only finding the exceptions, I can't see the number of pages deleted. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with hasteur that "trivial edits" bring in too much discretion, and it's not worth it. However, whether or not an edit is a bot (defined strictly, as having undergone a BRFA and operating with a bot flag), should be a clear-cut distinction with no room for ambiguity. Anything else (AWB typofixes included) is not a bot per se, and should reset the clock, no matter how small. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 If a page has been edited then it is not abandoned. It doesn't matter if that edit is by a human or by a bot doing work at the behest of a human. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

− I've manually cleared a large backlog of pages categorized as G13 eligible but reviewing other categories I'm finding many more pages the template on the page correctly says it is G13able, but however the page is supposed to end up in the G13 able category is not happening. Anyone know how to fix this? Can a bot be run to find all G13able pages and CSD tag them regardless of category? Would save me a ton of work and help reduce the backlog.

• oppose 1 and support 2 Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 categories Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Category:AfC_G13_eligible_soon_submissions The first is pages that are 100% eligible for G13 right now. The eligible soon pages are ones that are between the 5 months and 6 months unedited. The eligible soon is designed so that people who want to try and save pages can go through and try to make effort on them. A random sampling I did showed no pages that are eligible at this time, so could you show an example of a page that should be eligible but isn't being nominated? Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Nail_Art_And_Beauty_Nagelstudio_Schiedam Draft:Andrew_Watts_(countertenor) Draft:JOEpop Draft:The Never Content. (This last one got picked up today but was G13 elegable on the 11th)

There were about 1100 more before they started piling up on Sat. when I started this thread. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't care about 2. This strikes me as an IAR situation; just make the tweak if you think it would be helpful, and don't worry about asking BAG for a little change. Oppose 1. Bots are irrelevant to the question of whether a page has been abandoned, unless you can show that a human picked a specific group of drafts as candidates for automatic editing, e.g. someone asks for a bot that will change all [[Foo]] links into [[ooF]], and someone else writes it. Beyond that, a bot edit we should ignore, entirely and absolutely. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1. Support 2. Seems pretty straightforward to me, if you want to streamline the process to delete stale drafts. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1. Support 2. : no brainer, an abandoned raft is an abandoned draft. Bots and minor AWB edits don't change the acceptability level of the draft and should not reset the clock. Off topic, but I would even advocate shortening 6 months to 3 months, but that's another discussion.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1. Support 2. This is especially important given that we have multiple magic links bots running now if I recall. That shouldn't make G13 harder for drafts that are eligible. Same goes for other bots, just the magic links one is the best example I can currently think of. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Exempt Draft space from G2 (test edits)

G2 Test edits does not apply to pages in User space. At the time this was created, there was no such thing as draft space. Now there is, and most of the reasons for exempting userspace from G2 also apply to Draft space. Initial attempts at a draft may well look like tests, and new users who have been told to start in draft space may do traditional sorts of tests there. Such pages harm nothing, and may, in the first case, eventually be beneficial. Pages can still be Deleted from draft space by MfD, but speedy deletion is for uncontroversial clearcut cases, and "test" pages in draft space are not always clear cut. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Leave that to patrolling CSD admin discretion - blatant tests certainly could occur in that name space. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I support the G2-ing of old AfC blank tests in DraftSpace. Tests, as in experiments, are a personal thing and best done in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Tests do occur in Draft space. No one is targeting test edits in the first hours or days of a Draft's life but if it does not progresses beyond a few words or an info box or a single ref after a few months it's just testing. I recently CSD G2 a long list of pages were the content was just a repeat of the title. Do we want to tie up MfD over Draft:Joe Smith content Joe Smith. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think what we mostly want to do is nothing, leave such pages untouced. In those few cases where there is actually a serious issue requiring deletion, MfD will do the job. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If we want to delete these, then I disagree that bringing them to MFD is a good idea. Wiki maintenance only makes sense if it's less effort to remove bad content than to produce it - productive volunteers are rare, and clueless and/or malicious users numerous.

Slapping a {{db-test}} or a {{db-g6}} on these when the letter of the criteria don't begin to apply is a bad idea, too. If you want an admin to IAR delete something, then you write {{delete}} on it and leave it at that. If you think IAR speedies are icky, I agree, and we should work out criteria that apply specifically to drafts and user drafts. (I continue to believe transplanting the major articlespace ones, A1 A3 A7 A9 A11, with an added requirement that the authors haven't edited in X amount of time, is the way to go.) —Cryptic 05:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced that we've needed the criterion at all since around 2003. Unless you interpret it so broadly as to consider someone saying, "Hey, can I start an article about this subject on Wikipedia without anybody deleting it?" a test - which is really the only rationale I can think of for at least three quarters of the G2 tags I see - actual, unambiguous testing can be speedied as patent nonsense. People don't write articles saying things like "Will this really show up if I click save?" anymore; they mash the '''Bold text''' and <gallery>Example.jpg|Caption1 Example.jpg|Caption2</gallery> buttons. Anything less blatant than that is more likely to be an error on the tagger's or deleter's part than to be an actual test, like at the draft currently at DRV which prompted this. —Cryptic 02:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought a lot of G2 deletions in ProjectSpace and MainSpace were pretty uncontroversial deletions. I saw a lot of G2 deletions by Legacypac of draftspace AfC submissions with no content not even a meaningful page title. I guess we could and should ask Legacypac to not G2 anything with a reference. Draft:Hopf algebra of a graph has a pretty useless reference for others to pick up and run with, I would suggest userfying a page like that. Not that it was created by a serious contributor. I worry more about too much stuff being improperly deleted via G6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Meh, the Hopf algebra draft is harmless. About the most annoying thing about it is that, when admins pull the trigger on this and his other similar drafts, its author prefers to drag their name through the mud for a week at DRV instead of instantly getting the draft back at WP:REFUND.
      I've listed the hundred most recent deletions labelled "G2" at User:Cryptic/g2 and begun some analysis. I haven't gotten very far, since it's a bit late here and I'm tired, but so far I've found neither an unambiguous test nor a page that shouldn't have been deleted. Anyone else who cares should feel free to join in. —Cryptic 03:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if someone wants 8 words (which say nothing about the title) plus a link back. No need to DRV it, just ask the admin. Would have been better to keep it in their userspace, but whatever. User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report is so big it's hard to load. Cutting out all the content free pages helps the report load faster and makes it easier to dig out the attack pages, personal info on minors, copyvio etc. User:Cryptic's deletion of about a 1000 pages today helps a lot too. It takes time to check each page, and a useless deleted page is one less to check and recheck and recheck for users working the list. I'd hate to see the reaction if content free pages were listed at MfD by the dozens. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• DRV serves an important purpose of ongoing education. The DRV forum is a community discussion that serves to ensure alignment, or encourage alignment, between administrator deletion decisions and community consensus. If the page should not have been deleted, both the tagger and deleter need to take note. Check the opening line of WP:CSD, speedy deletion is meant to be very tightly contained. DRV is not primarily about achieving a particular outcome for a particular page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Testing is an ephemeral activity - once the test edits are done, the content is usually no longer useful for anything. Other than perhaps a short time delay, I see no reason to exempt draft space. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Blank submissions to AfC or essentially blank Draft pages are tests. "Oh look what does this SUBMIT button do? I'm going to test it" or Draft pages with a line of text where the user is evidently satisfied they figured out how to start a page and go off to build the same title in mainspace two minutes later. Tests take many forms. The common sense "test" for if it was a G2 Test should be "Was this a good faith serious effort to create an article on a potentially suitable topic or is it someone testing how to create a page or testing how to format a ref or testing what a SUBMIT button does or testing how to put their own name in Wikipedia or testing if they can in put something about their middle school crush in etc? We should also consider people's feelings. Having a page deleted as a Test is a lot friendlier than seeing it deleted as Vandalism or Spam. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Anything that's truly problematic in draft space can be handled via other criteria. I would also Support deprecating G2 entirely, since a test page can be deleted by other criteria, but a test edit doesn't need G2 to be reverted appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support for clarifying that G2 does not apply to draft space or user space. Weak Support for deleting G2 altogether. A test edit in article space likely qualifies for A1 and likely qualifies for G1 (nonsense) or G3 (vandalism). A test edit in Wikipedia space would likely be G1 or G3. And so on. G2 definitely should not apply in draft space or user space. Why not do a test in one of them? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of G2, definitely oppose removal for main and project spaces. It would mean stuffing more stuff through G6. Ideally, most G2 would go via G7. Perhaps G2 should be restricted for creations by non-active accounts. Userspace is already clearly excluded frm G2, and should be. For draftspace, there is a lesson here that some tightning of the applicability of G2 may be in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose there are tons of blank or effectively blank pages in Draft space. After some time passes and they are abandoned there is no value in keeping them. We don't have a "blank" CSD that covers Draft space. There are other types of test pages too in Draft space. No point running them through MfD. Legacypac (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Draft space is for proto-articles, not test pages. Allowing meaningless test pages into draftspace hinders people from improving actual drafts. There is a reason why Draft:Test is salted. This is why we have sandboxes and userspace. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's not confuse Test Edits with Test Pages. I can revert a test edit, but an entire test page requires a CSD or XfD process. Pages that are not a serious attempt at creating an article are most kindly called Test Pages. Should MfD really need to go through pahes that are called Sally Jones and the only content is Sally Jones? How is anyone supposed to guess who the page is talking about even? Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to mark X2 as historical

Per consensus, X2 applies only to the <3,700 articles listed at WP:CXT/PTR. Per more recent consensus, we now intend to mass-draftify those that have not yet been reviewed; which means that X2 has served its purpose. I therefore recommend that X2 should be marked as historical. As this is a substantial modification to a CSD, I believe that strictly speaking, correct process would be for me to begin a RfC to achieve it. This is a laborious and time-consuming exercise. X2 was implemented without a full RfC, so I propose to repeal it without one. Any editor who objects to this is respectfully invited to say so below.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Marking as Historical I think we need a much more widespread consensus to enact a new CSD than to mark historical one that has served its purpose. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support once the articles are actually draftified, Oppose until then as slightly premature. Totally agree that a discussion of this type is appropriate to repeal a X-series CSD criterion, and a RFC is overkill. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Query to Tazerdadog: Re the list of CXT articles, you said at AN on 8 May The delete list will be moved to draft space (or subpages of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review), where it will be audited briefly just to make sure nobody made a systematic error, then deleted. Is this still the plan and if so, won't X2 be wanted as the deletion criterion?: Noyster (talk), 08:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want this discussion to be closed until after that has happened. I was envisaging a longish (28-day?) discussion here, which while falling short of a full RfC would still ensure that everyone gets a chance to have their say.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That is still the plan to my knowledge, but I want to ensure it actually happens before we get rid of X2. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

G5 and Twinkle Question

I have a question about tagging a page as G5. G5 only really applies to pages that were created by sockpuppets of blocked or banned users (since banned users are blocked and since blocked accounts can't edit). I see that the Twinkle template lists the SPI for the master account from the field where the reviewer entered the name of the master account. My question is: Does Twinkle actually create a new SPI if none exists, or is it still the responsibility of the reviewer to create the SPI? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A user need not be blocked to be banned. An editor with a topic ban from American politics post 1932 who creates an article on a local politician active since then is in violation of his ban. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. That is true; I had overlooked the possibility of a topic ban. But my question is the same. The template does look for whether there is an SPI, and, if so, it links to it. As you point out, sockpuppetry is not the only situation, but it still is a common one. My question is: Does Twinkle create the SPI if I enter the name of the master account, or do I have to do that? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You might get a quicker answer at WT:TWINKLE. (I don't know.) --Izno (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can always try it out and then revert yourself if it works the way you think it might.) --Izno (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if TWINKLE created the SPI in this situation - for a start there wouldn't be any way for you to list the sockpuppets of the master account or any supporting evidence. TWINKLE does have a separate tool for creating SPIs. Hut 8.5 20:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose that tool would be via the ARV tab, which is the various ways to report the offending account. I mostly use it to go to UAA and sometimes to AIV. I will check it to see if it will take me to SPI also. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

G4 on Drafts

I have a question about G4 and Articles for Creation. Sometimes I move a sandbox draft that has been submitted to AFC into draft space, and then the AFC script shows that it was previously deleted in article space. This is only relevant if it was deleted via Articles for Deletion. (If it was previously speedied or PROD'd, then, of course, the reviewer simply reviews it de novo.) The question is under what circumstances is it reasonable to tag the draft for deletion as WP:G4? Perhaps more generally, is G4 meant to apply to drafts, and should the instructions on G4 say something about whether it is meant to apply to drafts? G4 is definitely meant to deal with tendentious reposts of the original article. Applying G4 strictly to drafts of the deleted article would interfere with attempts to improve on the deleted article and so cure whatever the reason had been for the original deletion. One of the problems with G4 is that the person nominating the page for G4 may or may not have seen the original, and, if not an administrator, cannot see the original. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as a comment, not directly related to my question, I sometimes have to ask the submitter of a draft to request to have the original article restored, either temporarily or in draft space or in email, so that I can see whether they have improved it since it was deleted. Usually they don't do that, and were just trying to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's worded slightly ambiguously I think: content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). I have highlighted in bold what I think is the operative, differentiating phrase; the question, of course, then probably becomes how we judge if this has clearly happened :) But either way, I think, simplistiaclly, that it has been moved to draft in good faith, or as a result of a discussion, etc, then G4 shouldn't apply. But if someone's just recreated the deleted article without discussion, then I think that's circumventing the original XfD. Thoughts? — fortunavelut luna 17:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a question that sometimes comes up at Deletion review. We generally take the view that G4 is appropriate if there are no new sources. If the sources at the AfC draft are identical to the sources considered at AfD then AfD's decision should normally stand; but if the draft-writer is presenting new sources for consideration, then at that point we would need a new AfD. I do not think that G4 would normally apply to drafts if the drafting editor is in good standing. It would apply to sockpuppets etc.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's frustrating that non-admin reviewers can't see deleted pages. G4 is a General criteria that applies to Draft and User spaces. If topic X is deleted in mainspace and recreated as a Draft G4 applies. You can guess pretty accurately if the page is a recreation, and I see no issue requesting a G4 so an Admin can assess fhe deleted vs new. If it's different there is no shame in the decline. If accepted, you just saved a bunch of reviewer time. Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, currently agreeing with @S Marshall and Legacypac: on this. — fortunavelut luna 17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall:. Most AfC submitters are new accounts (which may or may not be truly new editors) so your "good standing" comment seems a little off target. In many cases 'New User' posts a fully formed page just like the one deleted before. Just saw it happen again. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll give a bit of a contrarian answer: G4 predates draftspace and should not apply at all to it. It's NOINDEX'ed on purpose, and if an editor in good standing wants to work on anything not subject to any other speedy deletion criteria in draftspace, then G4 should not be applied. That is, if it's attack, promotional, or copyvio, nuke it out of draft space with G10-12 respectively, but otherwise just let it go. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. G4 should not apply to draft space. I would think that it also should not apply to user space, which can be used as a form of draft space. Applying G4 to draft space interferes with trying to make a bad article good. A draft still should not be accepted after it was deleted unless there is progress, but the draft shouldn't be speedied just because it is the same as the deleted draft. Taken literally, G4 would prevent un-deleting the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• G4 should be applied where the deletion discussion found consensus to delete, for the namespace it was located, if the content is substantially the same, no new sources indicating substantially the same. An article deleted by AfD should be G4-ed if it reappears in mainspace. An inappropriate essay deleted from project space, by MfD, should be G4-ed if it appears again in Project Space. If XfD-ed from userpapce, it should be G4-ed on reappearance in userspace. A draft in draftspace deleted at MfD should be G4-ed if it reappears in draftspace. A page in draftspace should not be G4-ed due to an AfD deletion from mainspace. Deletion criteria are difference in different namespaces. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Mostly yes. I see the point that if a draft is deleted at MFD it should be G4d if it reappears in draft space. That depends on the circumstances of the deletion of the draft. The deletion of an article from mainspace is a judgment on its content, that it didn't belong in mainspace, either because it wasn't notable or for some other reason. (E.g., that it is an opinion piece. The deletion of a draft from draft space is a more complex thing. It is typically a judgment on its author or on the process of editing it. The author may be resubmitting it tendentiously, and the issue isn't so much that the subject will never be notable, as that the nuisance of the resubmits aren't worth it. The author may have been indeffed either as a sockpuppet or as not here to contribute. I agree that a page in draftspace should not be G4d due to an AFD deletion from mainspace. A page that was deleted from draftspace should definitely be deleted if it appears in mainspace (but it is likely to be a candidate for A7 or G11). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Good point, I agree. If MfD'ed from Draft, then G4 absolutely should apply to future unchanged drafts. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I added "re-posted in the same namespace" to the first line on G4. Five words, is that uncreepy enough for what looks like a good question to clarify? Deleted in mainspace, it may be draftified or usserfied (preferably by admin, not by copy-paste from a save furing the AfD). Deleted in draftspace, reposted in mainspace? Draftspace MfD deletions are usually speediable under a CSD#A* criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • And I've removed it. G4 already says, in the very next sentence, that it doesn't apply to material converted to a draft. (Contrast with the userspace exception, which says "moved".) If there's an admin who's speedying drafts solely because the same subject was previously deleted in mainspace, that's an issue with him not following policy, not with policy not repeating itself over and over. —Cryptic 05:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • (ec) User:Cryptic promptly reverted. I don't think that he appreciates the word "explicit", nor that the second sentence is wordy and clumsy, explicitly addressing moved pages (userfied or draftified) and this not applicable to reposts. I call it a bad revert, the addition was good, the next sentence would be better cut as redundant to the clearly more concise addition. If a topic is deleted at AfD, and then is later reposted in draftspace with the same references, it should not be G4-ed. If unimproved and then abandoned, then WP:UP#COPIES will apply, which in some cases should be speediable. G4 only applies unambiguously and immediately if the recreation is in the same namespace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Back to the original question - there's also very recent discussion of almost exactly this question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 63#G4: but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. —Cryptic 05:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Useless image files

I was surveying to which category would belong those files that are unused and are useless for encyclopedic articles. I found F10 to be the closest existing category to them. If there would be no opposition, we could extend the coverage of F10 by giving the main focus to useless-ness fact of the file content:

F10. Useless or non-media files : This criterion is meant for files that are not used in any article; and have no foreseeable placement in an article (such as the files that are neither image, sound, nor video files; or the personal images of the contributors).

Alfa80 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Some such files would be suitable for Commons where files do not have to be encyclopedic. See Commons:Scope. Thincat (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Non-used files with appropriate licenses should just be transferred to Commons instead. Regards SoWhy 07:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @SoWhy and Thincat: So we would come to something like this:

F10. Useless or non-media files : This criterion is meant for files that are not used in any wikimedia projects; and have no foreseeable educational usage.

Alfa80 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I still oppose this as too subjective. They don't even speedy delete these at Commons, where this rationale for deletion is much (much!) more frequent. We have the speedy deletion exception for non-images/sounds/videos because these files are encyclopedically useful so rarely as a class, and another as part of F5 for non-free files; but even in the latter case, there's a one-week timeout unless there's an accompanying article deletion. There's too much potential for error by extending the criterion to all files, and since you can prod them now for any reason and see them deleted in a week, too little to gain. —Cryptic 19:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the practical meaning of "credible claim of significance"?

Reccently, I nominated an article Kumobius for deletion under WP:CSD#A7 because the article contained no "credible claim of significance". The speedy deletion was declined because (the subject) "has one game with an article". This seems like a rather strained interpretation of the speedy deletion policy, and given the large amount of spam that makes its way into the encyclopedia daily, seems to work against our collective best interests. I would like to get other's comments on this, at least so that I can determine if I need to recalibrate my approach to reviewing new articles. Should more of these types of article be sent to AfD, instead of being speedily deleted?- MrX 17:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 where I basically dismiss the terms "significance" and "notability" as they confuse so many people because of their subjectivity. In this specific example, you can (at least in my opinion) at least reduce the page to #REDIRECT [[Duet (video game)]] (and be on reasonable ground that won't be challenged). Since that doesn't require the administrator toolset, immediate deletion is not necessary. It's possible you have a walled garden where the target article isn't actually notable either, but I'm going to AGF that it's not the case here since an administrator wrote it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue I have is that the policy says "credible claim of significance" not "six degrees of separation from possible inherited notability". It seems like your (Ritchie333) bar for speedy deletion is higher than what I see for most other admins (one exception that comes to mind is SoWhy, who has their own essay).- MrX 17:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the practical meaning of "credible claim of significance"? I've been asking myself that question for the best part of 2 years, and, using the essays and whatnot, thought I had it answered. But the sad reality was that I was going backwards at warp speed , and now have no clue what it means. For what it's worth, I also have my own essay on the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, since there was an RFC (linked to from WP:CCSI) that said that a strong connection to a notable subject indicates significance, the bar Ritchie uses is actually consensus. Remember, ineligibility for speedy deletion does not mean it should be kept. Oftentimes they are cases of WP:ATD. But ATD is also a policy that does apply to speedy deletion, which many NP patrollers seem to forget. Take your example: Why should this article be deleted instead of merging or redirecting to the game's article? Regards SoWhy 18:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, but let's be honest: 6 out of 9 is a pretty weak consensus. Redirecting in the example I cited is one possible action, but not necessarily optimal. I would assume it's fairly unlikely that someone wanting to read an article about a video game would type the name of the non-notable company into the search box.- MrX 19:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Unlikely" is something of a judgment call, isn't it? Why wouldn't they? And moreover, how does deletion benefit the project but merging/redirecting does not? Regards SoWhy 19:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Could I offer a slightly different perspective? People entering that company name into the search box aren't "typing the name of a non-notable company", they are most likely entering the company name hoping to be told/reminded what the company does. Their likelihood of making that search isn't strongly affected by WP:GNG. So it seems to me that being directed to an article about a notable product , which even mentions the publishing company, is preferable to the "not found" message in this and similar cases. Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy. Yes. Deletion discourages re-creation. New users frequently simply revert redirects restoring the original bad content. This is very common with articles about future sports events, soon-to-be-released-on-iTunes songs, and promotional bios. - MrX 19:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get too elitist when we're calling stuff 'bad content' here. There are really three types of bad conent: attack, copyvio, and promotion. Everything else is, at worse, unencyclopedic: something that if we could ever finish Wikipedia (we can't), wouldn't be included. Future sports events aren't actually *bad* content, even if we really don't need them. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree then. I think a page about something that won't happen until next year (sometimes even later) consisting solely of flag icons and empty stats tables is worthless. By the way, attack articles are rare, while spam articles are so common that I'm not sure we're not drowning in them. YMMV.- MrX 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's take the 2032 Summer Olympics as an example. I don't think anyone would argue that - unless Wikipedia or the IOC disappears in the next 15 years - this topic will eventually merit an article. How much effort is it really worth to prevent this article from being created "prematurely" (especially when there is no agreement what "premature" means in this case)? I would argue that, in this particular case, a truly unnecessary amount of effort has already gone into making sure the article was not created "too soon". Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it will eventually merit an article, but not now. Common sense would suggest salting the article after about the third time it was created. Also WP:WHYN.- MrX 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but that isn't my point. I am pointing to the huge amount of effort that has already into a tug of war about when the article should be created - a tug of war which is not, in fact, finished. Surely there is a better solution than having setting para-official patrollers against grass-roots article creators in a kind of poorly structured cage match. Newimpartial (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that while I actually agree with Ritchie333 and SoWhy in principle here re: redirection, the only area where I would like to request caution from them on this is in regards to BLPs and the INVALIDBIO interpretation that favours liberal use of redirects to relatives. I get that it is a plausible reading of ATD-R, so A7 should not apply, but I also think that there are valid reasons to prefer deletion to redirection on most BLPs (Ryan Channing being an extreme of when I think redirection would have been particularly harmful on this scale, and Valerie Sununu being an example of one where redirection makes sense). I don't nominate them for A7 at all anymore, but I think that BLPs at least deserve AfD where you are going to get more eyes on the subject rather than a unilateral redirect and a sparsely attended RfD (if it happens at all). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

My neighbour has a Grammy and doesn't qualify for an article because most of his work was pre-internet and today he avoids attention. He has hundreds of newspaper clippings and magazine covers in his house, but that was pre-internet. Contrast that with today's artists, where everything is digital. It is far easier to be have verifiable online resources to qualify for an article today than if you were famous in the past. You can even look at the articles themselves. Newer stars have huge articles compared to older stars, because people update articles everyday based on the news that comes out every day vs having a look back at an artist from 50 years ago and writing a few sentences about their entire life.

And what does that have to do with Speedy Deletion? --- With more than 5million articles on En:WP (including silly stuff like "lists of lists"), maybe WP needs to rethink some of their policies based on the changing environment. That is why only 3% of my AfD votes are to keep the article. Kellymoat (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

But @Kellymoat: resources don't have to be online: newspaper cuttings (if they have the newspaper title, date, preferably page) are perfectly valid sources. An article could be written based on them, by someone who didn't have COI. There'd be a mention of him at https://www.grammy.com/grammys/awards too. PamD 22:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that he has zero online mentions. In fact, his name is listed in the content of many WP articles (which, of course, leads to circular hits). I was simply saying, that in comparison to a modern artist, a nobody in the digital age gets far more online hits than accomplished performers from the pre-internet era. My late ex, also retired pre-internet and withdrew from public life, has a stub article. Was inducted into the "Hall of Fame" of two separate organizations. Yet, some of the "extras" on modern films get more press and have larger articles. Kellymoat (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New criteria

This is an extension of the failed proposal of a new criteria made some months ago at here. Prose : G14: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing

1. The main difference this time is in the specifics : This applies only to articles created by users blocked for paid editing or for being confirmed sockpuppets.This applies only to articles created by users blocked for paid editing or for being confirmed sockpuppets, and have no substantial edits by others.
2. Optional Specific : The articles must fall into either of the two categories - WP:BLP or WP:ORG.

Why this helps?

• Most paid editors are experienced folks, and they know how to write articles which rise above deletion. Most often they operate different accounts at the same time, which are not easily linked back to the original sockmasters due to their experience with SPI. So G5 is powerless as the articles were created before they were blocked.
• However I feel there should not be a difference between articles created before they were blocked and those created after they were blocked. Why :

1. If they were blocked for paid editing, it is self explanatory as to why they should be deleted.
2. If they were blocked for being a confirmed sockpuppet, they mostly likely had a WP:COI in creating the articles. The emphasis on confirmed is to avoid any qualms of arbitrariness. For example in - WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive, the administrators blocked KuwarOnline on the suspicion of being a sockpuppet, even without CU evidence to confirm that. So that would mean all the articles created by him would not be eligible for deletion under this criteria, but those by the other confirmed sockpuppets would be eligible for deletion. What this does is rule out deleting contributions by all the editors who were blocked as sockpuppets exclusively based on behavioural evidence.

• Most often Wikipedia is part of the package for online promotion, per this. So paid press often accompanies these articles, and are used as references. Voonik and its CEO Sujayath Ali were created by a large sockfarm, and many of its subsequent editors have also been blocked. However they will probably survive AfD, as there are references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, and the article will continue to remain, with probably just a COI tag. Well meaning inclusionists will oppose moves to delete this citing the references, scuttling any efforts to delete this.
• If the articles are deleted as soon as sockpuppets are identified, then it would break the back of paid editors, as customers will not be willing to pay for articles that are deleted soon. I also believe this would lead to more voluntary declarations of WP:PAID as they would try their best to stay away from being blocked. Suspected paid editors are always keenly watched by Sockpuppet hunters, as the paid editors know, and the fear of loosing all their work, and thereby their reputation among customers would invite more WP:PAID declarations.
• WP:BLP and WP:ORG is good for a start, as these are the most abused areas.
• As with all CSD, the reviewing administrator would still have discretionary powers to look at the suitability. So for example, our current AfD position is to let articles that satisfy WP:NPOL or WP:NFOOTY stay. However we do not extend the same for WP:NFILM and expect them to satisfy WP:GNG. Same goes with the CSD. If they are sure to survive AfD based on such provisions, they should not be deleted. However in all other cases they should be deleted.

End of long post. Now for the comments. Jupitus Smart 07:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any such criterion. I think it violates the deletion policy. Even if it didn't or if consensus was obtained to change that policy, it is my view that the test should be the content of the article, not who created it. Indeed i favor removing the current G5, which authorized deletion perfectly good articles created in violation of a block or ban. To delete a perfectly valid article, supported by reliable sources, because it was created by someone editing for pay, or while socking, is to damage the project. Indeed it would be a form of vandalism by consensus, if adopted. Now I don't object to applying the rules against promotional content quite strictly in the case of paid editors, and often enough that will have the same effect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - We should judge the content, not the creator. And besides, the creation of a paid editor where the article is promotional would likely get snow deleted at AfD. Really, it doesn't help things. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • RileyBugz, AfD typically doesn't deal with TOU as a reason for deletion and the conversation centers on NOT in these cases. There does appear to be a consensus emerging on this page that some form of deletion is warranted for articles created in contravention of the terms of use, but that maybe AfD is better. One of my main reasons for supporting this is that AfD thus far has not worked as well to deal with this serious problem. It gives us the ability to enforce the TOU, which we don't currently have. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose without prior consensus to change the paid editing policy. I understand where this proposal is coming from but this is the wrong venue. WP:Paid editing#Changing this policy prescribes that changes in how to handle paid editing should be discussed in a community-wide RfC and whether to delete pages created in violation of the ToU is something that basically changes this policy (by adding an automatic deletion). This goes against both WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD and thus needs much more discussion than a post to WT:CSD. If the creator is already banned or blocked from editing before creation, G5 applies anyway. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  Addendum: I also believe this to be impractical. How would admins be able to identify such paid editors in a way that is objective? Currently it often takes a lot of work to figure this out, so how can we expect admins patrolling CAT:CSD being able to easily identify such creators? Regards SoWhy 07:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Er, admins are not required to identify paid editors. All they have to do is check if the user who created the page has been blocked. If so check the reason as to why they were blocked by referring to the block log.

• • If the reason mentioned in the block log is paid editing then delete.
  • If the reason is an SPI investigation, click on that link and check if the user has been blocked as a confirmed sockpupper, which would also entail deletion. Jupitus Smart 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support the underlying idea. Yes we should delete articles created by undisclosed paid editors. If we have 5 accounts that are socks of one another, with each account used to create around one promotional article, it is obvious the TOU are being infringed. It is also obvious that they have prior blocked accounts even though we might not have found them yet so G5 would also apply. But an additional criteria for deletion would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Doc James says just above that It is also obvious that they have prior blocked accounts even though we might not have found them yet". This is sheer unverified assumption. If the statement "John Jones previously edited Wikipedia using a sock account, in violation of its TOS" were to be included in a BLP, would the above reasoning count as "well-sourced"? Indeed many SPIs based on "behavioral evidence" are based on little better than assumptions, and in a few cases where I have had reason to look into things based on assertions of innocence by a blocked user, they have turned out to be in error. I ask you, would the evidence presented in a typical "behavioral" SPI (one with no checkuser evidence) stand up it it were being nused to source a statement in a BLP? I think not. And now this evidence, not in just a typical case but in every case, is to be made sufficeint to delete every edit by a blocked user? I think not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, in the absence of broad and concrete consensus on the paid editor policy. New criteria should be added only when an article that meets that criteria is virtually certain to be deleted. That's not the case here - editors will first debate whether the editor was a paid editor under the policy, then they'll debate whether the article could stand on its own merits, then they'll toss in COI for fun. G5 will cover some cases (mostly with socks), and A7 many others. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• A common thread among 3 of the oppose voters is that we should delete based on the content and not on the contributor. However G5 already is a means against that idea, and the new criteria is only completing the process, by plugging an inherent loophole in G5. Voonik provides an illustrative example for what I wish to convey:

• It was created by Strobe12345, who was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Smileverse. After their block, the article was extensively edited by different sockpuppets of Gayatri0704. However there was no CU evidence linking the two sockmasters - Smileverse and Gayatri0704, even though they are obviously part of the same syndicate.
• This meant that all the articles created by Gayatri0704 and her many sockpuppets were not G5 eligible even though they they are obviously associated with previously blocked sockmasters. This probably has got to do with the sockpuppets getting intelligent since their last block and employing methods to evade linkbacks to previous accounts.
• With the sockpuppets getting intelligent it is time for us to rise up to them, and according to me the new criteria was intended to be an extension of G5. People who were blocked for sockpuppetry, are more likely to be paid editors than all the editors encompassed under G5, and therefore I believe that there is no need to pardon their first set of paid articles.Jupitus Smart 19:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe there is no loophole per WP:MEAT. Quote from policy, emphasis mine: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." Could not the second account's promotional edits anywhere qualify for G5 under existing interpretation? Or maybe "in the same context" doesn't extend to the new articles created by Gayatri0704. Bri.public (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that any admin will allow the clubbing of G5 and WP:MEAT as G5 almost explicitly prohibits that. AGF is bound to be the cited reason. Jupitus Smart 04:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - we are now drowning in articles created by undisclosed paid editors. These editors are prohibited from editing here at all - the equivalent of banned editors. Treat them as banned editors or treat them as never-allowed editors as proposed here, but we can't ignore all their garbage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Moral support, practical oppose CSD are supposed to be unambiguous. G5 is unambiguous and will apply to editors who have been previously banned, including for undisclosed paid editing. Having seen how G11 is applied, I cannot see this as anything other than a shoot-first-ask-questions-later dramafest. By all means, ban undisclosed paid editors violating the TOUs, take suspected socks to SPI, and G5 their creations if confirmed. As far as previous articles created before a ban? Take 'em to AfD. If it's that clearcut a case, a mass nom shouldn't take much extra time. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I think this falls under WP:G11 ("Unambiguous advertising or promotion"). It's known that undisclosed paid editors write in this tone, so any such page could be speedied under G11 criterion anyway. As an alternative, G11 could be expanded to explicitly mention undisclosed COI, without adding new criterion. Brandmeister^talk 20:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I like this alternative better than a separate criterion. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It's a nice sentiment, but what would it accomplish? A practical example: would you have G11'd this? I wouldn't, even knowing that that's the account's first edit (and the second and third are an appeal to the deleting admin and a DRV), and my stance on G11 is so far toward the deletion end compared to the admin average that I don't trust myself to take action on them. —Cryptic 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• This fails new criteria criterion #3, not frequent enough, since it requires blocking the paid editors. That's vanishingly rare in comparison to the number of paid articles. —Cryptic 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. "created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing" is not unambiguous. Short of a an admission/declaration which then makes it OK as not undisclosed, it always requires an investgation, and that investigation should end with with a discussion on actions such as deletion. "Drowning in articles created by undisclosed paid editors"? The answer is G11, although perhaps a [[WP:|log of G11-ed topics suspected of being products of undisclosed paid editing]] would be a good idea for long-term tracking. Speedy deletion provides more of a clean slate for the inept paid editor to do it more discreetly next time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Cryptic wrote below "Ambiguity really isn't the problem here: the articles become speedyable if "TOU", "undisclosed paid editing", or "abusing multiple accounts" appears at the top of the author's block log". That is not the proposal wording. Do Admins WP:Block with correct summaries and without errors? Any one admin may make such a block, and then this would allow the deletion of every article page authored by them? The evidence is deleted, thus suppressed preventing participation or review by ordinary editors? I tend to agree that these pages should usually be deleted, but I think at least a week discussion per blocked author is demanded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Doc James, as long as it is provable that the article in question was created in violation of the TOU. Articles are deleted all the time when it is apparent that they are created by socks of blocked editors. Such editors are not supposed to be creating articles and the same goes for TOU-violating paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is the logical consequence of undisclosed paid editing. It also will be very useful to have this as part of efforts to discourage people from buying services from paid editors - it will make it even more clear that if they work with someone who tries to avoid policy, they are at (even more) risk of wasting their money. For those who say undisclosed paid editors are often socking -- well we can't always identify sockmasters or even convince CU to run a check, so this direct line to deletion would be very useful in the post-indef cleanup. We can also often use db-promo, but again the direct message of "undisclosed paid article creation >> speedy deletion", is a very good and very clear message to send to the world. And to use. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support TOU is the bare minimum criteria to be able to use server space before we even begin to assess whether it should be present. If an editor does not comply with the terms of use, the content has no right at all to be on Wikipedia, and we don't need to assess if it complies with other policies. This is similar to G12 deletion: even if the content is good, we delete them as being in violation of our terms of use. It also is in line with the WMF's strategic vision of being the most trusted source of knowledge by 2030. We cannot have an encyclopedia where people are allowed to pay publicists to promote their views in secret. It is against the five pillars of Wikipedia, and it has been made a part of the legal TOU for the site. One should no more be able to do it than they can make an edit here without agreeing to our licensing terms. We simply need the technical means to enforce it, and this is the simplest way to give admins the ability to enforce them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the G12 comparison is misleading. We don't delete copyvio because it's against the ToU, we delete it because keeping it might leave the Foundation vulnerable to legal action by the copyright owners. Content produced by paid editors without declaration does not carry this risk of legal action, so removing it is less urgent. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • SoWhy, sorry for the late response. I just saw this now coming back to the conversation. You are correct that G12 certainly has more legal implications for the Foundation than undeclared paid editing does. The legal implications are why they include not hosting copyrighted content in the terms of use. G12 is our enforcing the choice of WMF legal counsel to make that a requirement for using this website. The proposed G14 would be along the same principles: the WMF has required that editors declare if they are paid unless there is an explicit consensus on the local Wiki to create an exemption or a different policy. Since there is not an explicit consensus for an exemption on en.wiki, contributions of undeclared paid editors have a similar status in my mind to copyright violations: they are contributions where the contributor added them to en.wiki without the legal right to do so, since they did it in violation of the conditions of the terms the owner of the servers placed on their use. I should likely know better to discuss legalities with a jurist, but I did want to further explain myself :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, practically speaking based on application. Agree with rationale as laid out by Jclemens, above. Jclemens outlines a logical process for how best to deal with this issue. Agree that CSD are supposed to be unambiguous. G5 is unambiguous and is straightforward in nature. G11 has historically been applied with more of a subjective nature and I agree with Jclemens can lead to a dramafest. Best to use other processes for this as recommended by Jclemens. Sagecandor (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ambiguity really isn't the problem here: the articles become speedyable if "TOU", "undisclosed paid editing", or "abusing multiple accounts" appears at the top of the author's block log. This would get some use from the last, sure, but we need something with actual teeth for the first two. —Cryptic 01:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per Tony Ballioni, Jytdog, DocJames, and others. Since the WMF won't ban it outright, we must take strong steps to bring paid editing under control and stop the damage to the content and reputation of the encyclopedia. People who come here have to know that what they read has not been written by paid advocates. This is a good step forward. The "oppose" rationales are weak and unconvincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per everyone here. Paid editing can be a problem here sometimes, any sort of new guidelines restricting CoIs are welcome in my book. Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support speedy deletion of articles created in violation of the TOU, as a TOU is useless without full enforcement. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note per SoWhy's concern above, I have posted this at WP:CENT and left a note at VPP. Jupitus Smart, I think it is probably appropriate to put an official RfC template on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I still think this is the wrong venue though because the proposed addition will contradict both WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD as well as impact the WP:PAID policy, so those policies need to be changed first. Speedy deletion is a way to enforce existing policy, not to create new one. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not a problem, I actually don't like WT:CSD as a venue either, though for the reason that the watchlist crowd here tends to be opposed to any changes and that VPP would have been a more neutral place to discuss it. To the policy argument, like I mentioned below, I don't see this as a policy concern so much as enforcing something that already exists above local policy: the terms of use. Unless the English Wikipedia clearly adopts a policy to the contrary on paid disclosures, the TOU control above any local policy. Because of that, since there is no consensus to allow an exemption from the TOU like Commons has, any content added in violation of the terms of use doesn't even get the benefit of local policies because the user was not allowed to place it on the encyclopedia. By not giving administrators a way to enforce the TOU, we are effectively making an exemption policy without explicit consensus to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support G11 is too narrowly interpreted now. Many admins look for adspeak which is just poorly done promotion. The more sophisticated paid editors create pages that are either too well written for G11 or are in Draft and Userspace and are mainly for the SEO and link building benefits. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate on the SEO benefits? Those pages are not indexed by search engines after all. Regards SoWhy 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Ambiguity is being presented as one of the reasons for opposing this. Articles created by editors blocked for paid editing or editors blocked for confirmed sockpuppetry is an unambiguous closed set, which is probably narrower in its scope than G5 but covers more articles that are more likely to have been created in bad faith. Take the case of Teefa In Trouble created by the sock of an editor who was blocked for disruptive editing. The new sock was blocked for sockpuppetry as soon as he was identified, and the article deleted as G5. Teefa in Trouble was promoted from Draftspace, and had enough references to stay. It probably was not a case of paid editing, but it still ended up getting deleted. My concern is that while an editor blocked as a case of WP:NOTHERE cannot create good faith articles anymore, paid editors are allowed to slip through the cracks as our system is powerless against them. I find that very saddening. Jupitus Smart 03:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be unambiguous, but it's also ambitious. How many people opining on this have actually worked as checkusers? If an account is blocked on behavioral evidence (i.e., at least one admin at SPI thinks they're sufficiently alike), we consider that sufficient evidence to delete everything ever contributed, that--on the face of it--doesn't meet G11 or it would have already been deleted? Again, I like the idea but the implementation is not workable without risking a lot of false positives, and the opening statement's reassurances do not convince me. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Either I have not understood what you want to say or you have not understood what I intend to convey. I will assume the former. If an account is blocked exclusively on the basis of behavioural evidence, all the work done by the blocked user will not be eligible for deletion as I explained with an example above and which I will re-iterate again. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amitabhaitc/Archive, KuwarOnline was blocked on the basis of behavioural evidence even when there was no CU evidence against him. Nowhere in the SPI has he been mentioned as a confirmed sockpuppet, which means his articles cannot be considered for deletion under this criteria. Jupitus Smart 06:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Perhaps neither applies. I have participated at DRV intermittently over the past decade, and I have seen an alarming trend towards admins applying CSD criteria in an outcome-based manner ("Well, it should have been deleted even if it didn't meet the letter of the CSD"), and, worse, other editors endorsing that behavior. Thus, while I have no doubt those supporting the criteria believe in good faith that it will be applied correctly, I have little to none that it will never be abused. I won't go into further details per WP:BEANS, but no matter how many safeguards are put into the system, basing the system on an SPI outcome is quite abusable. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I understand your proclivity which is probably based on your experience. I still think there are enough fail-safe mechanisms to prevent admin abuse and if we have survived G5, we will probably tide through this, which is just as similar. But then again, to each their own opinion. Jupitus Smart 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Content should be deleted/removed based on its merits and not on its creators. The fact that I, DESiegel, RileyBugz, and SoWhy have explicitly articulated this principle in this (at this time) relatively small RfC shows that the proposed G14 clearly fails the "uncontestable" requirement for CSD since the fundamental principle underlying G14, that content should be removed based solely on its creator, lacks consensus (see Ultraexactzz). I understand that nearly all content created by paid editors should be deleted on its merits. However, the existing criteria are plenty sufficient to remove uncontroversially bad content, especially given that their application frequently exceeds their strict wording. For all the rest, there's AfD. I see no evidence (and none has been presented) that the vigorous current anti-paid editing efforts, for which I am immensely grateful, are having any trouble efficiently deleting problematic content, so even if there were consensus on the principle underlying G14, there does not appear to be a need for it. A2soup (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The content has no right to be judged on its merits if it is in violation of the terms of use. This is the same thing as copyright. The user legally does not have the right to put it on Wikipedia since the non-profit that owns the servers requires that they declare their paid editing status before saving it. This is merely a technical means of enforcing that requirement equivalent to G12. This RfC has been added to CENT and posted to VPP, as well as given an RfC ID that will make it added to lists and distributable by the bot. I expect after 30 days, a clearer consensus will emerge one way or another and that it won't be that small of a conversation. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My point about the smallness of the RfC was only to emphasize that a large proportion of participants disagreed with the principle - I am sure the discussion will grow and all these things will become clearer. A2soup (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per various points above; particularly the rather narrow interpretation of G11 that is occasionally encountered: Simplistically, where if an article isn't saying "Stop me and buy one" or written by User:SaatchiandSaatchi, it is claimed as not advertising/promo. Good examples from today- here, here, or here. All clearly WP:PAID editors. SPI will bring back nothing; the accounts are set up, and article is bunged straight into draftspace, silently moved into article space, and the account retired. In fact, it doesn't retire in our meaning of it- just becomes moribund. One account=one job; WP:G5 will not apply. — fortunavelut luna 07:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The first of your examples is not at all promotional, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, it is a purely factual description, although the firm may not be notable. But then it is still in a sandbox. The 2nd I have tagged for speedy deletion as promotional. The third I have reviewed and rejected the draft as not yet establishing notability. And on what basis do you say these were "clearly" paid editors? Would these all be speedy deletable under the proposed criterion? If so, why? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

All paid editors, regardless of the depth of promotionalism in the article, was what I meant (glad at least one was OK :p ); because "the accounts are set up, and article is bunged straight into draftspace, silently moved into article space, and the account retired... One account=one job." They never get used again. That's why our relaince on SPI and G5 is naive: the accounts are set up purely in order to write the article, once it's in article space, job done. You'll never hear from them again. They charge a fair bit; it is hard to imagine they don't factor petrol / train tickets into their costings. These are the professional ones of course; if you ever find one who's used AfC, you'll know they're new to paid editing. Don't worry- once the article they want to make money out of has got completely bogged down there, they won't make the same mistake again. They'll very quickly learn to do the above. They'll probably appreciate their luck, of course. Vis a vis the fact that their 'opponents', in vague and vain attempts at upholding their own ToU, rely on policies to confront the paid editor that were created in the infancy of the internet when words like SEO were a glint in a blackmarketeer's eye, and whom also will never ever unite against them and will forever be distracting themselves with trivia, ignoring the tide as it laps at their boots. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your very own WP:NOTLINKEDIN profile and career trajectory of the fully paid-up paid editor who actually wants to be paid... and is. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 13:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes we need to adapt to the realities we find ourselves in. We are now a major information resource and as such people are trying to co opt our good name for their personal financial benefit. We need to prioritize quality over quantity at this point. We should not allow socks of obviously previously blocked accounts to get a free ride simply because we can only prove 99% that they do not previously have a previous blocked account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed with Doc James and FIM that simply having a page on the English Wikipedia can serve as a form of promotion. Since G11 only deals with clear marketing speak, AfD is necessary for these pages now. I find it interesting that the argument by some here is that AfD works fine in cases like this: NOTSPAM typically works as a way to get rid of spam at AfD, but if you use a TOU argument it tends to get shot down with people sometimes saying to use speedy deletion if it is so bad. It seems like a bit of a Catch-22: when you argue TOU at AfD, you are told to try CSD. When you are at a CSD RfC, its said that these cases need AfD. We need to clarify which process is the way to deal with this because there does seem to be agreement that they should be deleted, just no agreement as to which forum. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as unworkable. As well as what Jclemens says above, deleting articles based on who the creator is, regardless of any subsequent edits, is a horrible route to go down, and will cause endless arguing and bad feeling. There are numerous articles where the initial creation was by a paid editor or by somebody later blocked for paid editing, but where the topic is unquestionably notable in Wikipedia terms and where subsequent edits have brought it to a neutral and reliably-sourced state. Were this to pass, articles as diverse as The milkmaid and her pail, Nicki Minaj and Line management would be liable to immediate speedy deletion subject to the whim of whether the reviewing admin happened to decide they were sure to survive AfD or not. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Sure if it was significant fixed up it would be ineligible for deletion under this criteria. Most however do not get edits of substance because the topic is barely notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. An article created against the ToU and then completely rewritten from scratch by others should not be speediable. The proposal has merit to my mind but it must be redrafted more thoughtfully. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  I think it would be perfectly reasonable to not apply this to those that are "completely rewritten". This almost never happens.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - with the exception of confirmed sockpuppets of previously blocked users (where G5 applies), the community has no reasonable means of determining this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Instead of providing moral support and opposing the move, I would much rather invite opinions from such editors on how better to frame the draft. This is largely a consensus building exercise, and I understand that most of the support votes are also based on personal proclivities towards wiping paid editing off Wikipedia. One of the users above said that The milkmaid and her pail, Nicki Minaj and Line management and the like can be deleted under this. If by that logic, tomorrow if we find that Roger Federer was made by an editor who is the sock of a blocked sockmaster - then would the article be eligible for G5. Roger Federer technically would then be eligible for deletion, though no logical admin would accept that. The same sanity would be expected of administrators in the new case as well. Jupitus Smart 10:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It is not a fair criticism, articles like Milkmaid etc, because all pages, per the CSD criteria, are subject to 'A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible' (my emph). — fortunavelut luna 10:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they wouldn't be eligible for G5 because G5 explicitly does not apply to pages with substantial edits by other users. Something the current proposal lacks. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, SoWhy my answer incorporates that already. As I was ready to point out to the editor who originally used the example... Milkmaid stopped being eligible for G5 on it's fifth edit, which is what would have made it illegible way back. And my comment still stands. All CSD criteria are covered by the need for all edits to be eligible for it to apply, this criteria would too. So, if a paid editor writes an article that is subsequently re-written (one of the above suggested problems), it still could not be eligible, on the assumption the second editor was, say, you. Which is nice. — fortunavelut luna 10:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a fair point, which I have used to update the draft. More points at improvement are welcome from all. Jupitus Smart 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Jupitus Smart No, that doesn't work; you're falling into the category mistake of dividing the world into "good editors" and "paid editors". Yes, there are some PR accounts who only exist to promote their clients, at whom I assume this proposal is aimed. However, a paid editor is just as likely to be a reasonably long-term experienced Wikipedia editor who after a while has thought something along the lines of "given the amount of unpaid work I've put into this, I may as well put the skills I've developed to practical use and make some money on the side". (We're not talking a few marginal characters here—at least one WMF employee has been caught out touting for paid-editing work on Elance.) This proposal and all variations I can think of on it would mean applying damnatio memoriae to these editors, even if their paid editing was just a brief blip at the end of a decade of constructive contributions.

If (for the sake of argument) I start editing for pay and get caught out and blocked, under this proposal pages like Halkett boat, Alice Ayres or Victorian painting to which I'm the sole substantive contributor would immediately become eligible for speedy deletion, even though they're on topics in which it's hard to imagine there being the possibility of a COI since nobody gains/loses anything from what their Wikipedia articles say. (This isn't just an arcane hypothetical point—had Sarah Stierch been blocked rather than just reprimanded when she was caught red-handed, would we have deleted Wadsworth Jarrell under this provision? If you don't think we should be deleting it, then you're effectively adding an "unless the reviewing admin likes the article" proviso to WP:CSD which is a route to endless ill-tempered arbitration cases—speedy deletion is meant only for uncontroversial cases.)

Given how much of the process is now automated via Twinkle, it's not as if taking a created-for-pay article to AFD is an incredibly onerous process. (And no, I don't for one second buy the "but taking it to AFD means it's live for a week so the subject is getting publicity!" argument. If anything, a Wikipedia page with a big "this article is being considered for deletion" banner at the top is more of a disincentive to potential paid editing customers than a page which quietly disappears.) ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the three categories of editor would be the good, the bad, and the paid, as it were. — fortunavelut luna 08:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion they should only be eligible if all the articles by your hypothetical socks were promotional in nature. And none of the accounts looked "new". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: For the sake of a counter-argument, let us think of a supposed scenario. Suppose its turns out that you are the sock of a previously blocked sockmaster. G5 would entail that Halkett boat, Alice Ayres or Victorian painting, would then be eligible for deletion as you were the only contributor. If I were to tag them as such, do you realistically think any of the admins would accept that and have these well written articles deleted. I do not think any admin would do so, as G5 exists primarily to drive off WP:COI content.

My proposal is just an extension of that, and would be governed by the same metrics as before. As for the illustrious editor turning into paid editor scenario. This is the same as before and can be refuted by an addition. Suppose an illustrious editor decides to become a paid editor one fine day and is found out and blocked. He cannot live without editing Wikipedia, and decides to form another account, and continues to edit while trying not to leave traces linking him to his former account. He ends up writing much better articles (with many FA's to his credit) than before while not indulging in any paid editing this time. I am a sockpuppet hunter and initiate an SPI in which he is identified as a sock and blocked. Would it be okay if I tagged all his new creations as G5. Do you think any admin would accept that, if the FA's were like the ones you had mentioned earlier.

The answer in both the above cases would normally be that the admin removes the tag and chides the person who tagged or advises to go for an AfD.

The problem is not about the 7 days it would be on AfD. I personally don't think that even matters if it were deleted and the 7 day publicity would be anything but desirable for the company concerned. That is however not the case as many a times Wikipedia is part of the package of paid editing, and is accompanied by news articles. Take the case of Nathan M. Farrugia. This is an article created by a paid editor, who brags about it and has listed in his portfolio on Upwork (Source). This was created by a G5 eligible editor and I have tagged it as such now. However do you think the same article would have been deleted had it been taken to AfD. I don't think so as many well meaning editors would have jumped to its defence citing the good references present. This user was dumb enough to list the article in his portfolio and I was able to tag it. What about the thousands of other paid editors who are not so dumb. This was created by a single purpose account which was blocked for sockpuppetry. A look at all his confirmed sockpuppets is mind-boggling Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LogAntiLog and this is not including the many sockpuppets that may have been yet to be identified. When we are facing a problem of such magnitude, it is pertinent that we employ harsher measures. I am off to sleep now. Probably the G5 is accepted by the time I wake up. Jupitus Smart 19:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you want to make "delete them unless the reviewing admin likes them" Wikipedia policy. I reiterate my opposition to this, which is so counter to the spirit of CSD that it beggars belief that anyone is supporting it. If the article is promotional, we have WP:G11 for that; if it's not unduly promotional than what's the issue? The WP:G5 criterion was created for an entirely different reason (I was there), to deal with the issue of long-term problematic users like ItsLassieTime where there was the presumption that their sourcing was likely to be problematic, without having to manually check the sources in every article they'd written, and has no particular relevance here (since if something is problematically promotional and non-neutral it will already be deletable under existing provisions for dealing with spam). ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose don't punish the reader by withholding notable topics from them. Inappropriate promotional content is already well served by G11. feminist 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone who's spent a lot of time working WP:COIN issues, I don't think a speedy deletion for paid editing is unambiguous enough. If we make deletion too speedy, we'll just end up with more articles at deletion review. I'll sometimes use proposed deletion, or "prod". In a week, the article is gone. It might be useful to require that you have to have achieved, say, autoconfirm level to remove "prod" tags. I'll sometimes start an AfD for an article that probably came from paid editing and just isn't about something notable enough. Sometimes there's argument, but it usually ends up being one paid editor vs. the world, and the paid editor loses. If they win, so be it; that's consensus. Sometimes you need more eyes on the problem. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson De La Nuez, an eBay art seller with heavy self-promotion. The harder we looked, the less notable they got. John Nagle (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support further community discussion of serious countermeasures against paid editing. I came in hoping to support, and while I am sympathetic to the underlying idea, I agree with Jclemens. The proposal would only generate drama, and is rather duplicative of G5 and G11. I work extensively in filing and clerking SPI cases involving paid editing, and can attest to the urgent need to find a workable solution to this very problem. GAB^gab 22:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose speedy deletion, but I would definitely support a middle ground of automatically throwing a PROD tag on everything that appeared to be paid. bd2412 T 23:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  @BD2412: My experience with this is that another sock always comes along and removes the tag. It has to go through AFD to be safe. —Guanaco 23:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Then we can easily identify who is removing PROD tags from paid editing articles. bd2412 T 23:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Support a special category of PRODs of articles by undisclosed paid editors, and creation of a log of paid editors and dePRODders of their articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  We need to look at getting approval to run a CU on all brand new accounts dePRODing a spammy article created by another brand new account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds, good, Doc James. New accounts dePRODing a spammy article, CU them. CU is very restrictive about discovering personal information on old editors, it could be way more lax on combating paid editor new account rings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose because it would include articles with substantial changes by legitimate users. I would support a change to G5 to explicitly include pages whose only substantial edits are by sock farms. —Guanaco 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  User:Guanaco Agree this is likely a better way to go. How should we define farm? Three or more? Four or more? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support if and article was created by a sockfarm and/or looks COI-like but has no edits by legit users who improve the article and remove promotional language (just slapping {{coi}} or {{advert}} on there doesn't count). KMF (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Moral support, practical oppose, largely per Jclemens, Iridescent, and John Nagle. I'm strongly in favor of rapidly nuking this sort of deceptive spam. I hear the proposer's request for constructive suggestions for how to improve the proposal. So: it seems to me that we do not need to have a G14 to put on those pages, because the process as envisioned must follow the sequence of, first, identifying the violation of policy or TOU, and then, second, requesting rapid deletion. We can accomplish that pretty well with existing policy, so long as the administrators who deal with the policy violation then go on to nuke the non-notable pages that had been created. We don't need a CSD for that to happen, and it's better to depend on human evaluation of each page anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Tryptofish, absent a new CSD, on what basis would admins "go on to nuke the non-notable pages". Admins are not authorized curently to delete pages simnply because they are njon-notable. That is a decision to be made at an AfD. No one, not even an AfD, is authorized to delete pages because their creator was subsequently blocked, that would violate deletion policy. There is no such thing as an IAR speedy or rapid deletion. Any such deletion would violate current policy, and would be properly overturned at WP:DRV. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• You raise an interesting point, one that I had not thought of. To some degree, I was simply getting, shall we say, overly enthusiastic when I talked about "nuking". As I think about your comment, I find myself asking whether, in fact, the deletion has to be that urgent, anyway. WP:There is no deadline and all that. I get it, that we don't want to overload AfD (and PROD) with spam that will unquestionably have to be deleted anyway. But I feel like what matters more in this case is my original observation that there would be no way, even with a G14, to make a deletion decision before having come to the conclusion that there had been a policy violation: it would be nonsensical to delete first and investigate later. Consequently, there has to be some consideration prior to deleting, no matter how we do this. Here's a thought: just as we have WP:BLPPROD as a special category of WP:PROD, we could make another special PROD category for cases like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Looking back here, I see that the PROD idea has already been proposed in the discussion section below. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Great minds think alike? Or just we are both looking over the same small toolbox to try and find the least inappropriate tool? :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Moral Oppose, Practical Oppose - as Tryptofish related from Jclemens et al. Still seems the prior "vague/covered". Morally, I feel judge the content not the user, blanket approach is wrong, and wishful thinking is bad for management. This guilt by association beyond just the TOU paid-for material is entirely too much focused on the irritation and not enough on looking for unintended consequences or collateral damage protections for a "nuking" option. Guidance should morally lead to a positive and be detailed anyway, rather than unleash draconian measures or be vague, so that WP:PAID leads to working better with WP how-to engage and do this instead of just hoops and constraints and punishments. Practically -- I agree with this wouldn't be effective (wishful thinking), questioning the need when alternatives exist, and this seems too vaguely stated to latch up to WP:PAID or WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN. I think the TOU clearly does not mean to throw out items not paid for or perhaps written before they were ever paid. Also practically, it is just easier to judge the content -- the motives of all editors are for something invisible and from some POV unknown and we do not care, but that they follow guidelines and give RS cites and goodness in content is visible and what we care about. Finally, for some topics the reality is that info is largely from press releases or captive reporters. Sony releases the film info that they want to; Microsoft coverage gets preview-packages (and if you write too off-script you get cut off); war coverage is by daily press briefing to controlled press pool. Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support. Endorsing Tony's comment wholeheartedly. As others have mentioned, G11 as currently construed is not dealing well enough with UPE. I've some experience with UPE in relation to academic boosterism; and based on that experience UPE content should be removed with prejudice. It is the only way of dealing with this. James (^talk/_contribs) 07:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I understand the opposes, I really do, and I even partially agree with most of them. But existing channels simply are not working well enough for this, and as Jytdog has mentioned, it is good to have a clear and unequivocal message on this to send to the world. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Delete all the articles! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think "Delete all TOU violating submissions" is far superior to TOU sticky prod removalable arbitrarily by an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. I've long held that we need to set up a proper incentive structure to dissuade paid editing. Immediate deletion is as strong a disincentive we can provide for breaking our rules. This is necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As an aside, this is already somewhat common practice. When we find a large sock ring that is making paid articles, I delete G5, whether or not I can identify a master that was blocked at the time of article creation. There was some discussion of this at one point and the gist is that, in the cases of large sock rings at least, we can be reasonably sure they've been blocked before even if they can't be tied to a specific farm. Or, alternatively, they are so behaviorally similar to any number of existing sock farms so as to meet the technical definition of sockpuppetry whether or not they're "really" the same farm. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Statement of actual practice like this is very helpful. Based on what you are saying, this criteria is not actually new policy, but rather is just putting in writing the policy that is already consensus practice. It is not uncommon that written policy needs to updated to catch up with consensus-based practice. It is too bad this was not part of the original proposal as people would have reacted differently, most likely. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:BU Rob13. When we find a large family of socks, none of which look new, who are writing promotional content. We can be certain they have prior blocked accounts so I also feel comfortable applying G5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: and @Doc James: - Would any of these fall under the extended G5 criteria that BU Rob13 has mentioned above - Kijiji Canada, All Assam Minorities Students’ Union, Char Chapori Sahitya Parishad or Buljit Buragohain. These were created by a large sockfarm and around 10 of their sockpuppets were found out in one go. And they continue unabated with new sockpuppets even now per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raju Adhikari. Jupitus Smart 18:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup would apply as none of the socks were ever a new account per their editing and thus we can assume that their are prior blocked socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support We have to dissuade paid editing companies and this is definitely a good way of doing so and getting them to declare properly. Currently, they have no incentive unless they are behaviorally obvious enough or make a small slip (e.g. mixing up of accounts)- this would add a 'stick' that incentivises them to declare, or get their articles deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, this looks like a solution trying to find a problem. If paid editors create spam, our existing deletion policies can cope with it. If paid editors create articles on people who turn out to be notable per our guidelines, then what's the issue? I got "paid" to write Bullets and Daffodils, it just wasn't in cash. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One would think a truly professional content producer would be smart enough to avoid being detected through checkuser and other methods of detection by following all the other policies outside of WP:COI. This proposed policy wouldn't likely be able to help with those people, which is what I assume the problem is - everybody else can already be dealt with through current policies. South Nashua (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Many pages (not just articles, since we're talking general criteria here) written in violation of the TOU already fall under G11 or G12, and they may even fall under both. What isn't taken care of there can easily be handled by our various other deletion processes. If it's unpaid editing, chances are very high that it's not a notable topic. Even if it is a notable topic, chances are still very high that the page would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION (from G11), and so would still be deleted. If it is, by some miracle, salvageable, then WP:FIXIT. Even if, after you fix it, its history contains copyrighted content, simply use {{Copyvio-revdel}} (for non-admins) to request Rev-Del under WP:RD1 or Rev-Del it yourself (for admins). — Gestrid (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support The proposal is equivalent to "Should our Terms of Use" be enforced, and the prevailing answer appears to be "No, not really". Mind boggling. Rentier (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support (in the absence of a better alternative). ToU needs enforcing, the challenge is getting consensus on how, so hopefully those opposing can get behind something? Widefox; talk 18:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per arguments by TonyBallioni, Jytdog, Legacypac, BU Rob13 and others. CSD is already overly complicated, but if this would even slightly dissuade spammers, then I see it as a net positive.- MrX 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A7, G5 and G11 adequately cover this ground. I can't see why we would want to delete okay articles based solely on who the author is (especially when it can be sometimes difficult to know for certain whether the author was paid). If there are other, related instances they can be sent to AfD. If this means a significantly greater load at AfD which almost always results in consensus for deletion this can be reconsidered/proposed at a later date. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As many others already said, it should be about the content, insted of the author. But maybe making it easier to delete it the normal way, would be a solution. --Info-Screen::Talk 12:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. It's important to discourage people from using Wikipedia for advertising; given the impact of mirrors, search engines, and other things advertisers target by adding things here, this requires a way to get rid of advertising that violates foundation policies quickly. Allowing undisclosed paid editors to hold the hope that the adds they spam here could stick around long enough to generate profits will cause trouble for us down the road. Additionally, the foundation policy on paid advertising is extremely important to Wikipedia's reputation and function as an encyclopedia; it is absolutely our duty to enforce it and to try and minimize any circumventions of it. Even when the text itself is good (which I feel is rare), it's important to underline that undisclosed paid editing hurts Wikipedia as a whole and leads to major scandals that damage our entire reputation every time it comes to light. Occasionally sacrificing potentially-usable stubs is an entirely reasonable price to pay for preventing that (and is no different than what we do with banned editors; I see no difference between this and that.) Anyone above who argues that we should not delete articles purely because of their creator or purely to enforce some broader goal of protecting Wikipedia needs to take a look at G5, which does exactly that, and which has been an uncontroversial part of CSD for years. Some people above have expressed concerns about identifying paid editors; however, this is nonsensical, since the CSD would only apply in cases where it was clear. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support very strongly. Quality is now more important than quantity. It’s al very well to boast that we are getting on for 6 million articles, but already in my estimation anything up to 20% shouldn’t be here anyway. It’s gone beyond the point where we would ever be able to address even all the tagged BLPs. We won’t be able to discover all the paid-for articles either, but paid editing is growing exponentially, and the opposers here are possibly not aware that according to some claims there are even admins and New Page Reviewers taking on paid work.

This is not a solution looking for a problem. It’s defeatist to say that solutions are unworkable. it’s a very big problem that needs constant discussion and intelligent brainstorming until something is found that can be made to work. Too many people are opposing here who are not New Page Reviewers and have no idea of the magnitude of the spam, artspam, and devious articles that arrive here for which someone has obviously been paid and/or will increase their turnover as a result of their commercial exposure in Wikipedia. Never say we can’t delete per G14 without concrete proof - we delete per G5 all the time based on loud quacking. While a lot of it is very subtle and needs careful research, some paid editing is so blatantly obvious that if it weren't such a serious issue it would be a howling joke.

Wikipedia is organic and needs to adapt to new situations. Stifling progress by of rigidly adhering to every syllable of policy like a jurist's inflexible attention to every letter of the law will stifle our attempts to maintain a good reputation for the encyclopedia by changing our Wikilaws.

Wadsworth Jarrell is absolutely not the kind of article we're talking about, so we can do without red herrings and strawman arguments. As Beyond My Ken says, The "oppose" rationales are weak and unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support The problem to address here is the time sink of good volunteer labor into providing service to organizations which are vandalizing Wikipedia. If we feel strongly enough to block an account for bad behavior then we should not further invest volunteer attention in preserving the vandal activity. CSD is the right place to start, then undeletion and AfD can be next steps if anyone objects. When dealing with accounts which are deemed in violation of the terms of service we should default to permit anyone to delete their work. This is a big issue consuming 100s of hours of volunteer labor and harming the reputation of Wikipedia. While there are theoretical other solutions which others might develop in the future, this one is practical, easy to implement, works now, and seems likely to prevent 10 times more problems than it could cause. I hear lots of volunteers burdened with promotional editing. I am not sure that I have ever heard a sympathetic story of any editor who behaved in a way that got them blocked, and yet posted content which I thought was obviously worth keeping. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Here's why this policy is a bad idea. An editor who was later identified as part of a sockfarm created an article about someone named Bruce Flatt. Flatt is apparently a well known Canadian businessman and one of the richest people in Canada. There is an abundance of relaible third-party reportage about Flatt. The article Bruce Flatt was by deleted admin User:Kudpung under WP:G5, despite not having identified the article creator as a previously blocked or banned user. Now Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Flatt. Does this harm or help our readers? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That, World's Lamest Critic, is a bad faith vote in vengeance of the comments and concerns that have been raised and expressed over your own editing pattern here. Serious users such as Doc James have commented. 17:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If by "bad faith" you mean that we have different opinions, then yes, it is. If you mean I am opposing this because you support it, then I can assure you that you are wrong. Your deletion of Bruce Flatt is an excellent and timely example of what will happen if this proposal were adopted. I also believe it was an out of process deletion, but we agree to disagree on that. As for your comments about my editing, I'm not bothered so there's really nothing for me to avenge. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sticky PROD alternative

• How about a new "TOU sticky PROD" like we started for the BLP unsourced cleanup of a few years back? I hear not a whole lot of objection to leaving things around for a week, and we have time-based CSD-F? criteria that trigger after seven days. If we can get 1) eyes on the public process vs. having to ask for DRV 2) time for input, and 3) opportunities for objection or rescue if anyone really wants to. Ideally, this would still be reasonably expeditious, but available for more community review and input. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • BLPPROD has a (mostly) unambiguous and uncontentious path to removal: add a reliable source, and you can remove the template. When can a sticky-TOU prod be removed? When an editor in good standing says so - then when is a new editor's standing good enough? When an "unpaid" editor rewrites it, or says it's good enough - then how do you tell the difference between an include-all-subjects idealist and the 20,000-edit good-hand sockpuppet of the editor who created the article? —Cryptic 02:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Here's my first draft of how it would go:

      1) Any user in good standing (autoconfirmed) tags an article

      2) Article banner appears, category added, article added to list of tagged, etc. to notify community for one week of the issue.

      3) Any administrator can remove the tag at any time, either because the tagging was in error OR the article has been sufficiently cleaned up and neutral-ized, and such removal is logged in the file history and maybe somewhere else, too

      4) If no administrator has removed the tag after 168 hours, the article becomes deletion-eligible, and an admin can STILL review it and remove the tag... or delete it outright.

Note : The consensus is probably towards allowing Extended Confirmed users to remove the tag and therefore voters are requested not to hold this up in case administrator tag removal is what bothers you. And articles can only be tagged so if they were created and mostly edited by sockpuppet(s) who have been confirmed by checkuser evidence to have used multiple accounts or by editors who were explicitly blocked for paid editing. Jupitus Smart 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • So, yeah, still a rough draft/work in progress. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh, and nothing about this process would make an article immune to other CSD criteria (G5, G11, G12, etc.) or prevent it from being AfD'ed per normal process if it "fell out" of the process. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with autoconfirmed is that 7 days is more than the 4 days required to become an autoconfirmed user. So even if an editor decides to form an account after it is PRODed, he will be eligible to remove the tag, and many a times editors simply don't care enough to take it to AfD, ultimately defeating the cause. Jupitus Smart 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens' proposal above is to have autoconfirmed+ able to tag, but only admin+ to untag. —Cryptic 03:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am really sorry as it probably skipped my eyes. That is an even better proposal than mine. Jupitus Smart 03:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am all for any proposal that does not entail going to AfD. AfD is a strenuous process, and if you go through some of the upwork jobs, there are companies willing to pay you to vote keep. It becomes harsh on the nominator who files the AfD's when well healed socks pile on logical votes, and you have to take the pains to research on all of them before refuting them. I am not sure why the 7 day period is an issue. Remaining for 7 days was not the issue when I created this CSD criteria, it was the surety (or the lack of it) of deletion. The 7 day period is okay with me if socks are not allowed to remove the tag. 20K edit sockpuppets are few, so we may set an arbitrary barrier equivalent to an Extended Confirmed user. All the well meaning people who would want to preserve well written articles (and have written such articles themselves) will fall under this. Jupitus Smart 03:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • On a related note, I was looking at all the creations of the sock I mentioned above. One of his socks have made large edits to Sunny Li. This was created by another sockpuppet editor (probably not related to him), and the only other major contributor is an IP. This is technically not eligible for G5 and I am not knowledgeable enough about Chinese pianists and would not want to take it to AfD where somebody might say that she satisfies WP:NPIANO and therefore this should be kept. Jupitus Smart 03:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is another example of what I want to avoid - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Mooradian. This was created by one of the socks of this guy, and the AfD ended up getting support votes from 2 editors in standing. The amount of man hours wasted by the editors who inadvertently voted keep assuming good faith and those by the ones who voted delete is simply not worth the effort according to me. Jupitus Smart 04:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Less few than you might think. We've banned admins for paid editing, more for generalized sockpuppetry, and 100k-edit users for (unspecified) TOU violations. The 500 edits it takes to get extendedconfirmed on a primary account isn't just too flimsy a barrier for a minimally-savvy paid editor; it's no barrier at all. —Cryptic 04:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I would wholeheartedly support a move that would allow only admins to DePROD. I would not want to be pessimistic already, so let me hope that there would be a consensus towards it. Jupitus Smart 04:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • A PROD that can only be removed by admins is a huge step above CSD in terms of the power of the deletion tag (a CSD may be removed by any uninvolved editor) and, as the first process in which uninvolved editors could not participate, would be an unprecedented change in Wikipedia deletion processes. A2soup (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Oh, but they could. They can edit the article during the tagged week, argue for or against deletion on... well, the talk page, I guess. The entire point is to make it public and participatory, even if it is to be administrator-closed when all is said and done. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Can Extended Confirmed be agreed as the middle ground @A2soup: and @Jclemens:. Bad EC users are expected to be few, and can be monitored for suspicious de-taggings (and/or Sockpuppetry). Jupitus Smart 05:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
            • I'd also support EC over admin being able to remove. An admin-only process invites this to be turned into a battleground between admins who have different views on what our inclusion standards should be for paid editing. Allowing more users to participate in the detagging I think would actually make it more likely for the bad content to be removed and would decrease the pressure on an admin as the final call because they would know that other users have had the practical chance to remove it as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
            • I went with admin on purpose. I don't expect it to be a tug-of-war, because I expected that once a TOU-sticky-prod was removed, the full AfD process would be invoked by anyone. I also expect admins to not do stupid things like mass-remove everything because "freedom!" or something like that: I have no such hope no EC user would do such a thing. The community can take my proposal any which way it wants--like everything else on Wikipedia, all I 'own' are my own contributions. I don't want it to be EASY to undo a good-faith TOU tagging; I want it to be hard, but transparent and with some time to fix problems that a speedy process doesn't allow. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
              • You don't do you? I wouldn't quite mass-remove such prods, but I would expect to patrol the list regularly, and probably remove a good many, if this were to be enacted. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  I find User:Jupitus Smart's argument, wanting to avoid AfD because in the past it has been strenuous to convince others, highly unsatisfactory.
  In that AfD cited, User:Carrite, a respectable Wikipedian was unpersuaded by User:Bearcat's nomination and !voted "Keep". In the name of "consensus decision making", that demands more discussion demanding more mutual education by editors through that discussion. PROD and CSD are for objective things for which there is no point in discussion. If respectable Wikipedians can disagree, a discussion is necessary. If the discussion draws out sockpuppets and meatpuppets and members of rings of undisclosed paid editors, that is a good thing. It sounds like an essay on the merits of deleting undisclosed paid editor product is required, not an authority-heavy non-consensus deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  I edit conflicted with SmokeyJoe in replying to Jclemens. SmokeyJoe's comment solidified the belief I was going to post: the problem stems from WP:DEL15: violations of the terms of use being a redlink. It is not seen by some as a valid deletion rationale, even if it is legally a prerequisite before we even get to local policy on en.wiki. If we could get that added, I think it would make the conversations on the technical means to enforce the terms of use much easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The alternative of a PROD was suggested because it allows editors who disagree and who are in standing to remove the tag. The arguments for Keep were made by Carrite in good faith, and did not have much substance which was the reason why the article was ultimately deleted. The watered down proposal is in itself better than the current scenario, because it makes the drama at AfD required for only strictly essential cases. So even though I would not AfD Sunny Li (or other such articles) because I don't want to waste my time arguing in a field where I am not knowledgeable about the different WP:NWHATEVER, I can always do the new PROD, and wait for Carrite or other such good users to remove the tag with a valid reason. This gives me an idea about the suitability of taking it to AfD if I still disagree, which would not be available if a new user removes the PROD tag without any explanation (and since PRODs can only be done once, I am realistically left with only AfD). Jupitus Smart 06:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I hope something can be done about ToU violations so would prefer not to be raising difficulties. I'm unhappy at the idea that a ToU tag could be placed so easily (autoconfirmed+). WP:G4 tags are frequently placed with no evidence and such tagging seems not to be deprecated.[1] Placing such a tag should be regarded as disruptive unless there is some adequate basis. For example, shills of the firm's/person's opponents shouldn't get an easy ride. Thincat (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • From what I understand, the PROD follows the criteria for nomination, as the CSD above. It is possible only when the creator of the article is blocked for confirmed sockpuppetry/paid editing, which would mean that frivolous nominations would not be possible. Jupitus Smart 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, I hadn't understood then. If the criterion is definite then my objection doesn't apply. Thank you. Thincat (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Jupitus Smart, Exactly who confirms that "paid editing" has taken place? In any case i do not trust our current SPI system to identify sockpuppets with a reasonable level of assurance, unless by "confirmed" you mean "confirmed by checkuser evidence" and if you do the proposal should say that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes that is exactly what I intended @DESiegel: as can be gauged from the example of KuwarOnline that I presented. But I suppose its better to be more technically correct and I will append your words as is. Jupitus Smart 16:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support User:Jclemens suggestion. Would also be good to get the notice of concerns fully visible on mobile. But that will likely require a different process. Admin involvement is key to prevent interference from further socks such as we so often see at AfD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens but with conditions. A guideline is drawn up explaining how the tag can placed legitimately (autoconfirmed user, creator blocked for paid editing, article still "spam") explaining misuse is disruptive. Also, the deleting admin must look at state of article, talk page and history (in case no admin has previously done so), i.e. no speedy deletion of articles with unremoved tags. Question: what procedure for undeletion: WP:DRV or WP:REFUND? Thincat (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - So in the Jclemens proposal (and per their clarifications in the above discussion), the article is tagged by anyone, editors argue for and against deletion on the talk page for a week, the article may be improved/fixed during this week, and then an administrator makes an assessment and close at the end. Pardon me if I'm being dense, but that's just a poorly-organized AfD, no? Just send the article to AfD and the process is literally identical. Am I missing something? A2soup (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • AfD defaults to keep and involves other sorts of arguments (notability, etc.) while what I'm proposing has some of the safeguards, but defaults to delete unless rationale is demonstrably false OR the article is rewritten, possibly as much by "from scratch" in the interim. I admit it's not hugely far, but AfD looks at different things and considers different possibilities rather than "Is this COI article rewritable, or shall we just nuke it?" Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • AfD does look at different things, but isn't "Is this COI article rewritable, or shall we just nuke it?" definitely within the current scope of AfD? I'm far from a regular there, but I feel like there are often discussions along those very lines. And if the article isn't notable, might as well figure that out at the same time you hash out the COI issues. No sense having a weeklong discussion about an article and keeping it at the end if it isn't notable. A2soup (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • PROD's generally do not involve any discussion. We PROD, and if it is notable somebody improves it, and an EC user or the reviewing admin who evaluates it at the end of 7 days removes the tag, if they feel notability has been achieved. This defaults to keep as well, but removes the need for unnecessary long drawn out discussions at AfD. In the end the encyclopedia probably gains, as the editors can use the time wasted at AfD improving articles.Jupitus Smart 15:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My experience with AFD for COI or promotion issues can, almost without exception, be summarized as "keep, has sources, afd is not cleanup". Once in a great while, an article can be deleted on WP:TNT grounds there, but there's a better-than-even chance that when the beyond-any-sane-doubt paid editor recreates it verbatim, it'll get kept the second time. I'll call out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow (2nd nomination) as a particularly blatant example. G11 is the only tool we have of any efficacy at all. —Cryptic 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • That is because, under current policy, COI is not a reason to delete, and promotion is not a reason either if the article has been edited to be neutral in content, is supported by reliable sources, and the topic is notable. This was a good keep.This proposal would change those policies, i suppose (which may mean that discussion here would only be a first step. However, i have seen quite a few articles brought to AfD largely for COI/Promotion deleted on the grounds of notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Ruth (singer) was a recent case in point. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As is so often the case the account fighting for keep turns out to be a sock[2]. This is not so much about is COI a reason for deletion but should content that is promotional and created by an army of socks be deleted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Promotional content can be removed from articles now, and it is all the time, by normal editing. Wholly promotional articles that cannot be cured by copy editing can be and often are deleted under CSD G11, in both cases with no regard to who created or edited the article. So far as I can see the only effect of this proposal would be to authorize the deletion of valid, neutral articles because of who created them. (If they aren't valid neutral articles, they can be deleted without this proposal). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Before we go any further, would you agree that the same thing is valid for G5 as well @DESiegel: (that it also involves deletion based on who created it instead of the content). And if the answer is Yes, should we abolish that as well. Jupitus Smart 16:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes it does, Jupitus Smart, and if you look up to the G5 section on this very page, you will find me arguing to abolish G5 on exactly those grounds. I am consistent. As it stands, G5 has consensus, but I will never delete anything so tagged. I won't remove such tags, but i don't choose to act on them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Then we should agree to disagree. G5 has its share of proponents and I am one of the editors treading the fine line between WP:PRESERVE and G5. It means that I would tag for G5 only if I personally feel that the article was made in bad faith and we can do without the article (This is just my personal opinion). This is the reason why I have been flexible enough to write into the draft, most of the fail safe mechanisms that were presented above to prevent abuse. Best. Jupitus Smart 18:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support despite what has been argued above, promotion is a actually a reason to delete under current policy beyond just G11, as WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and WP:DEL14 make clear and this can be argued in an AfD even if G11 has been declined or as is more often the case, the nom feels it isn't overtly G11. Some closers don't like the argument, others do, but pretending that it isn't a valid reading of policy isn't helpful to the conversation. Violations of the TOU are almost always promotional in intent and as has been mentioned above, since we aren't a startup anymore, simply having a listing here can be promotion. Creating a sticky PROD for undeclared paid editing makes sense from local policy as it stands now, and terms of use are above any local policy anyway barring consensus to explicitly make an exception to this, which does not exist. Support this as a compromise between AfD and CSD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I sad that promotion is not a reason either if the article has been edited to be neutral in content, is supported by reliable sources, and the topic is notable. I don't think any of the policies you mention authorizes deletion when the article has been edited to be neutral. If one does, please quote the wording. Promotion can be a reason to delete beyond G11, but not beyond editing for a factual, neutral article, even if its existence has some promotional effect. Otherwise we would need to delete all articles on fortune-500 companies. They all have some promotional effect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The proposed draft addresses that, in it allows the PROD to be rejected if it is edited to become neutral (albeit the removal can only be done by an EC user). The only realistic goal of the draft PROD now is to reduce the number of AfDs besides provide an avenue for deleting many promotional articles created by blocked users. If these articles can be improved after tagging it is ultimately the encyclopedia that wins, otherwise they end up deleted. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. [...] Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. per WP:NOT, which is listed as a reason for deletion at WP:DEL14 and WP:N. We aren't talking about Fortune 500s here. We're talking about startups and local restaurants where Wikipedia would be more high profile coverage than anything they had every received before. If an editor feels that there are enough factors on another side that might warrant keeping, they can remove the PROD and an AfD will happen to resolve the tension in our policies and find consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The proposed deletion template is useful, but too easy to remove. One approach would be to have a template which proposed deletion, and a 'bot which, when it detected deletion of a PROD template, would check who deleted it. If it was the article creator, a new editor, or an editor with an SPA editing pattern, it would automatically start an AfD and send out the appropriate notifications. John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • My original proposal had an admin-only removal clause, but adding something like this with appropriate automated support would clearly serve a similar purpose. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Traits of any solution.

Here's some things I think I want to see in any solution:

• Public I don't like insta-speedy because it could be more abusable than an open process. Public has the benefit of also providing negative reinforcement to correctly identified TOU violations, but also has the possibility of improper visibility to falsely named articles and their subjects, which leads to...
• Thresholded (was that a word before? It is now) that is to say that we don't accept nominations/accusations from new accounts or IPs, because it's a serious allegation and we don't want people using this when G11 is really what they should be using. Likewise, I propose a high threshold for clearing an accused article for continued existence, thus...
• Inevitable while not automatic, I want things that really are TOU violations to be deleted unless there's a clear indication (not necessarily 'consensus', but admin judgment) that the article should stay.

If what I've proposed above doesn't meet these goals ideally, or if there are other goals you want to see added or substituted, by all means, let's improve the ideas... Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• • "TOU violations to be deleted ... not necessarily 'consensus', but admin judgment". This sounds very much like "admins know best, let admins make the decisions". It implies acknowledgement that the community is not behind "TOU violations to be deleted", and so the community is to be removed from the decision making process. No. Admins do not get this power. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The old "let the community decide" mentality worked when Wikipedia (and even the internet) was new. But it is a failed ideology now that these things are ingrained in society. WP needs a hierarchy. The community, when it grows to this size, does not know best. Kellymoat (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The internet was not new when Wikipedia was born. And Wikipedia was larger, in terms of the number of active editors, 5 years ago. Any such hierarchy is in violation of fundamental policy here. It would require Foundation approval, and if approved, would doom the project by driving away the second-class editors (as designated by such a change), who do the vast majority of the work. Indeed IP editors make a substantial part o the productive edits in article space. Indeed to enact such a rule would IMO violate the current policy WP:ADMIN which says: Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be. Simply not acceptable. A threshold of ECU might possibly be acceptable, although i still oppose the whole idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, no more than administrators are needed to delete any other process, be it XfD, PROD, or CSD. The idea is to have more public input than CSD, but not as ambiguous an outcome as XfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• XfD is about consensus decision making, and is the process required of there is a history of disagreement. PROD is deliberately very soft, anyone can remove the PROD for any reason or no reason, meaning and XfD is required. BLPPROD, OK, adding a single reference is a pretty low requirement, nowhere near as complicated as paid articles that are more likely to be reference bombed. Admins are not supposed to be there to make executive decisions. The way to do this, I think, is on every TOU block, to initiate a group listing AfD on every article created by that account. Then see how community consensus develops. Isolated AfDs are too isolated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support We have to enforce the terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

jcc - I see your 'support' at the top section and at the PROD alternative so is there a preference or just a desire for something and either will do or what  ? Markbassett (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I would prefer the top proposal, but yes, I think something should be done so I'm happy if either of proposals get enacted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• So there are a class of articles (created with a COI) that do NOT get regularly deleted at AfD and thus we are discussing if they should be speedied or PRODed? Shouldn't it be the other way around? We should Speedy/PROD something that is a obvios AfD deletion? (I admit I only read here and there, the discussion is already long, so if I missed some explanation on that please just point that'away) - Nabla (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nabla: I am not sure I comprehended the question correctly, but I will attempt an answer on what I understood. The question probably is should the article revert to Keep in an AfD, can it be allowed to be PRODed/CSDed. The existing rules should probably apply in this case. In case of a PROD, as with all PRODs, once an AfD has been done, the new PROD should not be applicable. In case of a CSD, there are no restrictions, and recently I saw an AfD which was about to be closed as Keep, but just before that it was identified as G5 material and deleted (it was probably re-created by an admin later). The other aspect of how your question can be construed is probably what was really asked - should we delete as a PROD/CSD if it is bound to pass AfD. As with the example I mentioned, even if an article reverts to keep, we would not hesitate to delete it as G5 (even though the said article was re-created, it was probably because it was about something very obviously notable like a Congressional district - I don't seem to remember who the involved admin was else I would have presented the link). The same should apply here probably. Best. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart:, I think I understood your point. It does not mean that I agree (or not), but at least it now makes sense to me, Thank you! Iy would be interesting to know if the equivalent of G5 was already commonly deleted at AfD, before the creation of that speedy deletion criterion. But I admit I will not take the trouble to find it out, so I am _not_ asking anyone to do it either. - Nabla (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support in general, the broad idea of a modified PROD. It seems to me that more discussion will be needed to flesh out the details, so I'm supporting the general idea, rather than any specific proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose What I'm seeing is that a TOU violation gets to stay on Wikipedia for a week. While, yes, it could possibly be edited and changed to fall within the TOU, it still essentially gets to stay on Wikipedia for a week, during which time the page, for starters, could be archived by the Internet Archive or Archive.is or something like that. In my time of editing here, I haven't yet seen someone create an make an undisclosed paid contribution that wasn't obvious advertising, which falls under WP:G11 (and, depending on the content, WP:G12). If someone did make one without advertising, how would they get caught so we could even apply the template? Even if they were a sockpuppet, that would fall under WP:G5 as a creation by a banned or blocked user. Many of the things I put up in my oppose to the first proposal apply here as well, so forgive me if I left out a couple things here. — Gestrid (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Staying for 7 days is better than staying forever. Though a great many articles will fall under G11/12/5, with experience many paid editors have become better at their trade and their articles would not fall under any of the above criteria. Many examples of such cases have been presented above and you could read through to note them. The most recent case I encountered is Kirk B. Jensen, which had its G5 rejected because it was formed as a result of a draft histmerge (the main author was a G5 eligible sockpuppet, but since a one edit user removed the spam and created this, G5 was disallowed). I am not seeing G11 or G12 as well. Maybe it will be deleted in AfD, but I am not sure about the criteria I should provide, so in effect the article stays because I know my deletion rationale might be countered with a WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, both of which fall in areas where I am not really sure about how the criteria are usually applied. That's one of the reasons why the new criteria might be required. Jupitus Smart 08:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Another example of an amusing G5 rejection. Gestrid, you said "What I'm seeing is that a TOU violation gets to stay on Wikipedia for a week." Articles eligible for speedy deletion would still be eligible. The proposal is to merely supplement the existing tools by making the remaining articles (which usually violate the core policies in subtle ways) deleted by default after 7 days unless someone takes the responsibility for removing the PROD. It's a small step, but a step in the right direction. Rentier (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Rentier That article also contained outing. The person's birthdate was published without a reliable source. Have removed this from Jaimie Hilfiger but likely needs oversight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the specific proposal, Draftify (or AfC) is better (and can Salt if admin only lockout needed) would be a better method without inventing new PROD : the criteria for removing the stickyPROD is? The reasoning for keeping such content created in violation of ToU in articlespace for an extra week is? My new analysis at WP:BOGOF is that we want to put the burden back on the paid editors (to do the work, and disclose etc) and the crucial aspect is it has to be easy for editors, not a burden to admins (or fall foul of a lack of consensus across inclusionist-deletionist admin spectrum) to move the content out of articlespace immediately, and then can deliberate on the fate? Gestrid is right. Widefox; talk 18:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support in clear-cut cases especially when there is considerably outweighing advertising or when it would clearly be for the encyclopedia's benefit. Our deletions policies are clear about this so this would be adding on it; Our pillars themselves make clear we will not accept webhosted advertising. I would support the exception of Drafting improvable contents. I certainly wouldn't support moving all of then in Draftspace in lieu of deletion since that would be aiding their policy violations. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not a responsibility of our administrators to enforce TOU. It is a responsibility of WMF which has its own staff. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, as nice as it would be to have the WMF devote paid staff time to things like their legal obligation to not host copyrighted content, that isn't the case. Copyvio is first and foremost a legal issue/TOU issue. We have empowered our volunteer administrators to do this task via local policy. Saying that something is the job of the WMF does not preclude our enforcing something locally. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It is absolutely and unquestionably the responsibility of our administrators to enforce the TOU when (as in this case) violations potentially endanger the reputation and value of Wikipedia as a whole. However, I strongly prefer a more broadly-worded "burn it with fire without even looking at it" approach to all contributions from undisclosed paid editors. Undisclosed paid editors are a threat to the entire project; every edit they make, without exception, hurts and endangers the project as a whole and should be instantly excised without regard for content on discovery. The slim benefits of allowing some edits to remain do not come anywhere close to the serious threat to the project as a whole that every single paid edit, without exception, is inevitably a part of. This suggestion would fall short of that and is therefore insufficient, but it would be at least a step in the right direction. --Aquillion (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why can IPs nominate a CSD?

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm still asking. Earlier I ran across a CSD nomination for Nina Godiwalla that been nominated by an IP. I and another editor saved it by just cleaning up the sourcing. It did have source problems, but the article was pretty much already written and not anywhere near candidacy for CSD. I'd like to think if I didn't catch this, whichever admin did see it would know it wasn't CSD fodder. Why can IPs make nominations? What an opportunity for vandalism. CSD nominations really should be restricted to auto confirmed and above. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Any editor can apply a CSD tag when patrolling new pages including IPs but not existing articles. Sometimes it can be abused or used for vandalism. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 01:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a horrible idea, and one I'd probably support if we could find a good low-cost method to enforce it via edit filter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some legit CSD requests added by IPs. That's why they are still allowed. A single instance of mistagging is not a good rationale for disallowing these, among other things because a single legit tagging will invalidate the whole argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just not big enough of a problem, and the reviewing admin is (we hope) intelligent enough to tell if it's a legitimate CSD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Jo-Jo Eumerus): I don't think there is a need to filter out IPs from tagging articles for speedy deletion according WP:CSD criteria. There are editors that contribute on maintenance tasks but choose not to register an account. I see that most vandalism is usually quick and easy, so in this case the solution might be worst than the problem. If the filter was implemented nothing would prevent that determined IP from registering an account and tagging it unless auto-confirmed status would also become a requirement. I would personally leave it as it is now. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Er ... your point is well taken. As much as I would prefer the holes in the system be filled to prevent a recurrence, I've had personal experience with a determined blocked sock master who did exactly what you say. He had been vandalizing as numerous IPs, and attacking editors on a talk page. When the talk page was protected, he simply created an account, and made enough minor edits elsewhere to achieve confirmed status, with the sole purpose of returning to attack on the talk page. We got him in the long haul. But it's a possibility out there. — Maile (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The tagging user doesn't decide the page should be deleted; the handling admin does. An anon who tags a page correctly has merely attracted the admin's attention to the page - to do an action (s)he would have been authorized to do even without the tagging. An anon who mistags a page has done an action which is no worse than a registered user mistagging a page. Unless you can show that anons have a much higher false-positive rate than registered users, or even than extended-confirmed users, there is no reason to even start discussing this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts

Note Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Blatant disregard for the RfC, encouragement of that disregard, and overwhelming of MfD by worthless harmless drafts, and for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Montenegro-United Kingdom relations. Legacypac is proving that there is near endless crap and mess abandoned in DraftSpace. Unowned (no user caring for it), content-forked attribution-compliance-menacing scrambled mess. There are few OK stubby things amongst them. The stuff should be deleted for some many reasons, and page-by-page MfDing them is unworkable and trying is disrupting MfD.

Things in draftspace that are not drafts should be removed to elsewhere. Users' notes should be moved to userspace. Article sandboxes deleted per the same rationale written at WP:UP#COPIES, there are good short term but long term they are attribution hazards. Generally useful stuff, but not article drafting, move to ProjectSpace, and the few long term good drafts, probably a WikiProject in the several instances where this applies.

There are other ideas for this old crap. DraftPROD. DraftPROD will be pseudo-speedy deletion. AfC-managed autodeletion. Yes, AfC reviewers need to be able to delete completely hopeless things and tendentiously resubmitted stuff, but they do not go backwards for years old abandoned crap.

Everything in DraftSpace untouched for 6 months should be speediable under G13. Everything that would be hit by that and shouldn't be deleted should not be in DraftSpace. Bot edits and minor edits, and tagging "worthless" should not necessarily delay G13, but it really doesn't matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per the spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Admins handling deletions can and should salvage good content, but there's loads of crap drafts (and plenty of seriously problematic content among them). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support but would increase time to two years, that would provide a more than reasonable safety period to help prevent any useful content from getting and still address the bulk of the problem. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support CHANGE TO: Conditional support SEE ADDENDUM - CSD G13 falls short in requiring drafts to use the {{AFC submission}} template to be eligible; all drafts should be equally eligible.--John Cline (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Addendum - upon considering the merits of those opposing this measure, and those who reserve their support, I have come to agree that draft deletions are more than perfunctory clean-up measures. And that time-based criteria, alone, are needlessly blind and recklessly impartial. More is needed here than an hourglass provides and haste, in these deletions, is clearly contentious. Interim steps appear needed, such as "DraftPROD" and perhaps, time spent categorized as "usurpable". Seeing that the {{AFC submission}} clause was deliberately carved, it occurs to me that a proposal bearing on it ought also address the prevailing concerns that brought it about. This proposal is remiss in that regard.--John Cline (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - provided fair warning is given to any interested parties. Anything deleted can be restored on request per WP:REFUND. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Or the deletion postponed per the current AFC G13 deletion postponement process, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  But that implies having someone watching it at the very precise moment where someone decides to speedely delete the draft. If no one is looking and it gets deleted, the chances that someone will later discover it and ask for a refund are close to zero; "out of sight, out of mind". The collaborative process needs that the content is left around in plain sight for someone to stumble upon it and decide to adopt it and make it better; getting rid of it prevents the whole process. And it is not reasonable requiring the editor that finds about a deleted draft to ask for a REFUND; since the talk page and history are also made inaccessible upon deletion, there's no way to assess whether it's worth to start the non-instantaneous and non-automatic bureaucratic process, bothering some fellow administrator, maybe only to discover whether or not there was something there that was worth the bother. Diego (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - 6 months is long enough to improve anything that is likely to be improved. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  I have had Draft:FuturLab on my to-do list for some time—in fact, more than 6 months since I last touched it. The time period is mostly-irrelevant for long-term, in-good-faith, Wikipedia editors, since we can always extend the lifetime of a draft. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support 6 months matches the Stale Draft report generated weekly amd G13 should cover all drafts. . There are over 6,000 such drafts ranging from simply blank to hoaxes, attack pages, profiles of completely non-notable people and other nonsense. Anything actually useful will je G13 postponed or promoted (yes occasionally fully formed articles are found abandoned in Draft space, but without reviewing the abandoned stuff and deleting the garbage we will never find the useful pages. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Broadly support making G13 apply to all draft-space content. I don't think I agree that WikiProjects should assume "long term good drafts" and I explicitly disagree with Smokey's assertion that "shouldn't be deleted should not be in draft space"—some draft-space content is worth leaving for work-to-be-done. I do agree with Ritchie's caveat. --Izno (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  Also, regarding notability (which apparently started this discussion to some degree at the 'blatant disregard' thread), I had this to say to the now-banned now-ex-administrator working on drafts. I am unsure if it is a point that has been made previously.... --Izno (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• support since there is a notable amount of abandoned drafts. The lack of AFC template does not make them any better. However it wouldn't be bad to notify involved parties and/or corresponding wikiprojects before applying it. --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Draftspace needs tidying and that task should take up a minimal amount of volunteer time. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• support - I see no particular reason why G13 should only apply to drafts with an AfC template on them. In fact it seems to me to have been simply an oversight that that was not part of the original RfC for G13. Bot and minor edits should not restart the clock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support draft space isn't really my thing and I don't see too much harm with stuff staying there, but we are not a webhosting service, and it also makes next to no sense to delete things with an AfC tag, but not one without it. Per Kudpung, I'd also like someone to close the conversation on the top of this page as to how to deal with bot edits and G13. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support subject to all the same rules as already apply to the tagged drafts, incuding {{AfC postpone G13}} and WP:REFUND. An untagged draft is no better than a tagged one, there is no reason to delete the latter and not the former. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Good proposal to clean up some of the junk we've built up.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support provided there is a mechanism for editors to exempt particular drafts from G13. (Note that about 1,900 articles are about to be put into draft space that were created by the Content translation tool, some of which may have been improved or overwritten since then). If this proposal is implemented there will be a need to reinstate automated daily processes first to warn the creator, then to list the articles due for deletion: Noyster (talk), 18:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Noyster: The mechanism is really just "make an edit". We have {{AfC postpone G13}} as a null template to allow editors to postpone G13 and keep track of how many postpones have been made. Anyone can use it. (As for the bot notifications, that's currently not required of G13 but may not be a bad idea. Worst case they go to REFUND.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support with bells on. This will solve both the overflow of drafts at MfD and the massive piles of cruft dumped into draftspace and abandoned. Kudos to SmokeyJoe for having the balls to propose this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support clearly as this is something that I had not only used IAR in that past, but I had also proposed here long ago but nothing surfaced from it. General G6 cleaning basically. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No no this is a terrible idea. Age should not be used as a synonym for low-quality. What is needed is a better deletion mechanism not the expansion of the not-so-good mechanism. The result of this proposal would be that the good drafts will be moved to the user pages for the fear of the deletion. Perversely, the remaining drafts will be of lesser quality and would bolster the argument that the draft namespace attracts only wrong-kind of drafts (since good productive editors will not be attracted to the draft namespace.) -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Change to Support: SmokeyJoe makes a good argument: the status quo is not good, which I agree and making a change is better doing nothing. But, for the record, I still think this is not a good idea, if not terriblest (English word?) idea. -- Taku (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose An arbitrary time limit works no benefit to the project. But if this does pass, i will stop advising people to start by creating drafts in draft space, and instead advise that all drafts be created in user space. I will also stop draftifing marginal articles, moving them instead to user space. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Taku and DES, these drafts are already being mass pseudo-speedy deleted at MfD. Their deletions are frequent and apparently uncontestable (ubncontestable not counting procedural objections). If you disagree with their rapid barely-reviewed no-discussion deletions, you should speak up at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Blatant_disregard_for_the_RfC.2C_encouragement_of_that_disregard.2C_and_overwhelming_of_MfD_by_worthless_harmless_drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If this is enacted to consensus, I propose that: All pages in draft space that are are at least 3 months old that do not have any form of AFC submission banner on them have the AFC banner placed on them so that they can be enrolled in the AFC tracking categories based on their creation date. WIth that I will reset the HasteurBot G13 reminder process and CSD nominations at 5 months reminder and 6 months CSD nomination. This is 100% unedited because I prefer to take the more conservative view that unedited really means unedited and I'd rather not have to sort through all the exceptions as to bots and real changes. I chose the conservative view so that I'm not exceeding the mandate of the community. Hasteur (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: I'd actually recommend a very different route. Rather than trying to template and mass-delete these, I think it should just be a criterion editors can choose to nominate under. Each page should be considered on its merits for speedy deletion with editors/admins considering postponing or expanding. That is the point of draft space, after all. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I recommend instead that we ask AfC reviewers to begin reviewing old untagged drafts, and decide on their own judgement whether to add the AfC tag, move out of draft space, or tag immediately with G13. There is no need for multiple handling of the vast majority of abandoned hopeless worthless stuff. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13:@SmokeyJoe: We can slap on {{AFC submission/draft}} which helps get them in the Year/month/day tracking categories that I use to help drive the bot. Hasteur (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Sure, but there should be no compulsion to tag obviously inappropriate drafts with that tag. If they are old, abandoned, worthless, no hope, let that tagger in their judgement tag them G13 immediately. Reviewing the old stuff once is enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The cutout of CSD:G13 that excludes not AFC draftspace pages was intentional for the above noted reasons Personally I think think that we should nominate, but it takes some significant abuses of the good will to make the effort. Hasteur (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Junk is junk, regardless of whether it has an AFC tag on it. MER-C 02:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Do you want to kill Wikipedia? 'Cause this is how you kill Wikipedia. The continued gentrification of mainspace--where ugly content isn't allowed and WP:DEADLINE is ignored--is bad enough, but now there appears to be a large number of editors who don't care to preserve any refuge for stuff that sucks, who don't care to allow people to write lousy articles in hopes that someday they will be worthy. Every edit you delete is an insult to the editor who volunteered his or her time to contribute it. Some of them need it because the edits are actively harmful, but those are all covered by G5, G10, G11, and/or G12. The entire idea of blanket or time-based deletion of content that is 1) not presented to the public, and 2) is available for people to work on and improve is wrongheaded and against the spirit of collaboration that draws editors in. Actions like this drive out hobbyist editors, and play to editors who thrive by picking apart and rejecting others' contributions, rather than encouraging them. WP:NOTWEBHOST is entirely about stuff that was never intended to be part of the encyclopedia, not legitimate contributions that simply suck. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Jclemens, I largely agree, but not completely. This is not killing Wikipedia. AfC is killing Wikipedia. WP:ACTRIAL is underway, it may be a move to fixing, and at least it will tell us something. DraftSpace is killing Wikipedia, not because of gentrification, I think you mean to say Extememe Immediatism. Newcomers are sent to draftspace where they will not meet other editors, and they will be ignored. The notion that drafts can sit in draftspace forever is killing Wikipedia. Newcomers with not topics should introduce coverage of the new topics into existing mainspace page before writing a standalone (orphan) page. Anyway, they are the small minority, most of the drafts are not realistic drafts. Allowing G13 on all the old stuff at least gives Legacypac an incentive to continue reviewing the old drafts and bringing to light the few worth attention.
    Also, as I said to Taku and Des, these deletions are happening already. Collectively they are SNOW deleted, and this is a more efficient method, and one that lays more responsibility on the nominator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Worth noting also that these drafts aren't works-in-progress. By the six month mark, they're works-in-trash-bin. They've been abandoned. That's kind of the point. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

      I could enumerate several things that would kill Wikipedia (out of date user interface, steep learning curve, uncompetitive usability on mobile and tablet compared to Facebook / Twitter / Instagram etc, trigger-happy admins, a WMF software engineering department that seems to have difficulty shipping stuff people want and works and has been adequately tested, a leader who is as out of touch with the day-to-day runnings of Wikipedia as Jacob Rees-Mogg is to the job centre, etc etc etc) but the deletion of non-AfC drafts after 6 months is not one of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose with caveats. I previously supported such proposals for the reason that undeletion is always possible. However, Jclemens' argument holds considerable weight. I do agree there are a number of drafts that are hopelessly unsuited and fall under WP:NOTWEBHOST or similar policies but then a extension of U5 would be better than this proposal.
  Drafts are currently linked to from the main space if an article does not yet exist, allowing all editors to find potentially useful drafts to expand and send to mainspace. We should not get rid of this potential to increase both the project and our editor base.
  The question should be: Is there any need to remove stale drafts that do not violate any policy (including attribution!)? I don't see any real reason mentioned so far and if there is not, the mere chance that someone after more than six months finds the draft and improves them is sufficient reason to keep all of them. Again, I'm happy to support deletion of drafts that are clear violations of policy, including content-forks and drafts that are someone using Wikipedia as their webhost, but I oppose blanket deletion of all drafts because there is nothing we can gain from removing non-policy violating, potentially viable drafts.
  Also, currently some editors seem to use draftifying - without consent - as a way to circumvent the deletion policy (see previous discussions here and here for example) and this proposal would basically open the door to speedy deletion of any article. If someone wished to do so, they could just move thousands of rarely-edited articles to draft space and after six months, they'd be gone. So even if this proposal passes, it should not apply to drafts that are the result of a move (except if draftifying was the consensus at AfD or requested by the creator). Regards SoWhy 12:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SoWhy, the Draft pages could be ignored, but many seem incapable of ignoring them. The need is to stop them coming all through MfD one by one. A U5 condition for the author to have made no mainspace edits? See WP:ACTRIAL for implementing that if the assumptions are right. Mass draftifications? Yes, it is a barn door loophole for backdoor deletion, and at WT:Drafts there have been strong statements against it at all, except for when it is a good idea. I think we have almost got good boundaries documented, see Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification. Most of your concerns are being addressed. The current abandoned junk though? Ignore, or MfD one by one, or speedy? They are currently being speedied via unparticipated MfDs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe: ACTRIAL will not have an impact on the ability to create drafts or AfC. It will likely reduce the need for draftification of articles such as Draft:Mohammadpur Khanquah, by preventing creation by non-autoconfirmed users, but half of the project is getting good faith users acquainted with en.Wiki and that includes sending those who want to immediately create an article AfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, not directly and immediately, but I for one anticipate that it will. A major premise of ACTRIAL is that people should experience content improvement in existing articles before writing new articles. If this premise is borne out, it should inform revision of the Article Wizard instructions. Currently, the Article Wizard paves a clear road for a newcomer to make their first edits by writing a new draft on a new topic. Many of the drafts to be deleted are first edits of newcomers, and worse, are last edits of those newcomers. I believe it likely that if autoconfirmation is required before writing either a new article or a new draft, there will be far less woefully unsuitable drafts dumped by drive-by editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment anything with half an ounce of possibility as a potential page is being postponed or put through AfC anyway. Occasionally abandoned Drafts get sent to mainspace. The VAST majority of non-AfC Draft space is link SPAM, hopeless garbage, blatent lies, and absolutely never gonna be a valid topic junk. This will really help useful pages be surfaced and improved. It ensures that all Draft pages get some experienced editor eyes at some point after they are created so we can dispense with problematic pages. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per my usual arguments against G13. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per arguments by BU Rob13, Kudpung, and others. Our purpose is to build a published encyclopedia, not to stockpile content that no one cares enough about to actually work on. Six months on the internet is a long time.- MrX 18:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• I continue to believe, for reasons similar to Jclemens, that any time-based deletion of drafts must be paired with analysis of their content - that is, they should also meet speedy deletion criteria of their target namespace, typically the A* series. An abandoned draft reading in full "[Name] (born [date], 1999) is a high school senior at a local Miami public school. She has been described overall as a stunning individual and has never failed to excel in everything she does." doesn't need an MFD; one starting "Captain Marvel is an upcoming American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character Carol Danvers." with 45 references and 2400 words of prose does, even if it goes unedited for six months and a day. And yes, there are users who would tag that, and admins who would delete it.
  That said, this proposal is still better than the status quo, where drafts like my first example are regularly speedied despite meeting no speedy deletion criterion, typically with a G2 or G6 or G13 deletion summary. I started to do an analysis of G2 deletions here; an unexpected drop in my free time has prevented me from following up on it. —Cryptic 19:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support equality for drafts irrespective of userspace {{AFC submission}} or draftspace. Widefox; talk 19:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The draft space is not a free repository where drafts can remain indefinitely, especially if they are about topics that are clearly non-notable, such as WP:MILL topics. If this were not true, then we risk the draft space becoming a place where anyone can write an article about a decidedly non-notable subject (i.e. something not meant to be included in the encyclopedia) and have it remain there forever – this is the fundamental violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST that we are trying to avoid. Previously such drafts were nominated to WP:MFD, but it's been pointed out that MFD is somewhat overwhelmed by these nominations. To avoid deletion, all it would take is one edit, one comment to say "hey, I'd still like to keep this". Or, if it has already been deleted, a note at WP:REFUND or to the deleting administrator. Mz7 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose without additional requirements. Most importantly, I don't believe we should consider drafts "abandoned" if the user is still actively editing but has some draft he/she hasn't touched in 6 months. If other editors feel it should still be deleted, that's a good case for MfD. There's a lot of crap indeed, and G13 should be broader (after checking a sample of the recent MfDs, it looks like 80% of them should've been speediable, but not 100%). But there's no requirement here that it be an inappropriate topic; there's no requirement here that the article be of poor quality; there's no requirement here that the editor be inactive; there's no requirement here for a waiting period to ask an active editor about it; there's no requirement here to make userfication an option... Obviously I wouldn't want all of these requirements, but as it stands it seems like this will allow for deletion based solely on time, with no other considerations required. Am I missing something? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  Just because the expansion would allow for deletion of more abandoned drafts doesn't mean that it insists upon deletion. Drafts that look half-decent - anyone can plop the postponement template on them to forestall deletion for another 6 months. Reviewers can use their judgement to ask still-active editors about their abandoned drafts, or even just drop the postponement template on them in the good-faith assumption that the author will be back. Setting a bright-line bar for inactivity is difficult, because how do you define it? A month? Three? Do you give additional leeway for editors with lots of edits but who haven't stopped in in awhile? Does a single edit in a year, not even to the draft in question, count as "activity" for this purpose?

  If you insist that a topic be "inappropriate", again you get the question of how to define that, which is something we've been struggling with at MfD. There are editors who will argue that anything with even a 5% chance of becoming notable is appropriate enough to keep forever in draftspace, and there are editors who will argue that anything without an 80% chance of being kept at AfD is inappropriate. It's going to be impossible to create a hard line that will satisfy everyone and still allow for things to be deleted.

  I believe userfication is always an option for drafts, and of course, WP:REFUNDS are cheap and easy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  doesn't mean that it insists upon deletion - If we say "after 6 months, drafts are speediable" it will become routine maintenance to delete drafts older than six months. And it will be interpreted by many different people who may or may not have the same perspective as you -- people who would be justified to delete regardless because we have no qualifiers in this text.

  Reviewers can use their judgement to ask still-active editors about their abandoned drafts, or even just drop the postponement template - Or they could not do that. If it's something that reviewers should be doing, that should be reflected in the proposed text.

  Setting a bright-line bar for inactivity is difficult, because how do you define it? - Arbitrary is fine by me. Why 6 months until deletion rather than 3 or 12 or 5.9? To me, the simplest way would be to say that a draft can be deleted if its major contributor(s) has/have been inactive for 6 months.

  If you insist that a topic be "inappropriate", again you get the question of how to define that - Fair. I suppose I mean no obvious problems with either GNG or NOT, but again, this is just one of many hypothetical qualifiers I threw out (not something I actually think should be imposed, necessarily). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose  The word "crap" is popular here, which shows thinking influenced by an excrement viewpoint.  Draft articles are work product, and reliably sourced statements are the building blocks of a reliable encyclopedia.  It is the deletion of reliably sourced statements which turns work product into waste product (excrement).  We are not here to create waste product.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  If only there were more than the very occasional reliably sourced statement in the pages that this covers. Sadly you have to wade through heaps of undeleted crap for such a gem. G13 facilitates the sorting. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  If it shouldn't apply to drafts with reliably sourced statements, that's relatively straightforward to include in the text of the criterion. Otherwise, presumably, it will also be used to delete those with very occasionally reliably sourced statements, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  That is a different proposal you could make to apply to AfC drafts now subject to G13. Most rejected AfC drafts that should never see the light of day (SPAM and non-notable topics) include reliably sourced statements. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Keeping drafts for years encourages the idea that Wikipedia is a web hosting service, and that leads to the current situation where potential articles in the backlog of abandoned thoughts are likely to languish forever. An admin is required to apply thought before deleting a speedy candidate so it is unlikely that future featured articles will be tossed out. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. I'm also one of the few admins who actually process G13 requests. Per my experience, most of it *is* cruft. -FASTILY 06:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I occasionally go through the Stale Draft Report and many of them are, to put it lightly, garbage. Because we're unable to tag them with G13 to get rid of them faster, they sit there for an extra 7 days where they're inevitably deleted anyway. This doesn't apply to userspace, as far as I'm aware, so experienced users will be able to edit drafts for months in their own userspace if they desire. If something decent is deleted from draftspace it can always be refunded at a later date anyway. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Good grief, I've just had a look at that. I would like one of the oppose !voters to explain how they can salvage Draft:Rim Malass is one of the famous singers worldwide. Born on September 14,2003 she published 9m songs her own and got help from other artists too. and turn it into something encyclopedic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  We're not talking about a rule for terrible drafts. We're talking about a time limit after which any draft can be deleted. If that terrible draft you just linked were 5 months old, it wouldn't even be covered here. If the problem is terrible drafts, the criteria should cover terrible drafts, not all drafts that happen to have been created before a particular date. I can't speak for other opposers, but I can't imagine anybody thinks every draft is salvageable and worth keeping. Also up for deletion would be very good articles that happen to be 6 months old and, most importantly, a whole lot of edge cases where sometimes they'll be deleted and sometimes they won't. With no other qualification other than time, the quality of the draft doesn't even come into play except as the reviewing admin subjectively decides to factor it in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflicted with Rhododendrites' comment & not meant to reflect on it) I think this is one of the fundamental problems about this whole draftspace debate. There's this romanticized view that there's all this incredible content in draftspace just waiting to be deleted by evil deletionists who don't want to give peace a chance, but really, the stunning majority of it is one-line drive-by dumps by IPs or SPAs that needs to be weeded out so people have a chance to find the good stuff. Nobody is out here cheering wildly as wonderfully-sourced FA-material gets ruthlessly G13'd. We're looking for that stuff among the rubble, but there's very little gold out here in these hills. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this is directly below my comment, I presume this is directed at me. If so, it is, I believe, the first time I've been [indirectly] placed on the side counter the apocryphal "evil deletionist" camp (a couple blocks away from the street from the evil admin cabal, I believe). It also misrepresents what I'm arguing.

As I said, most of the content that would be deleted should indeed be deleted, and this criterion should be broadened to include that stuff. But it doesn't just do that; it says any draft 6 months old can be speedy deleted. The problem is that some are not junk. Whether that non-junk makes up 50%, 20%, or 0.25% of all drafts, non-junk nonetheless exists. But this proposal does not distinguish. It would be easy to add some additional qualification -- I'm opposing because this RfC is already well underway such that it would be fruitless to propose alternate wording at this point. But I would support with other wording. Of course, it doesn't look like it needs my support... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I apologize. That comment was meant as a reply to Ritchie and was not directed at you. It was a post borne of frustration with the kind of draftspace content that Ritchie highlighted in his post. It's below your comment because it was an edit conflict with yours (which I didn't read until after posting mine, and had no bearing on what I posted), which is why they're indented to the same level. I've put a note on there to make that clearer. I in no way meant to label you as part of, or contra to, any deletionist cabal, or to misrepresent your argument in any way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I guess that means I can't save that diff to pull out next time I'm put back into the evil deletionist cabal. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Rim Malass and her nine million songs; uh, that's pretty convincing. — fortunavelut luna 11:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support...9m times...ehmm, actually, yes, time to get rid of all this, or at least move it to userspace. Lectonar (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Yes, that list is very persuasive. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Jclemens and PMC. Gentrification is improvement. There's nothing in draft space worth saving and refunds are free. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No, undeletion is not free. It hides the content from all non-admins, who won't even know it's possible to ask for it back. I've seen several people use this as an argument for cleaning up draftspace, but I have yet to see anyone who's actually had an article undeleted to work on it suggest this as a good idea. It really comes across as a 'let them eat cake' kind of comment. We need a junkyard where harmless stuff can accumulate without this sort of time-based deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • In the 6-7 months that I've been actively closing MfDs and draft deletions, I've had exactly one person come to my talk page and ask me for their drafts back. One person, two drafts, and they'd been G7'd, not G13'd anyway. One of those drafts is now at Dayan Lake, while the other, Draft:Jiangshe (姜畲镇), is still blank and has never been touched again by its author. (Who, upon examination of their userpage, is indef-blocked as a sock anyway). Hell, I've never even had a draft creator come to complain that I deleted their draft and ask why.

In contrast I do have plenty of people who come requesting refunds for content that's been deleted via AfD, CSD, or PROD, or even just asking why. The massive disparity there tells me that the authors of those deleted drafts aren't here and if they are, they don't give enough of a damn to ask for a REFUND. Which, in turn, tells me that drafts that go stale are drafts we don't need, since they're not being worked on or even noticed 99% of the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

IMHO that's proof that drafts in Draft: space provide the best value for people who did not create them, not their originators. The requirement that drafts be updated by the person who created them entirely misses the point of having a Draft space separate from User: space in the first place, which is to allow other editors to eventually find them and build upon them, per WP:WORKINPROGRESS, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Hiding drafts merely because they're old would completely kill the possibility of finding them years after the fact, and of benefiting from the initial work of compiling references and focusing on particular aspects of the subject, which is the basis of the iterative wiki process of building content.

It's not clear to me that the people supporting this indiscriminate removal of potentialy good quality content have considered the harm of destroying the repository of knowledge that would be deleted together with the "cleanup" of trivial pages. We already have mechanisms to remove the problematic crap, and if they're not enough we can build better ones, but always providing the failsafe mechanisms to avoid removing the good content (and no, REFUND is not a valid failsafe); let's not activate the nuke option that would get rid of everything. Diego (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"repository of knowledge" "work of compiling references" "potential good quality content" - you say this as though any significant percentage of draftspace is useful encyclopedic knowledge that has reliable references. So much of what gets put into draftspace is never going to be encyclopedically significant, whether we wait 6 months or six years. Seriously. If you can look at the short end of the stale drafts report (in other words, the stuff we actually want to target with this expansion of G13) and find one topic that's suitably notable for mainspace (even if the article isn't) and has even one ref already included, I will print this comment and eat it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What you're asking for is the equivalent of sending DMCA takedown notices to everyone on the Internet to improve Google Search results. Well, not exactly, but what you're describing is a problem with searching through the piles of useless content to find the worthwhile stuff: if you delete it all, we've lost everything, which is why I favor deleting essentially none of it, and focusing on search tools to identify the better stuff, not deletion tools to winnow down the pile indiscriminately. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• No, and one thousand times no. This exact proposal has been discussed for years at WT:Drafts and faced overwhelming opposition there, to the point of being rejected several times. It should not be approved by a stream of me-too "sounds good in principle" supporters in low-attendance summer time, at a different page, without input from the regulars there, and without a careful consideration of the reasons why G13 was deliberately worded to exclude drafts that have not been created by newbies through Articles for Creation, with arguments that have been discussed there to death. I can't write a detailed account of them here and now, but I'll be writing a summary of the highlights in all those years. Diego (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Diego, the draft namespace hasn't been in existence for 'years'. It was created to replace another repository for deadwood, remember? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, the RfC that approved the existence of the Draft space happened in 2013, why do you say it's not been years? Diego (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Example discussion

Here is the report of pages that would be first impacted User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. Pulling a couple random examples Draft:PSNPrank is spam. Draft:KAKIRI TOWN COUNCIL FC is NEVER going to become notable. Almost all the red links were deleted since Saturday under various existing CSD criteria. I've been holding off MfDing more while this proposal runs. Legacypac (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few selected ones from that list: Draft:Mike Mitchell (actor), Draft:Ideal theory, Draft:Shinobu (band), Draft:Proof of Binomial Theorem, Draft:Faculty of Applied Sciences, Draft:Fahrenheit 451 (unreleased film), Draft:Clusters of Innovation, Draft:Fingazz, Divisor (algebraic geometry). What is the rationale for speedy deleting any of those after six months of inactivity, without a MfD discussion? Diego (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Mitchell (actor), unilaterally draftified by User:NativeForeigner. I think it should have been PRODded. The content was written by the subject, just as he wrote http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2396944/resume?ref_=nm_ov_res and related pages. Doesn't meet NACTOR, all content is better hosted at IMDB. There is no anticipation of him becoming notable, is it to be hosted in DraftSpace=ShadowWikipedia indefinitely pending a dramatic advance in his acting career? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a reason to delete it per WP:COI. It doesn't make sense to leave it lingering for six months and then merely deleting it because it's old. When content is problematic for some reason, we already have the tools to get rid of it. Diego (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, G13 itself is problematic. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Without G13 that COI it's not going to be found, and when it is we have to MfD it.

you've picked some math pages that are part of another discussion centered on NOTAWEBHOST. Divisor (algebraic geometry) was developed by experienced editors. I'm not sure why it's not in mainspace but no Admin would delete that G13. Draft:Ideal theory is an abandoned UP#COPIES type page that should be redirected when not being worked on. Draft:Faculty of Applied Sciences has zero refs except a link to the school. It's maybe copyvio, has way to vague a title (which university?) and generally we don't do pages on facilties within a University per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be an option to speedy it just because it hasn't been edited lately. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, I think your comment proves my point. For problematic drafts that shouldn't be there, you can point to specific problems with them, so they should be removed providing those problems as the reason for their removal. For good content developed by experienced editors, like Divisor (algebraic geometry), shit happens, and it doesn't make sense to remove them merely because they got abandoned for some unknown reason; so deleting them for becoming inactive shouldn't be an option. Diego (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not prove your point. Many Drafts can be speedy deleted or redirected for many various reasons. Many should not be deleted but instead promoted or at least worked on further. This change deals with efficently deleting thousands of drafts at the intersection of Not otherwise CSD eligible + Worthless Abandoned Crap. We want to remove that set of Drafts from MfD because MfDing them to get SNOW or uncontested Delete closes is a waste of time. That is ALL this about and arguing how this or that Draft could be deleted another way or should be kept is off topic. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not offtopic, since the proposal made in this RfC is that all those drafts may be deleted automatically after some time. If we want the guideline to be applied in a way that those that "should not be deleted" are treated in a better way, then the guideline should reflect it. The point is to avoid the likely situation in the future when someone proposes to make a bot that automatically deletes all stalled drafts, they can't point to this updated rule and say "oh yes, this is compatible with the policy".

If you can't see how the proposed change can be used that way, you're not even trying to understand the opposition. Your comment ammounts to "the proposed change has some good uses, therefore anyone pointing to outcomes of that change which are different to that good use are offtopic". We are not opposing creating a tool to get rid of "drafts that get snow-deleted at MfD", we are opposing the specific mechanism proposed to achieve that outcome. Diego (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Continued voting

• Oppose six months is much too short for such a time limit. The redlinks mentioned in the previous post prove that G13 extension is not required when other speedy delete criteria apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

redlinks prove some are already speedyable but hundreds deleted at MfD and NOT speedyable is what this change addresses. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, why do you believe that six months is too short of a time limit? Is there evidence that many of these articles are improved in months 6 to 12, or beyond? - MrX 14:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Legacypac --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having seen some of the stuff that can reside in untouched userspace, I support cleaning out Draftspace like this. We need to make it clear that Wikipedia is not for hosting your autobiography (assuming it doesn't meet the requirements). Someday, I would like Wikipedia to actually be a mostly reliable source (according to, for an extreme example, English teachers). Cleaning out Draftspace is one step in the right direction, and it's a step that will need to be done sooner or later. Better to do now than later, in my opinion. (Sorry for rambling a bit.) — Gestrid (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize that this proposal would remove good content as well? G13 removes content based exclusively on how long it has been stale, irregardless of the quality or number of references in the draft. Therefore it does not work as a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. All the arguments posing that "this will leave us with a better Draftspace" fail to see that the outcome will be a Draftspace with only recent drafts, irregardless of how good or bad they are; since G13 completely misses any quality-based criteria, and it depends exclusively on an arbitrary criterion of time. Diego (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Pointer: I have proposed a template which can be used to stop the automatic deletion of old drafts with reviews; see Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft classifier template revisited. -- Taku (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That may be a sensible idea, but it will not work if this RfC passes as proposed. Administrators would be allowed to delete any draft, even if it is marked as reviewed and/or notable, as long as it has remained unedited. G13 is unconditional, and completely unrelated to the quality of the draft.

What we need is to change G13 so that it includes criteria that prevents it to delete good content even if it has been stalled. The current version has it in some limited form: given that it can't be applied to content that wasn't created through the AfC process, the pages that are most likely to be good quality (like pages moved from main space through AfD discussions, or drafts abandoned by editors in good stand) can't currently be deleted for arbitrary reasons. Rather than drop the clause that prevents this good content from being deleted, I'd extend it to all good content (including good content that was created in AfC), to satisfy those who want the criterion to be homogeneous.

This way, all bad content could be speedely deleted for being bad, not for being old; and all good content would be WP:PRESERVEd even if it is old, regardless of its origin. Diego (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: I think what we really need is a degree of trust in our administrators. When I reviewed G13 drafts, I postponed quite a few which looked notable and had content which would actually be usable in a mainspace article some day. Admins are chosen because we supposedly have decent judgement. Let us use it so we can stop spamming MfD with nonsense that will always be deleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. But the proposal in this RfC is flawed, as it doesn't reflect that modus operandi you just described; it would merely instate a rule that "everything that has been stalled six months should be deleted"; and anyone could request the rule to be interpreted and enforced that way. If the goal of the rule is allowing admins to delete the bad and salvage the good, it should say so. I agree with SoWhy's !vote above that extending U5 would probably be more effective for this goal than making G13 universal. Diego (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not true. Anyone can postpone deletion by making a null edit. There are over 400 drafts in the G13 Posponed category right now and hundreds more postponed but not categorized. Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I was under the impression that this was already the policy. Daß Wölf 01:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of some opposition

As a supporter of this proposal, I want to pull at the thread that Rhodo is, which is that there are good drafts, or possibly simply notable topics, that are left to languish in draftspace, and that the date shouldn't be the only factor protecting these from deletion. I personally use draft space as a place to a) identify a (video game) topic that someone else is interested in and b) clean it up to pull it into main space. I don't want to go around editing every existing draft in my domain of interest every 6 months (because I'm busy), much less keep a running red-linked list somewhere or another of video games drafts which might be worthy of article space (at some point in the indeterminate future and with some undetermined zero to non-zero amount of work). I personally will wield an extended G13 as a scalpel (to slice away drafts with no present hope of being article-spaced) rather than the butcher's knife at least a few of the supporters above would prefer to use it as. I am wondering if there is a way, or if it might be desirable, to back away from a "every draft can go under the knife" G13, while also allowing its expanded use, as a possible baby step toward an all-draft G13. A7 comes to mind. I like the current timeframe (6 months feels fine), so I wouldn't want to see that change. Lacking a single independent reliable source might be one way (a la BLPPROD). Are there others that are concrete? --Izno (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Date is NOT the only thing protecting pages from deletion. Remember an Admin checks every page before deletion, and so does the nominating editor (hopefully the bot will come back though). Pages that have merit are regularly postponed. The creator is notified of the deletion and WP:REFUND applies. G13 actually really helps content make it to mainspace - I regularly find entire ready to go unsubmitted notable articles in Draft that were last edited over 6 months back (even several years back, since the bot that identifies G13 eligible pages is a little blind and slow. New editors must assume someone else will look at and approve their draft without them specifically requesting it, but without G13 (or someone like me working the non-afc stale draft report) that never happens. This proposal facilitates deletion of uncontroversial junk so ediors like me can find and surface the useful pages and topics. I do seek deletion on thousands of Drafts to find those few promotable pages. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I am rarely the creator, so I do not get a notification, nor do I know to refund a draft with potential because it will have been deleted. (I need to see if the article alerts mechanism picks up deleted drafts.) I am quite aware that an administrator checks every page before deletion, but that doesn't mean that a) all or even b) any administrator will do any more than process the page as a deletion (because all they have to do is check the timestamps). As for nominating editor, that is what I am most afraid of! I did not dispute that a deletion method such as draftspace or even simply AFC G13 helps to separate the wheat from the chaff, but as at least one other editor pointed out above, because there is no criterion other than draft age and the good faith of an editor and an administrator, the system can fall down quite quickly and reject good contributions (at some low probability, I think, but a probability > 0%). --Izno (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@User: Rhododendrites maybe I'm missing something but do your concerns not equally apply to AfC drafts (perhaps unsubmitted). This change will remove the arbitary distinction between AfC vs not AfC. In my estimation having looked at many thousands of Drafts, non-AfC ones are worse because at least on many AfC Drafts the creator attempted to address reviewer comments. Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno:, if there was a way to apply a template/category/tag to a draft which would permanently prevent G13 deletion, would you find this solution sufficient to address your concerns? Tazerdadog (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Fixing ping Tazerdadog (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy just post a message on the Draft talk or make an AfC Comment to that effect on the Draft page. If a Draft is labeled as "notable but needs xyz" it's not going G13. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft talk is not considered in HasteurBot's code. Any change that would cause a revision to be registered by wikipedia (i.e. not a NULLEDIT) resets the G13 clock for HasteurBot. I coded to choose the higher threshold for qualification of G13. Hasteur (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

So ..., tagging the Draft page with {{promising draft}} would be good, delaying G13, as well as being prominent. Tagging the talk page with {{No hope draft}} would also be good, indicating that an editor thinks it should be deleted, and not delaying G13? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: We could do a hybrid and any page that is taged with the No hope draft gets 6 months unedited before the bot nominates it for CSD. Still have an admin to the final checking on it. Hasteur (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we already have a "no hope" tag - Template:CrapArticle Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft classifier template revisited is supposed to achieve the purposes of SmokeyJoe's proposed tags. -- Taku (talk) 03

18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Pending thoughts! :). A {{no hope draft}} per Smokey would also be desirable, because we might be able to use that to categorize certain drafts as more likely to be draft-space G13 eligible, and at the end of 6 months, those might reasonably auto-convert to draft-space G13s (as well categorize the drafts differently). --Izno (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*5 Part of why AfC drafts usually have a very high percentage of sustained deletion on G13 is because every page that was submitted for review gets evaluated by an editor that looks for issues that would cause the page to be subjected to one of the "A" series CSDs or a AFD very shortly after creation in mainspace. Does this mean some drafts get rejected a few times, yes but that's ok because there's WP:NODEADLINE to get it to mainspace and if the page is being improved it's not becoming Stale. Having some form of evaluation go through on all non-AfC drafts to let the author know "you need to fix X, Y, Z, and R before you can put this in mainspace" goes a long way to sifting the at best 0.5% (1 page out of every 200) needle from the bulk haystack that gets submitted.

Also Legacypac HasteurBot lives Hasteur (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• If we do this, i would like to make it a condition that only hasturbot, or some simialerly programed bot, nominates pages for G13, not any human editor. The bot gives creators a 1 month warning, and puts pages on the 1 month pending status into a categry which can be used to review them. Human editors who have been nominating for G13 have not been doing that. if a human editor is to nominate, s/he should follow the same rules as the bot -- a 1-month warning and a tracking cat. moreover the bot is throttled to avoid any huge lump of pages tagged for deletion, so review is feasible. Humans have recently nominated at much grater rates than the bot would. The original understanding of G13 was that the bot would do all or almost all of the nominations -- human noms would be unneeded. We should return to that, and ,make it part of the criterion, if we are to expand the scope -- and even if we are not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment First and foremost, too many decent drafts are deleted under G13 as it is, and that information is lost as it is "out of sight, [and] out of mind", especially when the writer of the page has left the project. Second, there is no harm in having drafts that are "junky", as someone will eventually delete if it has no potential to be an article. Third, the time period of six months is both too short and completely arbitrary. That said, I would support a draft PROD, to decrease the burden on reviewers. The point is, I would advocate getting rid of G13 altogether, and adding a draft PROD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Jjjjjjdddddd, G13 is DraftProd. If you made another DraftProd, who would review them? No one is reviewing the MfD Draft nominations when they are deleted on an unopposed nomination, unopposed because there are too many listed. Deletion of drafts by any method is pseudo-speedy already. If you don't like this, I ask you to go to WT:MfD (eg and oppose the current practice of pseudo-speedy deletion. I am very sympathetic to the view that none need deletion, they can be blanked for example, but the community is in contradiction of this and it should be sorted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • But wouldn't a PROD for drafts and G13 be different, because a draft-prod would be for prodding any draft, saving the hassle of the MfD process for obvious junk, while G13 is a matter of time since last edit? Also, I do support a DfD process. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Legacypac (for example) would in time DraftPROD every abandoned draft. What difference. DfD? I would support Wikipedia:Drafts for discussion (proposal), except that I find it disingenuous to support a process that I believe will never get rolling, it will not host serious active discussions. In weighing all the options, all with drawbacks, including "do nothing", I think this one wins. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
        • But a G13 covers any and all pages that haven't been edited in over six months, while a draftprod forces the nominator to have another reason to delete, and would also have more reviewing admin scrutiny. Also, a DfD would probably be like RfD, not having heavy traffic, but having enough to work, especially if it's Drafts for Discussion, as opposed to Deletion. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
          • G13 requires a nominator and an admin deleter. The vast majority of old drafts are mind-numbing cruft. Asking a DraftProdder to sift them all and write a meaningful reason for each I think is too much to ask, not realistic. The draftprod nominator I expected would soon being writing "abandoned non-notable" on every case, just as he does at MfD. Most of them would be convincing justified with "abandoned promotion, non-notable topic". In the end, same difference, I think CSD#G13 will be more honest about what we are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Asking a DraftProdder to sift them all and write a meaningful reason for each I think is too much to ask, not realistic. Oh come on, we have lots of semi-automated tools that make it trivial to choose the right reason from a list of common occurrences with just a click. In the rare situation when the draft doesn't fall under any of those pre-defined cases, that's precisely where the nominator should carefully reflect and provide a hand-crafted reason for wanting to remove the content. And if they can't think of any reason, why exactly should it be deleted? Those are precisely the kind of drafts we want to preserve, which are not obvious crap in any way and therefore may contain a seed of useful content - so better to keep them just in case. Diego (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'm uneasy about all of this. The problem I see is the difference between a "stale draft" (which really isn't a problem for us) and "cruft that shouldn't have been there in the first place". We ought to clean up the second, because the number of these things in an indistinguishable draft namespace makes any useful management of the space difficult. For the first though, we are being torn between pressure to keep them (an old stale draft just isn't a problem, and we don't know who might return or re-adopt it) and the exciting wikigame of finding stuff to delete. It is a problem throughout WP that stuff gets done because it can be done (Look at me Mom, I just deleted a whole article! I'm nearly an admin!) rather than because it ought to be done. A simple "Anything becomes zappable after n months" doesn't distinguish between a large, serious and unfinished draft on a real topic, or the regular test cruft that should really have gone long ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to expand A7 to films and television shows

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per WP:SNOW.--Kostas20142 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Hello all!

I want to propose the expansion of A7 to films and television shows. I am aware that similar proposals have been mooted before however I think that I can do a good job of explaining why we need another discussion. Recently, I have noticed a sharp increase in the number of articles about films that have come up in the new pages feed. A large proportion of these simply make no credible claim of significance and are always deleted when PROD-ed. I have attempted to use this rationale for speedy deletions but the administrators who patrol the A7 categories, quite rightly, follow the policy and either decline it or PROD it themselves.

Web content such as podcasts and live-streamed shows can be deleted under A7 and television shows and films are, for all intents and purposes, the same as "web content" which is within A7's scope. I see no reason why, for instance, a drama which makes no credible claim of significance should be exempt from A7 when it is broadcast on terrestrial television but can be tagged for A7 if it is streamed online. Ergo, sticking something in the 7-day PROD queue which would be deleted via A7 if it had been broadcast in a different manner makes no sense to me.

Due to the nature of deletions (CSD and PROD), I cannot provide diffs or examples but the administrators among you will be able to view deleted pages. I have provided 20 examples of uncontested AfDs on films and television shows from the past month below.

Therefore I propose that the wording of A7 should be updated to include films and television shows, with the first sentence reading This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content, film, television show or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 13:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Support. Should be obvious. KMF (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the wealth of opposition, empirical evidence says it isn't. Make your case, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose this will create a mess since there is currently not agreement as to whether or not some remote attachment to a blue link is a credible claim of significance or not. Virtually every film or TV series can find some remote attachment to a notable actor, notable studio, or TV station. Those that can't are likely borderline A11 or actually A11. Since I don't see this actually ever being enforceable, I'm opposing it because I don't want to see anymore "NPP wants to A7 Lady Gaga" type conversations around Wiki, which this will lead to if someone ever tries to use it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about people criticising NPP. I mentioned it merely as contextual information on how I came across it. I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of all patrollers so all criticism should be directed at me. DrStrauss talk 14:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

My critique there is not about the proposal making people mad, but that it would cause dissatisfaction both among the people who review CSD and among the NPP crowd if it ever became a part of policy. To be honest, I almost forgot that these weren't covered subjects because I've never actually seen a new film or TV show article that didn't include a claim that several of the more inclusion-minded CSD reviewers would find significant. Basically my critique is that even if we got consensus to make these covered subjects, in practice they wouldn't be because you can almost always find a blue-linked connection to a film to point to as a reason to prefer discussion. While I'd prefer a narrower understanding of what a credible claim of significance is, I also firmly believe some people think it is one, we should be discussing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As an example I just found: Golden Kingdom would likely be tagged by an NPP person because the text of the article doesn't explain any reason why it should be here. It has reviews in a few magazines listed as references, which one could argue over whether they count as RS. Since there could be an argument, the reviewing admin will almost always send to AfD. Virtually every film is going to be like that, even if covered. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: personally, this NPP patroller would probably just leave that one alone. The assertion that "virtually every film" will have to go to AfD isn't exactly accurate (see the examples I've given below). DrStrauss talk 16:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The same rationale applies to books, music, software, newspapers, magazines, and virtually every other form of creative work. "Web content" in A7 did not mean "web-delivered content", and shouldn't be so vastly expanded as to include it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Web content, as defined in the web notability policy to which A7 refers, includes media [and] podcasts, so "web content" includes "web-delivered content". DrStrauss talk 16:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a horrible, horrible misreading of the guideline. Ebooks, digital-only music releases, and downloadable software have all been found as outside the scope of A7. The language about content being accessed via the web browser was intended to make this clear, even though it's been blurred again as browser add-ons became more powerful. DES is pretty much on target about the intent of the criterion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In my experience, downloadable software is often considered within the scope of A7 as web content, despite the WP:WEB definition. Adam9007 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to treat the fact that a TV series has been broadcast on terrestrial or national television as an assertion of significance in itself. Same goes for TV series or films which star notable actors, have notable people involved in the production, or are made by notable media organisations. Films are a little more dubious but I suspect that a film which has a cinematic release probably has reviews available and may well be notable. That may take care of most of the suggested examples. The difference between web series and a series broadcast on terrestrial television is that the barrier to making a web series is much lower - you just need a camera. Hut 8.5 14:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: "probably": correct. The number of articles made about films and television shows is quite large and the majority of them are notable. However, the minority which aren't and would be covered by my proposal is large enough to warrant the A7 expansion as I have shown in my answer to Ritchie. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that in practice this would lead to the notable ones being speedied or tagged for speedy deletion as well. You said above that you would like to delete articles about TV series broadcast on terrestrial TV under this, that's the kind of thing that this would lead to. Hut 8.5 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unless somebody can point me evidence in the last month of at least 20 AfDs for TV shows and films that all closed as "snow delete" with no keep !votes, or uncontested PRODs of the same. If we're not tripping up over ourselves with AfDs that haven't got a hope in hell and are being swamped with "delete" !votes, this proposal is a solution looking for a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: sure, here you go:1234567891011121314151617181920

DrStrauss talk 15:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: No disrespect intended Ritchie but it's not a case of a solution looking for a problem, it's that you have clearly overlooked that such a problem exists. I've provided you with the links you wanted so I assume you'll be changing your !vote. DrStrauss talk 16:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Of those, I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goalpariya Hero had one person say they were close to a keep but not quite, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wine Tasting (film) needed a relist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budak Pailang had no input and was a soft delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug War (2018 film) was a "some sources but not quite" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call Of Gabriel was a soft delete. I think they all needed a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aek Chabhi Hai Padoss Mein needed two relists, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossed Loves was a soft delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Spirit (South African TV series) (2nd nomination) was second nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Room was a soft delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty-Four Hours (TV program) required a relist, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Dance was a soft delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athu Ithu Ethu needed two relists and was a soft delete. So, sticking with oppose for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A soft delete is essentially the same as an uncontested PROD though... DrStrauss talk 16:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

...which in turn is not the same as a speedy. A PROD hangs around for a week, a speedy doesn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

...exactly! If a soft delete is a speedy then it should count as one of the 20. DrStrauss talk 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well no, because an AfD gets put in the main listings, assigned to the various deletion lists and project pages, and continually bumped back up to the top a few times when relisting. Short of talk page spamming people, I don't know how else you could attract attention to them. A PROD gets none of that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose In general A7 is not well suited to handling creative content, and I would be in favor of restricting the 'web content" section so that it does not cover creative content ther is merely delivered by the web, or perhaps removing it entirely. It was intended for browser games and the like, as I recall, not for, say, web comics. In any case, the probable notability of television programs and films pretty much requires a WP:BEFORE search to sort the wheat from the chaff, and so this is not the kind of bright-line decision appropriate for a CSD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not an uncontroversial criterion. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of what was said above is correct but furthermore, creative works - like films or TV shows - often involve a notable subject, be it as an actor, producer, director or TV network, so most cases can be handled by merging/redirecting per WP:ATD without the need for deletion. Let's take a look at the examples mentioned above considering this, shall we?
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythily Veendum Varunnu - Two notable actors as redirect targets
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goalpariya Hero - N
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wine Tasting (film) - redirect/merge target: List of Amazon Prime
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budak Pailang - Two notable actors as redirect targets
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug War (2018 film) - notable director Lee Hae-young as redirect target
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape unreported - N
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toontastic The Movie - a hoax, not really a good example
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call Of Gabriel - notable director Sirous Ranjbar as redirect target
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahabbat pur vice city - N
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aek Chabhi Hai Padoss Mein - redirect/merge target: List of programs broadcast by Star Plus
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossed Loves - potential redirect target: MyNetworkTV telenovelas
  12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Great Trainer - potential merge target: Strong (TV series)
  13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Spirit (South African TV series) (2nd nomination) - merge/redirect target: List of South African television series
  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Room - Notable hist and notable network as redirect targets, including List of programs broadcast by Geo TV
  15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiki's American Adventure - redirect/merge target: Playboy TV#List of Current and Former Original Programs on Playboy TV
  16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Tuba - hoax, not really a good example
  17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty-Four Hours (TV program) - merge target: Zhejiang Television#Programs
  18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Dance - redirect/merge target: List of programs broadcast by Star Vijay
  19. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirippuda - redirect/merge target: List of programs broadcast by Star Vijay
  20. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athu Ithu Ethu - redirect/merge target: List of programs broadcast by Star Vijay

So of the 20 examples, 15 could reasonably be handled without deletion and 2 were already covered under G3. Only 3 out of those 20 had no potential redirect or merge target. The question thus should be: Are there really so many articles that need to be handled at AFD or is the problem people taking articles to AFD instead of handling them themselves via WP:ATD? Because if it's the latter - and the aforementioned examples seem to indicate this - the problem can't be fixed by expanding A7 but by educating users that redirecting/merging non-notable creative works to their notable creators, participants etc. without deletion discussions is usually possible. Regards SoWhy 20:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

... Not to mention that the presence of a seemingly-appropriate speedy deletion criterion would have prevented a fair number, perhaps almost all, of those from being turned into redirects. Speedy deletion criteria should be conscientiously scripted to avoid WP:ATD cases. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Tell me about it! I've had two people yell on my talk page in the last week swearing blind that "well we might be able to redirect" isn't a reason to decline A7, even though WP:ATD says it is. Same thing for people thinking WP:NOTINHERITED is an automatic A7, whereas the actual guideline link just says you can't have a standalone article - saying nothing about a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Tell me about it! I've had two people yell on my talk page in the last week swearing blind that "well we might be able to redirect" isn't a reason to decline A7, even though WP:ATD says it is. Same thing for people thinking WP:NOTINHERITED is an automatic A7, whereas the actual guideline link just says you can't have a standalone article - saying nothing about a redirect. Hear Hear! Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:Notability (media) suggests radio/tv shows are notable if aired on national channels. NFILMS covers various criteria for films. Your proposal addresses an area that has the potential of significant subjectivity in A7 assessment. The current process seems to be fairly balanced (and in fact, the Prod is the most non-controversial method you could prefer; seven days of waiting does not take away anything from the project). Thanks. Lourdes 01:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not our most prolific New Page Reviewer, but for the purpose of gathering empirical experience, I certainly do a lot of it and I see what arrives. I think the proposal is a solution looking for a problem. I can think of half a dozen topics I would like to see included in A7, but this is not one that can't be adequately handled by PROD and AfD and is not a priority and certainly not while deletion tagging is still open to every newbie and inexperienced user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: out of interest, what are those half-dozen? DrStrauss talk 21:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss. Forget I mentioned it and let's stick with: I think the proposal is a solution looking for a proble. I think to discuss anything else here right now would confuse the RfC and detract from its immediate purpose. Perhaps another time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The arguments regarding connections to notable individuals being a credible claim of significance convince me that the use case is small enough and the ambiguity large enough that this would cause more problems than it would solve. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. With a tendency of not checking when deleting this would delete a lot of actual notable subjects especially from the non-english productions. For the rest the points about WP:ATD applies. Agathoclea (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• @DrStrauss: I would suggest closing withdrawing this RfC since it looks like it has approximately zero chance of going through. CENT being clogged up with a bunch of CSD RfCs also isn't ideal either. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I've put in a request at WP:RfCl. DrStrauss talk 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.