User talk:Valereee/draft

Suggestions/Comments

If you have comments or suggestions about structure, please feel free to make them here on this talk. Please don't edit the draft without an invitation to do so. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

For clarification, this draft is trying to button down the structure of the pre-discussion before we go live at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, which we'll create as soon as we've got the structure finalized. Hoping to go live in the next few days. Valereee (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Location

Until further notice, assume this pre-discussion will be held at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. One of us will post in this section if that doesn't happen, so subscribe to this section to be sure of receiving notice. Valereee (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Request_for_Comment, perhaps the page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale could include an overview/status box for the entire process and its various phases. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

...if only there were someone here who knew how to make that happen... Xeno? :D (or anyone else, please feel free to set that up, with my thanks!) Valereee (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You could do something akin to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Header (which I promise we're still working on and may have an update soon... ). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone other than Xeno or you can set it up yet, since as far as I can tell, the specific plans are only known by the two of you so far... I think all that's needed to start is to create the page "AfD at scale" and write down your plans (subject of course to change). isaacl (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I've made an incompetent stab at it. We should have an anticipated timeline soon, working on that right now. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, that went well lol... Valereee (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Timing

We hope to start this discussion as soon as we have some input from others here, with any luck within the next week. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

Regarding terminology, I'm not fond of "creation of articles at scale", which sounds more like creating scale models of articles. I prefer something more like "rapid creation of stub articles". I appreciate that "AfD at scale" is a term specified by the arbitration committee.

I suggest that the discussion should examine what the community feels is the minimal content (including types of citations) that should be present in a new stub article. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Isaacl, thanks! Are you suggesting something to fill in the 'Definitions' section? We were thinking 'creation of articles at scale' covered both rapid and mass creation? Open to discussion of that!

Re: issues: this is something we'd like to wait to address in the actual discussion rather than here. This discussion is really about the structure. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the community guidance on the content for stubs isn't an issue per se, nor is it a solution by itself (though it could form part of one), so I'm not sure where a discussion on community viewpoints regarding stubs would fit within the context of the two questions you've posed under "Purpose of this discussion". For me, resolving what the consensus guidance is on stubs would help determine next steps. But I appreciate others might want to get straight to the next steps.

Regarding definitions, I'm not sure what difference you are thinking of between rapid and mass creation. When I referred to rapid, I was thinking of a high creation rate of new articles. I know you might feel constrained by the term already used by the arbitration committee. I just don't personally like it because to me the connotations are wrong. When you make something "at scale", usually you're creating a scale model of it (where "scale" refers to size), or you started with a slower, trial pace, and have moved to the normal production pace (where "scale" refers to throughput). The scenario under examination is creating stub articles at a much higher pace than the community can handle with its review processes. In the end, I imagine it won't matter that much; it'll just become more English Wikipedia-specific jargon. I generally dislike creating new jargon that doesn't add more expressiveness, though, so I'm noting my concerns about using the term at all. I'd rather drop it in favour of a more explicitly self-describing phrase. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would agree that "rapid/mass creation of stub articles" and "mass AfD nominations" are more precise than "X at scale". Ovinus (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've placed that in the Definitions. Valereee (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology "at scale" is confusing, and agree that "mass creation" or "mass nominations" are clearer. But perhaps I can explain where I think the term came from, and that may provide some insight. 'Scaling' is an engineering term for a change in the size of a process or activity, typically an increase. If a process has been developed for small-scale production of a material or an item, then engineers need to address whether they can scale it up to go into large-scale production. It is known that some processes do not scale up well. The problem that this discussion is focusing on is that creation of a small number of articles or nomination of a small number of articles for deletion is routine to Wikipedia, and we are focusing on whether either process scales up well.

My opinion is that creation and deletion present different scaling problems. Mass creation can be done by stealth. There is no indication that mass creation is happening until someone discovers that there has been mass creation. Because deletion is done by advertised processes, if someone tries to scale it up, everyone notices that there is a mass nomination. So creation and nomination for deletion scale differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I wonder if there might be scope to make separate RfC subsections called "Article creation at scale" and "Article creation at pace". I feel that an editor who starts 100 articles a year is rather different from one who starts 100 articles a month and the community might want to distinguish between them.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I think Page-related actions done at scale can overwhelm the community's ability to adequately monitor and participate effectively appears to use the phrase "at scale" to mean "at a regular production pace". If this isn't the intent, then I suggest saying something like "Rapid page-related actions performed in large numbers [...] The issue is exacerbated in the case of rapid article creation [...]"

On a minor note, I suggest not using the term "p-block". I don't feel it is more expressive or significantly concise than the term "partial block" (and not shorter to type when linking to the full expansion of the term). isaacl (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Presumed notability

I just saw this comment, a few hours after posting above. So here goes; please let me know if we should move this elsewhere. The RFC needs to examine the concept of "presumed notability". We use that language in many places and it's been interpreted in so many different ways. I have read innumerable AfDs where !votes were evenly split between those arguing that since the presumption of notability was met, meeting GNG wasn't needed; and those arguing that a presumption was insufficient, and that at AfD, meeting GNG was necessary. Crucially, this occurs extremely often when NSPORTS and GEOLAND are concerned, which, I believe, are two of the most common justifications for mass-creation (and therefore targets for mass-deletion). The others that I'm aware of are mass creation for vertebrate species, and for politicians meeting NPOL, neither of which seem to attract the same level of controversy at AfD.) Given that true mass-creation is likely very difficult when GNG is the threshold one is trying to meet, precisely laying out what "presumed notable" means, and how it affects the SNG-GNG relationship, is crucial to handling this mess. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, thanks for that! This is fine here, and what we're basically doing here is making sure there's room for those things in this pre-discussion. So what we'd want to see is, when this discussion is opened, people would come in and bring up something like "the concept of presumed notability is being interpreted in too many different ways" as a proposed issue, and then if possible they or someone else would created at least the beginnings of a proposed solution for that issue. Maybe a proposed solution is a specific clarification to presumed notability with suggested wording that leaves it less open to interpretation, hopefully stated in a way that can be turned into an actionable proposed change to be presented in the RfC.

So what we want to do now is to make sure we structure this discussion to make that work possible but also efficient. We're looking for any suggestions you have for bulletproofing this discussion so that it doesn't restrict productive work but eliminates (as much as possible) the distractions we so often see in a more-typically structured discussion. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think perhaps I'm a little uncertain as to how many discussions we are having; I thought this was the pre-discussion? Or is this the pre-pre-discussion-discussion? Anyhow; the two suggestions I would have would be to not run two RfCs, but to combine them. From an efficiency perspective, you'd have a shorter time-frame during which people need to be engaged; from a consensus-building perspective, you're less likely to have differing sets of participants for deletion vs creation questions, and you're going to be able to avoid arguments about whether any given issue should be part of the deletion or creation section. With respect to the issue I'm raising in particular: I don't see how to slot it neatly into a mass-deletion or a mass-creation discussion. It affects both. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the pre-pre-discussion. :D We are discussing how to structure the pre-discussion, which is a workshop for the RfC.

There was some preliminary discussion (wasn't intended to be a pre-pre-pre, but it sort of became that before I closed it) about running one RfC, two concurrently, or one before the other at the announcement: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Deletion_RfC_moderator_appointments

Yes, it would be a shorter time-frame, and believe me that's not a small concern. If only for my own workload. :D But the arguments for running first this one and then the second were thoughtful and compelling, partially for the exact reason you're talking about: many of the issues don't fit neatly into one or the other issue, and that considering them first w/re creations (since mass creations are a root cause of mass deletions) would address some of that messiness. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hm. I disagree with that decision, but if you've made it already, we should move on, I suppose. Most of my thoughts have to do with structuring the RfC, not the pre-discussion, so I may step away for a bit. My final thought is that if we're doing two RfCs, you should be particularly liberal in allowing proposals to be added, lest some topics fall through the cracks between the two section. But perhaps you'd need to be restrictive with respect to modifying/adding proposals during the RfC itself; hashing any sort of consensus out is going to be hard enough as is, we all saw how the NSPORTS RfC went. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Completely liberal with adding (but not about modifying) proposals, here and in the RfC; the draft of the RfC itself includes language indicating anyone should feel free to add further proposals. The template we're using is WP:GMORFC. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee, if you decide to allow anyone to add proposals, might I suggest two things? (1) Set a cutoff time after which no further proposals will be allowed. (My personal preference is for that to happen during the pre-RfC, not the RfC itself, but either way could be workable as long as there's a defined cutoff.) (2) Reserve to moderators the ability to edit, condense, and merge proposals, and use that power flexibly whenever it would help since it's within the scope of "developing the questions presented". Thanks again. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hm, that's really an excellent consideration. I hate to ban adding proposals at RfC altogether in case three days before the end of the RfC someone comes up with something so stupendous and unexpected that everyone yells Eureka!...maybe some process by which a proposal on the RfC after X date has to be proposed on the discussion page and gain a certain level of support there? Jeez, a sub-RfC. OMG, what am I doing to myself?

I'm thinking no limit at the workshop (pre-RfC) phase. Xeno and I can take promising late additions and refine and include them, even if imperfect, in the RfC. And during the RfC phase possibly they'll be refined further into a new proposal. But yes, during the RfC phase, only an exceptional new proposal probably should be considered after the (third week?). Valereee (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The sub-RFC talk page idea is actually a good one. One of the difficulties with the NSPORTS RfC was that it became absolutely impenetrable and plenty of people lost the will to even try to follow it. In retrospect I suspect that it needed a second, moderated RfC to take the three proposals from that which were deemed to have passed, but there you go. But, yes, I agree entirely that if someone suddenly solves the problem right at the end of the process that it would be unforgivable to ignore that solution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If someone comes up with a brilliant new idea, I'm sure you'll exercise moderator discretion to extend discussion as needed. What might be helpful is to encourage a narrowing of scope in the latter phases of discussion, so more focus is placed on building upon points of commonality for which there is agreement. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I was hoping much earlier than the third week personally – my thinking is that most RfCs tend to peter out in terms of participation after even the first week. If a great idea comes later that could be a good compromise and reach consensus, can't you exercise your discretion to include it? Just don't let it happen just because a single editor has some new idea after everyone else has participated.
Separately, one thing to consider is that with two sequential RfCs (one for creation and one for deletion), you're going to get a drop-off in participation in RfC #2 compared with RfC #1. And if you want to wait for RfC #1 to close before RfC #2 opens, then that brings more complexity into it – does ArbCom need to appoint two sets of three closers in that case? I'm not saying you ought to do just one RfC but I think the pre-RfC should allow people to provide input on that. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This was, more or less, my concern with two RfCs also, but Kevin phrases it better. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@L235, so get all the issues for both out of the way in the pre-discussion?

If we think a week is sufficient to get the most thoughtful proposals made, then send new proposals/issues to the talk page for discretionary action, works for me.

Yes, we could allow the pre-discussion to cover the question of single/separate/consecutive/overlapping RfCs, too. Given some of the discussion here, I think that's a really good addition.

Ai yi yi. So many moving parts. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've made those changes, we'll see if anyone has comments on it. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest not being too prescriptive ahead of time of an exact timeframe for initial proposals. The advantage of having moderators is that you can use your judgement to determine when the initial burst of interest in new proposals has subsided, as well as when the number of proposals has reached a limit beyond which the RfC may become unmanageable for you. Having a tentative deadline can help with those who work towards deadlines, but I think it should be flexible based on how the discussion is progressing. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the issues we have to balance is closers and their availability. Valereee (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that one week will be too confining to get a good result. Admittedly, there is a balance between allowing enough time for new ideas to emerge as a result of early discussion, and getting editors who commented early to come back and check for new proposals. But if you decide to do it this way, the moderators need to be prepared to handle a lot of requests and a lot of complaints if you say no. And, you will not gain anything in terms of the need for editors to come back and look again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If we're still getting thoughtful proposals at the 1-week, hihgly likely the mods will decide to extend that. Valereee (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I have also seen "inherent notability" which is an even stronger version of "presumptive notability". I had to start an entire RfC to get the concept of inherent notability for train stations refuted. I'm not sure if everyone sees presumptive and inherent as two different things. If you ask me, there should be no such thing as inherent notability. Presumptive notability is a bit different. I'd hope we could get clear consensus that nothing is inherently notable - the term presumptive gives room for interpretation and dealing with edge cases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have opinions about this, which I'm happy to discuss elsewhere, as I don't wish to clutter this page :) Suffice to say, I agree we should probably also discuss any other similar terminology. The crucial point to me is the following; GNG does not allow for mass-creation; only SNGs that create an easily verified standard (legally recognized populated place; international professional athlete; state-legislature politician) do. And then we have endless debates at AfD about the wording of these SNGs. So I would support examining any analogous wording used in an SNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, I'd disagree that there is no such thing as inherent notability. It just depends on the scale you look at things at: I'd argue that UN recognised countries are inherently notable for example. At that scale I don't think we should be having to presume sources exist - we should just flat out accept notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability's wishy-washiness is a form of compromise, isn't it? One that makes everyone equally unsatisfied. Every guideline is subject to interpretation by various denominations, and the guidelines with ecumenical support always speak in extreme terms. (WP:GNG: "IBM is notable, while Bill Clinton's high school jazz band isn't". No shit!!) Your example is similarly extreme. So maybe it's best if "presumptive" and "presumed" are deliberately left vague. Editors will rabble; sometimes the loudest will win, but sometimes the most convincing. I recently came across Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works, authored by North8000, and I think the essay has potential to bring editors together if it recognized the deliberate vagueness. Ovinus (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I see it as a way to try to achieve an unspoken goal in the the Wikipedia system which everybody participates in but almost nobody can explain. It includes simultaneously weighing multiple considerations per Wikipedia:How editing decisions are made. And the "unspoken goal" sort of follows the chosen word "notability". Sort of a combination of sourcing, real world notability, and enclyclypedicness, with an emphasis on sourcing. GNG sourcing has two purposes: suitable material to build an article from, and a measure of real-world notability because it show recognition by the sources. BTW I'd love to get support for linking Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works at WP:Notability North8000 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey Valereee, I'm working on a proposal to bring here, but I found myself wondering about the level of detail I should put in, and then thought perhaps others would have the same question. Say I make a statement about a problem; "Definition of X is unclear in the notability guidelines". Should my proposal solutions be of the "Define X more clearly" level of vagueness, or "Redefine X in the following way: [definition]" level of specificity? Because I don't want to turn this discussion into a debate of the sort you'd have at the final RfC, but perhaps you're only going to use proposals that have some support here? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, I'm thinking we don't need any formal limits on this? I think probably at this point simpler/shorter is better (and if you get reactions here that make you want to edit, we can do that at least until the pre-RfC workshopping discussion opens) but I'm thinking you're a better expert on your issue/solution proposal than I am.

To clarify: (Unless @Xeno has some objection) I'm happy to place into the draft we're discussing here now any issue/solution proposal that anyone comes up with before it goes live at WT:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale, which means when we start the actual pre-RfC workshopping discussion there it will already be listed among the issues/proposals. It's to me for various reasons looking very much like this will not go live until at least Tuesday next week, so there's time to prepare. I should go add that in the status box.

I'm sorry this is all so complex. It's a bit confusing for me, too, if that's any comfort. :D Valereee (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, and for being so responsive to herding cats everyone here. Don't worry: it's more important to get it right, than to get it fast. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 Trypto :) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, both! Valereee (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me too: for your response, and your hard work. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Scope of this discussion

Hello, Valereee,

My interest in this RfC is about participation in AFD discussions but reading your comments above, this RfC seems to be focused on the mass creation of articles. Is that the sole focus? If so, then I don't have much to contribute to this discussion. If this RfC also covers behavior and practices at AFD and other deletion discussions, then I have some thoughts I'd like to mention once this discussion gets started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, we're running this as two separate RfCs, the first (that addressing creation of articles at scale) being treated as a necessary precursor to the one on AfDs at scale. Valereee (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Currently looking at this as a single pre-discussion, decision on separate RfCs TBD. Ping Liz. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the number of discussions, and I have some thoughts and concerns. I'm agnostic about whether or not to treat article creation separately from AfDs, because I don't really know enough about (haven't been following closely enough) the issues. I know that Kevin said elsewhere on this talk page that having two separate RfCs would result in lower participation in the second, and I'm inclined to agree about that. But I think it should get serious engagement in this pre-discussion, because it will require some careful planning to avoid pitfalls later on. (This is one of the reasons why I've been suggesting that editors generate some proposals during the pre-discussion. And it's more important to get the RfC structure right, than to get it settled fast.) If there are to be two successive RfCs, then there should be a clear idea, from the start, about how to progress from the first to the second. (What happens if someone makes a proposal during the first, that would be more in-scope for the second? What really needs to be settled consensus from the first, before the second should be attempted?)

I also want to make certain that I understand correctly that the RfC closers will be closing the actual RfC(s), but not the pre-discussion. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the moderators will close the pre-RfC workshopping discussion. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor nitpick

Hi! Is there a reason that the link in "... issue is a necessary precursor to the ArbCom-ordered RfC addressing AfDs at scale" is an external link? Thank you for putting this together! HouseBlaster^talk 23:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I probably just copied it from somewhere, removed now as unneeded as it was already linked. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Does mass creation only apply to stubs?

I think we need to be careful how we define mass creation. I think when most people think of mass creation, we think of spamming stubs, like Lugnuts, and that's what is written on the draft at present. However, if we aren't clear with definitions, someone who, say, moved 30 articles from their sandboxes to mainspace at once could get sanctioned, even if those 30 articles are all well beyond stubs (I don't know why anybody would do this, but I think it's something we should account for just the same).

And if someone is mass creating articles, but they're fleshed out and clearly meet GNG, is that still problematic? Or is there a difference between someone spamming database sourced stubs on Austrian cricketers from 1914 and someone creating a large quantity of well written articles? Now in most cases, you'd assume that creating well written articles would be time consuming enough to preclude mass creation, but there are some people who apparently live on Wikipedia 24/7 and can do this. Maybe this is just me being pedantic but I think it's worth considering. Do we consider any form of mass creation a negative, or only when it's a bunch of stubs? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This will be up to the participants to clarify what they mean once the discussion begins. Note as drafted in the "Definitions" section, the scope of the questions posed in the "Purpose of this discussion" section is the rapid and mass creation of stub articles. (Avoiding ambiguity is why I'd prefer just to use the term "rapid creation of stub articles".) isaacl (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't even think this RfC will decide that "any form of mass stub/article creation is a negative", but "any form of mass article creation not approved by strong community consensus is a negative". Anyone who's started creating a bunch of well-sourced articles can still be subject to a short community discussion, then approved and lauded for their work (and asked what they're taking, to be so productive). Ovinus (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitions

Regarding the definitions/terminology section in the pre-RfC: This discussion (and its lead-up) indicates we might need to clarify what the consensus is on sources that can "count toward" GNG. I think the majority of editors interpret "GNG sourcing" to mean multiple pieces of SIGCOV, each needing to be significant in their amount of coverage, independent of the subject and of each other, secondary, and in RS. But another interpretation is that the whole of the sourcing needs to contain those facets, but to count toward the "multiple" aspect of GNG a single RS need not contain SIGCOV or be independent or secondary. This is based on the "sources" criterion in WP:GNG not being possible for a single source to meet, and therefore none of the criteria are expected to be met for any single GNG-contributing source. Since these interpretations can lead to very different outcomes in which articles are created, it may be helpful to get everyone on the same page before parameterizing any article creation assumptions around GNG compliance. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's really, really dangerous to try to set a group of parameters to effectively quantify this sort of thing. And unnecessary. What's significant in a single source can be different in different areas and can be different if you consider the WP:BASIC definition whereby a group of less significant sources can be combined to show significant levels of coverage.

Trying to quantify something like this will lead us to a position where we'd delete maybe 80-90% of the articles we have - seriously. And that, in my view, threatens the very basis on which wikipedia was set up and attempts to operate under. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing, Where did I say we should quantify what SIGCOV means, or anything about BASIC? The issue I'm pointing out is disagreement on whether sourcing can "meet GNG" with solely 1 RS that has SIGCOV but is not secondary or independent, and 1 RS that has a trivial mention but is secondary and independent. That is the interpretation of GNG put forth by some editors, and if we are going to define mass-creation as a problem when it involves stub articles that don't have GNG sourcing or for which GNG sourcing cannot later be found, it would make sense to clarify what criteria we actually expect for a "GNG source". This would not be litigating what constitutes SIGCOV or independence or secondariness, just whether all of those components are needed in a source for it to contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's how it read to me; thank you for clarifying what you meant. I'm still wary that in effect a small group of editors who notice the discussion (and it's only by chance that I have) are going to end up setting some form of standard for sourcing. Honestly, some of this stuff is going to go to the heart of what Wikipedia is for. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No one is setting the standard for sourcing here, or even close. We are working on the draft of the structure of the discussion where we'll workshop the RfC in advance of running the RfC. Valereee (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's what happens at that discussion, in the light of the OP here, that concerns me. I'm OK with what's happening here just now, but the comment at the top of this section set too many alarm bells ringing for me. Prob best just to collapse this stuff down or delete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is set to be announced (with any luck in the next day) at multiple fora, including AfD, AC/N, AN, and VPP. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not going to be announced in that timeframe, sorry. Still awaiting feedback from various. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree with "another interpretation". The GNG is a single sentence about when a topic is "presumed to be suitable...", and the subsequent definitions use less-than-absolute terms like "should" and "good test of". One thing that such an interpretation of the GNG protects against is a political climate where there are two major parties, and many people consider any news medium sympathetic to the other side to be unreliable. In such a climate, if some subject has coverage in two sources from opposite sides of the divide, one group might say that coverage in source A is reliable and significant while coverage in source B is unreliable and trivial, while the other group might say the opposite. But if they both agree that the subject is newsworthy, while taking opposite positions about it, then it probably is lower-case notable.

That said, I believe the the question is out-of-scope for the workshop draft, and might be out-of-scope for the workshop; perhaps an RfC to add wording to the GNG would be the right place?

Or perhaps the topic shouldn't be phrased as any judgement of the GNG, but of something like "special notability guidelines for mass-created new articles". And that "mass-created" defnition should probably be a separate part of the discussion. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Two process issues

Thanks for doing this. I've read the draft and I think the rules are very well-crafted. Two points:

1. I think that "at least seven days" may be too short a period to accomplish this, even as a pre-RfC.
2. It might be worthwhile for editors working locally at this talk page discussion to create the first one or two proposals, before the RfC goes live. (There were probably at least a half dozen posted before the start of the GMO RfC, with a lot more being created afterword, and that worked fine). I think if the page goes live with no proposals yet, some editors may hesitate to jump in first. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Tryptofish, thank you so much for your input. In the tentative timeline (still TBA) I've allowed 14 days, then another ~ten for 'RfC prep', thinking 7 was the minimum and if we're still working productively we can push it a little.

Early issue/proposal statements completely welcome! Happy to transfer those over to the draft when we move it to the workshop page as initial proposals! Valereee (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there's enough interest that I'm not concerned about the discussion remaining blank for very long. isaacl (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Human psychology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just going by the interest on this talk page, where the issues aren't even being discussed yet, and the interest in the arbitration case, I think there are editors chomping on the bit to raise proposals. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, neither of us can prove it. But, just going by the interest on this talk page, Valereee said a day ago that early statements are welcome, but nobody made one yet. There can be a difference between being eager, and being willing to go first. If a few editors who feel strongly (I don't) want to offer early statements, that would solve the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't gone live yet on the final destination page and hasn't been broadly announced. Editors might not post right away because it takes time to work up a good proposal, but I'm confident there are editors who have made proposals already in previous discussions that are willing to be the first persons to make proposals once the discussion starts. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm really just saying it would be helpful if some editors would post early, not that it would be the end of the world if they don't. Unless you are actually opposed to early posting, I think it's a waste of time to argue over predictions of what might or might not happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure; I'm just saying that personally I wouldn't delay the start of the pre-RfC discussion to pre-populate it with some proposals. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we aren't delaying to pre-populate, absolutely. We're waiting for various inputs, and when we have them, we'll start. If in the interim we get initial proposals, bully. Valereee (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Another point occurred to me. The rules don't say anything about the RfC talk page. At a minimum, it might be worthwhile to say that it may be used for threaded discussion, but that other rules will still apply, or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that threaded discussion is fine at the talk. @Tryptofish or anyone, do you see a reason not to allow threaded discussion? Do we need to create limitations? Moving parts, always more moving parts. Valereee (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Just personally, I think threaded discussion is appropriate for the talk page, so it's fine. I'd apply the same rules about civility etc. as on the RfC page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If the RFC will be a stand-alone page, so that it will have its own talk page, then threaded discussion should go on the talk page, and that will be fine. If, as is usual, the RFC is a section on a talk page, then it is, in my opinion, best to provide a subsection for threaded discussion, so as to prevent bludgeoning of responses. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The RfC will be a standalone page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. The pre-RfC workshopping discussion will be at its talk. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding issues/solutions

For literally ONLY the reason of this not going live in my user space before it's been announced and moved to its actual home, please post your proposed issues/solutions here, rather than on the draft itself, and I or Xeno will move them. I'll leave @Donald Albury's just because it's already there and fine, but I don't want this to become the de facto discussion at this point. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Stealth

Proposed Issue: Stealth WP:FAITACCOMPLI

The mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to review, while the mass deletion of articles cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject to review. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussed because the addition of articles is not discussed because it is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.

The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible Partial Solution to Stealth Additions

Reports should be developed that can be either run by a bot and posted to a project folder for review or run by a human and posted to a project folder for review. The reports can show what editors have produced the most articles by categories in a day or month. A high rate of production may be either cause for recognition as a contributor or cause for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Added, let me know if you need it edited. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to put something like this, but there is in fact a review process for new articles. Maybe each article is not subject to community review? Or something about how new page reviewers are not a monolith and thus have a hard time detecting that sort of thing? HouseBlaster^talk 21:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, can you word that in a way that can be inserted as a proposed solution to this stated issue? Valereee (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I like Robert's solution above: making a list of the most prolific content creators. It would not help with meatpuppets (though I hesitate to use that word, as I do not believe any bad faith is involved here), but it would help. We would need to avoid it becoming a WP:WALLOFSHAME (maybe a WP:WALLOFPEOPLETOGIVEBARNSTARSTOFORBEINGAWESOMECONTRIBUTORS?). I was talking about his proposed issue, which I would oppose as written. There is a review process; the problem is that said review process is not designed to deal with creation at scale. I would support the above proposed issue with the following modifications (either as a separate proposed issue or by amending Robert McClenon's with his consent):

The mass addition of articles to the encyclopedia can be done as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by stealth because the addition of each article is not subject to review. While community review. Individual articles are patrolled by individual new page reviewers. Because they are individuals, they have a harder time picking up on a pattern than the community does at the centralized venue of AfD. On the other hand, the mass deletion of articles at AfD cannot be done as a stealth process because the deletion of each article is subject to review extended community discussion. The deletion of one hundred articles must be discussed because the deletion of one article must be discussed. The addition of one hundred articles is not discussed because the addition of articles is not discussed because it because article creation is encouraged as normal expansion of the encyclopedia.

The ArbCom WP:FAITACCOMPLI principle disapproves of mass edits after the editor or editors have been advised that their actions are controversial. Sometimes the controversy surrounding mass edits only arises after they have already been made.

Robert, I feel like I hijacked your proposal. Now that I am looking at the proposal as a whole I would not be offended in the slightest if you would rather this be a separate one, but I have kept the markup to make it easier to see what I changed. HouseBlaster^talk 03:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee, User:HouseBlaster - Can we list both my original proposal and HouseBlaster's proposal as possible partial solutions? I am not sure, but I would think that listing more options in the discussion phase might get more thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, though I do think they should be linked in some way. Maybe there should be subsections like at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals? HouseBlaster^talk 04:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe a proposal or formal process for this; I am already doing so, and if editors want to collaborate a wikiproject could be started without issue. The real issue is that when these editors are identified there is no clear way to stop them from continuing their mass creation, as can be seen in this discussion with Hughesdarren, where they rejected the request to seek consensus for their mass creation, and this discussion on Nirmaljoshi's dam articles, where even once it became clear there was not a consensus for continued mass creation they continued to engage in such acts. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Dashboard Backlog Display

(Adapted from similar proposal for AfD) When an editor is creating an article, display the number of pages in the New Page Patrol queue, as well as, for comparison, the average number of new articles in the last year (or some other baseline period) so that the nominator can see whether NPP is unusually heavily backlogged. –dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Trainwrecks

Proposed Problem: Trainwrecks

Deletion nominations of multiple pages sometimes become train wrecks. (That's what a Wikipedia train wreck is.) This happens because one or more editors split their support or opposition to deletion between different pages. Then multiple editors take multiple positions that are not just forms of Keep or Delete or overall alternatives to deletion.

This is even more likely with mass nominations for deletion than with bundled nominations of up to ten or twelve articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Partial Solutions to Trainwrecks

First, define a size threshold where any nomination to delete more than N items will be considered a bulk nomination, and subject to special restrictions. One of those restrictions should be that the nominator must specify the logic, e.g., by defining a query that populates a category. This may focus discussion on the merits of deleting articles that belong to the category rather than deleting the individual articles.

Second, for bulk nominations, disallow any !vote to exclude certain articles from the nomination. If the editor disagrees with some of the articles, they are stating that the bulk nomination is not appropriate. A decision to Keep a bulk nomination will NOT prevent a bulk nomination to delete most of the previously nominated articles. Improvement of the scope of the nomination will be by repeated nominations, not by a split close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Related to this it would probably be useful if there was a semi-formal venue where bulk nominations could be collaboratively assembled prior to nomination for deletion. Such a venue would focus solely on determining what articles (or other pages) are suitably bundled, without considering at all whether they should be kept or deleted, only whether they are suitable for consideration as part of the group. Trainwrecks are not solely a function of number (I've seen nominations of four pages end in a trainwreck and nominations of over a hundred conclude smoothly) but also of coherence. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, can you word that in a way that could be inserted as an initial proposal in response to the stated issue? Valereee (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee please feel free to copyedit and/or trim the following:

Establish a venue where editors can collaboratively discuss proposed bulk nominations of pages for deletion with the sole aim of determining whether one or more groups share sufficient commonality such that if nominated for deletion (or merger, etc) together the nomination would be unlikely to end in a trainwreck. This venue would explicitly not determine whether or not the pages should be kept, deleted, merged, etc. It is recommended that relevant wikiprojects and/or editors active on the articles/in the topic area are alerted to these discussions.

Use of the venue prior to a bulk nomination would be optional but recommended. There would be no obligation to proceed with a (bulk) nomination after discussion. Bulk nominations made contrary to consensus at this venue should have a lower threshold for being speedily closed as a trainwreck, bulk nominations made in accordance with consensus should have a higher threshold for such closures. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise. Sensible ATD could also be put forward at that point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Partial Solutions to Trainwrecks (TNT)

To avoid WP:FAITACCOMPLI, indiscriminate mass creations should be handled by mass deletion. Create a process whereby hundreds or thousands of similarly mass-created articles can be deleted at once without the requirement for individual WP:BEFORE searches. This would be appropriate for cases where, for example, an editor duplicates the contents of a sports or geography database that contains a mix of notable and non-notable entries. This would have a higher standard of community participation than AfD, for example it could take place or be advertised at Village Pump. The idea is that although some notable topics would be deleted, their re-creation would place a smaller burden on the community than evaluating each one individually for notability. A mass nomination could use criteria such as "Articles created by (X editor) sourced only to (Y database)". –dlthewave ☎ 15:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It would I think be important to clearly define the scope of individual mass deletions, and also to do a thorough before on a sample of them before throwing them all away. If many of the sample are clearly notable and there is a pattern to them then it's much better to spend a bit of time working out a way to minimise the deletion of notable content. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I would note that the problem isn't always notability; sometimes the mass created articles are notable, but violate WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDATABASE. Such violations should also be deleted or draftified (redirection wouldn't be appropriate per WP:REDLINK), without impediment to recreation should an editor wish to create a compliant article on the topic. BilledMammal (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Surely REDLINK suggests the opposite: It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic for example. By redirecting they aren't redlinks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Special Notability Guideline

Problem

If changes are made to special notability guidelines that reduce the expansiveness of a criterion, or that otherwise cause subjects, including people or companies, to be no longer covered by a special notability guideline, an editor or editors may then reasonably nominate a large number, possibly hundreds or thousands, of articles for deletion, either as one or more bulk nominations, or as hundreds or thousands of individual XFD items. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, sorry if I'm being dense -- is this a proposed issue for inclusion, or is this just starting a discussion? Valereee (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee - I didn't know that this was a discussion page. I thought that the the purpose of this page was to build a list of possible issues and solutions. Is this a discussion page? So, yes, this is a proposed issue (one that is currently annoying editors and causing discussion, some useful, some useless) and several incomplete answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, just looking for something I can slot into a section and where. Are you asking me to insert

===Proposed issue 5 ===

If changes are made to special notability guidelines that reduce the expansiveness of a criterion, or that otherwise cause subjects, including people or companies, to be no longer covered by a special notability guideline, an editor or editors may then reasonably nominate a large number, possibly hundreds or thousands, of articles for deletion, either as one or more bulk nominations, or as hundreds or thousands of individual XFD items. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that, just trying to make sure I'm following, because that looked like a proposed solution rather than a proposed issue. Valereee (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee - I was thinking of the change in notability results in hundreds of articles for deletion, which is a problem. "Proposed Issue: Excessive Number of Nominations". I have listed various solutions below. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: No proposed solutions are offered at this time, but they may be offered in the near future. This is the case on 28 August 2022, when there are approximately two hundred football players nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

My BOLD solution would be to set up a watchlistable pseudo-draft space with a longer time limit where articles no longer meeting NSPORT could be moved. Then, have those drafts be eligible for AfD, but only some smallish number are allowed to be nominated per week. Editors can also move articles out of draft space, but only if they meet the minimum SPORTBASIC requirements, the moved drafts go into NPP, and only some smallish number can be moved per week beyond anything kept at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay @Robert McClenon Can you word this in a way that works as an issue statement/proposed solution? Valereee (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that I don't know how technically feasible this would be... JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, I get it, and I'm no expert on technical feasibility. One of the reasons we're workshopping instead of starting the RfC is to get at those kinds of things. If you have a possible solution that you aren't sure is technically feasible, the workshop phase would be the time to bring it up. Valereee (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I created a section below, #Pseudo-draft space. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What happened when PORNBIO was changed? That, presumably, saw the deletion of lots of articles that didn't meet the GNG?

This seems to go way too far for me fwiw - especially the use of draft spaces for tens of thousands of articles when it takes minutes for someone who knows what they're doing to initially determine if an article has a good chance of ending up being notable, but hours (at least) to research and develop a draft. Moving stuff to draft space is effectively deletion for 99% of articles, but way more than 1% of those are worthwhile. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing WP:PORNBIO states it was formally deprecated in March 2019. Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts/Archive 2 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts/Archive 3 the number of articles nominated tagged for that project that were nominated at AfD were:

• Jan 2019 - 2
• Feb 2019 - 16
• Mar 2019 - 12
• Apr 2019 - 4
• May 2019 - 33
• Jun 2019 - 17
• Jul 2019 - 7
• Aug 2019 - 5

So at peak there was an average of just over 1 nomination per day, so it seems there was no great rush nominate all at once and everything remained manageable although I've not attempted to determine what proportion of biographies were tagged for this project (because I have no idea how!). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I had no idea it was such a small number. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing, my suggestion was "pseudo-draftspace", which could potentially have an indefinite incubation time without auto-deletion. And I don't see why anyone would need hours to develop a draft if the only thing they needed to add was a single piece of SIGCOV? If they can't access the requisite sources, the article just sits in pseudo-draftspace until someone gets around to making it comply with SPORTCRIT or GNG. All these pseudo-drafts would also be listed at appropriate projects. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, so what criteria are you going to be using to determine what gets moved to pseudo-draft space? Because I think so much depends on that. I've pointed out a number of times that sometimes CricInfo profiles contain significant prose and are themselves clearly SIGCOV. Who's going to check? How about CricketArchive - which is behind a paywall? Some have significant prose profiles, some don't.

We're talking about tens of thousands of articles. Everyone here knows that these aren't all going to be checked - they'll simply be moved out of article space and into some kind of purgatory, simply waiting their turn to be taken to AfD. How many failed AfD will be an acceptable "collateral damage"? 1%, 5%, 10%, 25% or what?

We can do better. As I've said below and elsewhere a number of times, there are clearly categories of article where a higher percentage of articles are more likely to be obviously notable. We *have* to be more intelligent with this process: keeping everything is probably not OK; neither is deleting everything. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability isn't the only issue; most mass created articles also violate WP:NOT. However, I think we should leave such a discussion for the RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If we do that we'll end up not asking the best questions at that RfC. Or it'll become another trainwreck.

To be honest, unless someone actually comes up with some examples of different groups of articles that they're willing to put forward, no one's actually going to know what we're really considering, are they? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible Measures to Mitigate Downgrading of Notability

User:Valereee - These are possible solutions to the excessive number of nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I'm afraid I'm hopelessly confused on this section. Maybe it would be best to just add these yourself when it goes live, hopefully very soon. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee - The change in an SNG, causing a large number of nominations, is a problem. (We can see that some people are complaining about the excessive number of nominations.) The measures below are possible solutions to the problem. All of the would-be solutions are only possible solutions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Grandfathering

One possibility, when changing a notability guideline to make it less expansive, would be to provide that articles that appeared in article space (either by being creating or by being accepted from drafts) before the change in the guideline should remain in the encyclopedia if they satisfied the guideline at the time of creation.

Dashboard Backlog Display

When an editor is creating a deletion nomination via Twinkle, display the number of open XFDs (first listing and relisted), as well as, for comparison, the average number of XFDs in the last year (or some other baseline period) so that the nominator can see whether XFD is unusually heavily backlogged.

Extension of Discussion Period

Develop a formula to extend the basic discussion period for XFDs from 7 days to a longer period when the applicable class of XFDs is unusually heavily loaded, to recognize that reviewers may need to ration their review and research time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Specific Idea for NSPORT

Set up a watchlistable pseudo-draft space with a longer time limit where articles no longer meeting NSPORT could be moved. Then, have those drafts be eligible for AfD, but only some smallish number are allowed to be nominated per week. Editors can also move articles out of draft space, but only if they meet the minimum SPORTBASIC requirements, the moved drafts go into NPP, and only some smallish number can be moved per week beyond anything kept at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Aceptance

Problem

If the subject of an article is verifiable and met an SNG when it was created, no matter how it was created, there is no immediate problem with it existing. Such articles are effective seeds for development. In other words, there is not problem with mass creation.

If articles, or groups of articles, are considered not to be notable then they can be dealt with through standard deletion routes. Of course, with some geographical articles verifiability might be a key issue.

I feel some balance is necessary here. This is a valid perspective on the issue and thinking outside whatever box this discussion seems to have gotten into. Ideally there might be some middle ground that could be reached - but this is Wikipedia, so I doubt it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible solution

If an article is verifiable, do nothing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Valereee (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice on numbering etc.

Just as an FYI, suggestions on how to make the discussion more easily navigable/more intuitive etc. with the numbering of proposals etc. are welcome! Valereee (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes

For consistency of appearance and elimination of ambiguity, I suggest the following changes:

• In "Proposed issue 1: Mass Creations", remove the '#' character from the beginning of the text.
• In "Proposed solution 1.1", remove the '#' character from the beginning of the text.
• In "Comments by Donald Albury", remove the '#' character from the beginning of the text and change the beginning of the text from "This proposal would ..." to "Proposal 1.1 would ..."

Donald Albury 20:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Think I did it, LMK if I didn't get what you were looking for! Valereee (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That was it, thank you. - Donald Albury 01:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving mass created articles to draft space

A possible solution for mass creation that was undertaken without consensus, where the vast majority of creations are problematic, would be moving the entire body of work to draft space. Exclusions could be made based on certain criteria, such as the amount of content added by editors other than the creator.

I have been considering doing this through nominations at the village pump, but it may also be worth discussing here to see whether a formal process would be appropriate rather than bombarding the village pump with hundreds of such proposals. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to second this. This is a really constructive solution that sidesteps the creation/deletion battleground. Once those articles are in the draft space they can be addressed one-by-one, instead of en masse. I may even suggest routing them through a review process normally reserved for the Articles for Creation process. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Firstly this clearly falls under this process. I don't think it belongs elsewhere.

Then: what does "without consensus" mean? How are you going to judge that? If a series of articles were created that other people knew about and there was a consensus of some kind that these were "a good thing" overall, would that meet your criteria? (hint: I can show this to have been the case) Or are you simply looking at them with hindsight and suggesting that "well, they don't seem such a good idea now"?

I think people need to realise that we're talking about tens of thousands of articles here. If even 1% of those turn out to be notable (and, fwiw, in the area I'm interested in it's between 25 and 50% based on the samples I've looked through) then we're talking about hundreds of articles going through a review process or otherwise being junked based on some criteria that no one's been very specific about as yet.

As I've said elsewhere (several times) considering "every article created as a mass stub" is a poor way of going about this. What might work for "Olympic athletes from the 1920s from western European countries" might be totally inappropriate for "Small scale geographical locations in Sudan" and vice versa. Things have to be addressed in this way, and with that amount of precision. It shouldn't be too hard to do - but what works well in one category won't work in another.

Here's another way of thinking about it: today's featured article was created initially as a very short stub with no references and two external links. A year later it wasn't much better. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's from 2002. Not a good example. Also, comments that have already been said elsewhere (several times) will probably be more useful if they're saved for the actual RFCs or the RfC pre-discussion, rather than being repeated here. Let's work together to reduce how much pre-pre-discussion the RfC mods need to read, so they can focus on launching the RfC. Levivich 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet people still propose the same sort of scorched earth proposals - despite having been shown that from a sample of over 1,000 articles in a particular sub-group of mass created articles, about 50% appear to be obviously notable... Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of your comment is arguing against this proposal and is better suited to the RfC but I will address what does "without consensus" mean? - it means without a formal consensus for the mass creation of articles. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. I think we need to be much clearer in the terminology we use here. What does "mass creation" mean in this context? How would a formal consensus have been arrived at? What about an informal consensus? What about ten years of consensus formed at AfD? Is that formal? And can that be extended to apply to whatever mass creation means?

Put it another way: can you point at any example of a formal consensus for the mass creation of articles? I'm wondering whether GEOLAND was that? Or secondary schools? Or railway stations? Did a formal consensus exist there? An informal one did, certainly: each were considered perfectly acceptable to write articles about, so they could be (and were) created, probably quite quickly. For years secondary schools were absolutely acceptable and were kept consistently at AfD because they were secondary schools - they were seen as inherently notable.

I think we need to be more intelligent about the ways in which we identify articles. That's why I'm arguing this case here. If we don't argue it here we'll end up with proposals that don't address the actual issues or that end up doing something that no one really expected them to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Formal consensus, such as approval through a noticeboard, an RfC, or another approved process. However, I don't mind if we drop that part of the proposal; based on your comments it appears it may be confusing, and given that it would only rarely apply and consensus can change I don't see a strong reason to keep it.

To be clear, this proposal is not that we move every article that was mass created without consensus to draft space. Instead, it is proposing a process to propose moving groups of related mass-created articles to draft space. The requirements for these groups would be that:

1. All articles are created by the same editor
2. The creating editor engaged in mass creation
3. A significant majority of the articles in the group are not suitable for article space - ie, they fail WP:N or violate WP:NOT

The only valid opposition to the proposals made through this process would be that this requirement is not met; the closer would be required to discount opposition on other grounds, as well opposition on those grounds that is not supported by evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, can you put this into a proposed issues/proposed solutions format so I can just copy/paste? Valereee (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed issue

Mass creation of articles without consensus is a significant issue as it presents opponents with a fait accompli that exhausts their ability to contest the creations while attempts to do so through existing processes results in those processes, like AfD, being overwhelmed.

Proposed solution

Editors are permitted to nominate groups of related mass-created articles for draftification. Any group nominated through this process must meet the following criteria:

1. They were all created by the same editor
2. That editor engaged in the creation of large numbers of similar articles - i.e. mass creation
3. A significant majority of the articles in the group are not suitable for article space - i.e. they fail WP:N or violate WP:NOT

Opposition to these nominations may only be on the basis that one or more of these requirements are not met; closers would be required to discount opposition on other grounds, as well as opposition that is on these grounds but is not supported by evidence.

BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-draft space

This is a response to JoelleJay's comment above.

I have two ideas:

1. Subpages in the Wikipedia: namespace, similar to the retired WP:Article Incubator. It had Robots.txt noindexing (its entries are still in MediaWiki:Robots.txt), and the {{Article Incubator}} template may have added __NOINDEX__. If I remember correctly, a bot ensured that they were tagged properly.
2. Subpages in Draft: namespace with an exemption from WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. This utilizes all the Draft: configuration.

It may make sense to break these proposals apart:

1. Create a pseudo-draft space? Yes/No
2. Implementation?
   1. Wikipedia: subpages
   2. Draft: subpages
   3. ...
3. Use cases/criteria?
   1. Not meeting NSPORT (JoelleJay, Special:Diff/1107223298)
   2. Mass creation without consensus (BilledMammal, Special:Diff/1107458670)
   3. ...

At least one use case must be accepted to proceed. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Flatscan! Can you put this into a Proposed issues/proposed solutions format so I can just copy/paste? Valereee (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Differential standards for creation vs deletion, or SNGs vs GNG

Problem

Some SNGs, notably WP:NSPORTS, have been used to support mass-creation, based on thresholds of notability besides besides GNG. These articles are subsequently taken to AfD on the grounds that while their subjects meet participation criteria listed in NSPORTS, for example, they do not meet GNG. Without commenting on the merits of these articles, if the threshold for notability is functionally different when articles are being created versus when they are discussed for deletion, we will necessarily have a stream of repetitive AfDs and considerable associated conflict.

Solution

The threshold to be met when an article is created needs to be the same threshold that is applied at AfD. SNGs that do not confer notability independent of GNG therefore should not be used to justify mass creation. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Added. Valereee (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale

Please hold off on further additions, preparing to move this to the pre-RfC page. Once that's done any user will be able to add proposed issues/solutions and comment. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been moved and will be announced at the various noticeboards specified by @MJL when they next have availability, but in the meantime please feel free to take further proposals there. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)