Wikipedia talk:Drafts/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Revising criteria 2d of the draftification policy

Right now, part 2d of the draftification policy states that pages can only be draftified if "The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. (Old pages, and pages by experienced editors, deserve an AfD discussion)." I propose changing this to "The page is a recent creation. Old pages deserve an AfD discussion". This pretty directly goes against the spirit of Wikipedia which is the idea that all editors are equal. It shouldn't matter how "experienced" an editor and pages created by inexperienced editors should not be subject to a different rule than pages created by "experienced" editors. Everyone should be treated equally in Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs) 23:05, Thursday, November 5, 2020 (UTC) (UTC) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support - an improvement and a simplification. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Curious history question

Has there been ever an article that passed draft stage only to get deleted by an AFD decision? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:AFD reviewers are encouraged to accept drafts that are not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. If they're following these guidelines, up to half of the accepted drafts could be deleted. In practice, reviewers are more timid than this and accepted articles are rarely deleted. I've only had a few deleted in hundreds I've accepted. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as per Kvng. More accepted drafts should be deleted at AfD than are. As it is, AfC review is overconservative, declining drafts that would be kept at AfD. I think there is an unfortunate but completely understandable shame in seeing a draft that you just accepted being AfD-ed and deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY #2 proposed change

In recent NPP discussion I identified a potential improvement for WP:DRAFTIFY #2 the article does not meet the required standard. I think it would be clearer if it said, the article meets a deletion criteria and is judged likely to be deleted. Any thoughts from anyone on this proposal? ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion criteria are only used for speedy deletion. "Likely to be deleted" is different and much broader, covering articles that do not meet a notability criterion. We don't want to draftify articles that meet speedy deletion criteria, we want to delete them. So your rewording would really mean that nothing can be draftified. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, can you suggest a workable alternative to does not meet the required standard. I'd like to have option to go to draft as an alternative to deletion but in that we need to think about WP:BEFORE and whether there actually is a significant risk of it being deleted. Does not meet the required standard is broad and vague and interpreted by some as permission to draftify unfinished articles. ~Kvng (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That would still be true even if we made it more specifically not meeting any notability guideline, because the new-page patrollers who draftify things handle things at high enough volume that they are unwilling to do WP:BEFORE and will misinterpret lack of sources in the current article as lack of existence of sources. Changing the wording here won't change that mindset. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• "does not meet the required standard" is already expanded upon in subpoints 2a through d.

  Does not meet the required standard

2a. The page is obviously unready for mainspace, for example:

2a-i. it does not meet WP:STUB;

2a-ii. or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD;

2a-iii. or it meets any speedy deletion criterion.

2b. The topic appears unimportant, is possibly not worth the effort of fixing, and no great loss if deleted due to expiring in draftspace.

2c. The topic is not a new topic likely to be of interest to multiple people (such as current affairs topics).

2d. The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. (Old pages, and pages by experienced editors, deserve an AfD discussion).

I think subpoints 2a-2d are OK, even if a bit weirdly worded. Does the formatting mean that you don't read the subpoints? Perhaps change "the required standard" to "the required standard (see 2a-d below)"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, actually I did read the subpoints at some point and then I forgot about them at some later point. Standard brainfart. I think it would help to add the proposed, (see 2a-d below). I also agree about weirdly worded. I would suggest we trim this down to what's in 2a-i, 2a-ii and 2a-iii and renumber:

2a. it is not a valid WP:STUB;

2b. or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD;

2c. or it meets any speedy deletion criterion.

The other weirdly worded criteria are too subjective and are not policy-based standards and I don't think they add value. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I would support the change to explicitly reference the criteria below. I am opposed to getting rid of criteria 2b - 2d - this could end up with more articles eligible for draftifying if done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Suppose I should also say that I suggested in the NPP discussion the idea of limiting draftifying to those who are part of the NPR user group (basically those with the PERM and admins). Not sure if it's better to include that here (would need an RfC to enact most likely) or if we could just get the most common move to draft scripts to include it (would just need those scriptwriter's agreement). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I don't understand how removing 2b-2d would make for more draftification. These 4 points have a or relationship. ~Kvng (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I have not read them that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I had thought the relationship was and, too. As for limiting draftifying to reviewers: I don't think this is either possible (moving to draft can be part of many activities unrelated to NPP), or relevant (all the examples of questionable draftifying I've seen have come from reviewers). – Uanfala (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that others can come across articles that are eligible to be draftified while doing things other than NPP. However, by the criteria here articles should only be drafitied if they are new. So the subset of articles eligible for NPP and eligible for being draftified are pretty concentric (in reality some articles eligible for NPP are not eligible for drafitifying). If we were to limit draftifying to those with the NPR perm and we found that there was enough questionable draftifying then we could stop that by pulling the permission. This would, in my opinion, be a far more effective form than what we have now which is basically only through a community imposed ban so in reality is nothing other than asking nicely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we have history of reviewers losing their user right after problematic draftifications? You're right that the sort of articles that are eligible for draftifying are normally new ones, and therefore guaranteed to be looked at as part of NPP. But NPP is only one of many ways that new articles get looked at. There's for example the specific categories, or the reports of Inceptionbot. There are usually a fair number of editors, typically specialising in particular topics, who will come upon such an article outside of NPP, and who may, as they have every right to, decide to draftify. – Uanfala (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I worry that tying draftify to a perm could reinforce the perception that it is a quasi-administrative action, as opposed to a bold move that anyone can contest and revert. A better way to reduce the number of problematic moves to draft would be to start more rigorously enforcing the criteria above, which seem to be widely overlooked by many NPPers, for example by making the MoveToDraft script actually reference them. – Joe (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What data do we have about draftications good and bad? I would love to see data that the issue of poor draftifications is predominantly by people with the NPR perm. When I've looked into it that's not been what I found nor is it, I believe, what was found in the WT:NPR discussion that preceded this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Content moved from mainspace to draftspace, right? I've scanned through some of the specific examples brought up there, and I see plenty of bad draftifications made by patrollers. Apart from one performed by an admin as a result of an AfD, I can't see a single draftification – either good or bad – that was not performed by a patroller. – Uanfala (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala and Barkeep49:, 2b and 2c seem to be largely mutually exclusive. if the overall requirement is read as an and relationship, there would be few opportunities for draftification. We are seeing hundreds of draftifications a month so either patrollers are not reading this carefully or they're reading it as an or. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned drafts

I just had a draft that I'd forgotten about deleted. Is it possible to require that the creator of a draft be notified a week before a draft is deleted, perhaps through some type of PROD, rather than by speedy deletion? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

BilCat, on and off, we've had a bot doing exactly this. There have been maintenance issues so the bot is not currently running - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2020_5#G13_warning_bot. You may visit WP:REFUND to have your draft restored. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Wikpedia:Draft namespace" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikpedia:Draft namespace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15#Wikpedia:Draft namespace until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Rescuing / rereviewing drafts about to be deleted

Please see a related discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Who_can_rescue_the_drafts? (and if possible please reply only there to keep the discussion in one place). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving articles in active development

I see on this page an article should only be moved to draftspace if "3a. There is no evidence of a user actively working on it." However 3(!) of my articles have been moved to draftspace, despite actively working on them. Two of them, I made edits to 3 and 7 minutes before they were moved. The other one I had made an edit to 2 hours before. This is very frustrating because once an article has been moved to draftspace, even out of process, there's no way of moving it out of there that doesn't include submitting it for the review, because you can't request moves for pages in draftspace, again, even if they were moved there out of process. Could you please qualify 3a by saying that pages that have been edited within the past 24 hours (at least!!) should not be moved? Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

This has come up before; see for instance the threads "Draftification: How active is active?" and "Draftifying new articles" at this old version of this talk page. The issues are that (1) New page patrollers are supposed to patrol the oldest articles first but some of them get competitive about wanting to be the first to patrol stuff so they patrol the newest articles first instead, (2) New page patrollers see a lot of bad new pages and get quick on the trigger because of it, (3) Being a new page patroller is an important and largely thankless task and therefore there is very little taste in the community for disciplining new page patrollers when they misbehave. I think the best you can do is politely ask the person who draftified the page to move it back, if necessary pointing to Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections which requires them to do so when asked. If they continue to refuse after being pointed to that guideline, and you are incapable of moving the article back yourself, then maybe bring it up here. However, if you get your article moved back to article space in any of these ways, you should not be surprised if the result is to initiate a deletion discussion for your new page; usually there was a good reason why it was draftified and that same reason will be used to insist that it should not be an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft Template Content

I've noticed that the template for draft creation starts with the following section:

Welcome to Wikipedia! This page is a sandbox, an area where you can experiment and test edits. It contains simple examples of various elements you'll find around Wikipedia. It may be deleted after a period of inactivity; please do not use it to draft an article or create anything else you wish to last.

Emphasis mine.

Setting aside the userbase for a moment, this is a little contradictory and for that reason alone should be fixed. Given that the userbase of draft articles includes new editors, who won't know to ignore that section and might be confused or worse, deterred, I think we definitely need to correct this. I don't have an exact proposal at this time, and indeed would not be surprised to discover that I am not posting this in the correct space to discuss such alterations, but I am hoping to start a discussion on what the template should lead with.

BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving articles to draft space

User:SmokeyJoe just added the following to Wikipedia:Drafts:

• Draftification may be performed by the recent creator of the page, or with their agreement, or by agreement achieved through discussion. If there is dispute over draftification, use WP:AFD.
• Unilateral draftification may only be done once, and only during new page review by an accredited new page reviewer. Editors who are not NPR accredited must not unilaterally draftify an article, unless they created it. Use AfD instead.

This is the first time I'm hearing these limitations, particularly the one about unilateral draftification. Where have these limits been discussed and approved? Also, I've never heard of AFD being used with the intention of draftifying an article. I know it's an approved outcome, but that isn't the same thing. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that User:David Eppstein reverted the addition while I was writing the above post. BilCat (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There have been a few recent related discussions.

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#RFC:_Add_Draftify_to_Options_on_AFD

WT:AfC

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) in particular me with User:WhatamIdoing

Restarting the discussion, collecting all points here, is a good idea.

The instructions on limitations for unilateral draftification during NPR assumed only NPReviews were doing unilateral draftifications.

There is concern that unilateral draftification amounts to back-door-deletions. I have not seen actual problems. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I also share the concern that these limitations appear not to have been discussed here, as my edit summary makes clear. I also do not understand what it means to be "an accredited new page reviewer": is it the same as someone who has the new page user patroller right, is it specifically someone who has gone through a formal approval process to get that right, or is it a separate accreditation process unrelated to the user right? Do administrators automatically count as accredited, for instance, or do they still have to go through a separate accreditation process? And why should we require such a thing when even AfD-closure does not require any specific user rights (it is not formally restricted to admins-only). WP:CREEP and WP:NOTBURO would seem relevant. The answer above is non-responsive: it does not point to a discussion where this specific change was approved. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. You are right, there was no discussion here. Please consider this a fresh proposal. I thought it was obviously implied, and others have pointed out otherwise.

"an accredited new page reviewer" = someone who has the new page user patroller right. The most obvious and common reason for unilateral draftification is in new page patrol, and new page patrollers are supposed to get the new page user patroller right. It is documented at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, shortcut WP:NPR. All admins have it. To get it, start reading at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Obtaining the user right.

The rationale for this change is that we have discovered relative newcomers, who are not qualified for New Page Patrol, on reading WP:DRAFTIFY, did not read that they were not supposed to unilaterally draftify new articles. There is also the issue of Wikipedians who on discovering that draftification is a thing, they sometimes immediately object to it being a back-door-deletion process. When pointed to WP:DRAFTIFY for clarification that it is mainly for NewPageReview, and is once only, it was noted that WP:DRAFTIFY did not say it at all, it was only assumed and implied.

Is there any issue with the first dot point? I think it is preamble for what follows. It says that things that currently happen can happen.

Is there any issue with the second dot point? Unilateral draftifications are normal, but "only once" prevents maispace-drafspace move warring. This move-warring did occur, before these instructions at Wikipedia:Drafts#During_new_page_review. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Is there any conceivable reason for non NPR accredited/approved/userrightholders to be doing NPR and doing unilateral draftifications?

I submit that this is a clarification of the status quo. Do you approve or disapprove the addition of this text? Or suggest better writing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There is NOTHING about "accreditation" in the links you give. It talks about user rights. That is not accreditation. Also, yes, I disapprove. For one thing, people are expected to have some experience with new page patrolling before we make their life easier by giving them power tools. How are they to gain that experience, if they cannot do the tasks of a new page patroller. For another, the right to move pages in many other ways is not restricted in this way. Why make this one kind of move special? For a third: CREEP, NOTBURO. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why make this one kind of move special? Because draftification in combination with WP:G13 makes it a backdoor deletion method, and if the new article was written by a newbie, they could easily be intimidated from protesting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I agree that new page patrollers are the most common users of unilateral draftification, and that it is mainly for NewPage Review. However, new page patrollers are not the only users of unilateral draftification. You ask, "Is there any conceivable reason for non NPR accredited/approved/userrightholders to be doing ... unilateral draftifications? My answer is yes; I am an example. I am not an admin, do not hold the patroller right, and will not apply for it, but historically have made judicious use of unilateral draftification (about four times a year, on average) to give an author who doesn't know any better breathing room for a draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. Therefore I oppose the addition of the language: "and only during new page review by an accredited new page reviewer. Editors who are not NPR accredited must not unilaterally draftify an article, unless they created it." --Worldbruce (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce. I'm also an experienced user, and an accredited page mover, but I've chosen not to apply for NPR rights as I recognize my limits as a formal reviewer. However, I have made unilateral draftifications of new articles to avoid unnecessarily biting a new user, especially with the trauma of a Prod/AFD. (And AFDs can be very traumatic, especially for newbies.) In most cases, the creators of these drafified articles kept working on them, and I've seen several of the drafts promoted to mainspace in a short time. BilCat (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Draftificiation has never been limited to new page patrollers. In fact, when NPPers first started using it, and people objected that it was a back door to deletion being used without affirmative community consensus, we were told that wasn't needed because it was just boldly moving a page, and anybody can do that. This logic is encoded in WP:DRAFTIFY (a decent guideline, if widely ignored and rarely enforced) in the direction to only draftify once: if anyone can move a page to draft, then anyone can move it back.

The NPP right gives access to the button that marks a page as reviewed. That's it. We need to push back strongly against the idea that it is some sort of petty officer role that gives you a special say in what happens to new articles. – Joe (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s not just boldly moving a page, because it sets the G13 clock for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So you'd prefer every new article to be AFDed? Or are you next going to limit AFDs to New Page Reviewers?? BilCat (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I’d prefer NPR qualified people, like you, to get the NPR userright. But the real objective is to clearly and simply discourage newcomers from unilaterally draftifying, because of the G13 consequence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree newcomers shouldn't be unilaterally draftifying articles, but aren't there other ways to limit that besides what you've proposed? Wouldn't it be easier to raise the threshold of who can move pages into draftspace? BilCat (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes.

  How about:

  “Editors who are not <experienced enough> should not unilaterally draftify an article, unless they created it. Use AfD instead.”

  <experienced enough> could be what it says or something else. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been saying for years that we shouldn't do it for that very reason. But that was the justification for NPP adopting the practice in the first place, so it's illogical (and unenforceable) to now insist that only they can do it. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

One option might be to remove drafts from G13 eligibility as it exists now. Send them to AFD at that point instead, or use some variant of Prod. BilCat (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think G13 changed the situation very much. Articles moved to draftspace would just stay there indefinitely. – Joe (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

G13 basically amounts to automatic deletion. I'm not saying we should let drafts stay permanently as drafts, but instead have some sort of review process after 6 months of inactivity that might keep promising drafts. BilCat (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if what we need is a better shared understanding of the word unilateral. I think it's being used here as a sort of "high-handed" or "without discussion" indicator.

@BilCat and @Worldbruce, when you move a page to the Draft: namespace, do you talk it over with the creator (assuming said creator is potentially available for a conversation)? Maybe a note like "Hey, your thing's at risk of being deleted, so I put it in a safe place. Here's the new link..." wouldn't quite count as a "unilateral" action.

Also: Why would you move a potential article to Draft: space vs User: space? Do you feel the same about unilaterally hiding the page from readers and setting it on a path towards deletion in the Draft: space as you feel about unilaterially hiding the page from readers without that risk of deletion in the User: space? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of "unilateral" in this context is "without discussion", specifically without an AfD discussion that reaches a consensus to draftify. Without discussion doesn't mean without explanation. I use User:Evad37/MoveToDraft, which sets an informative edit summary and leaves a polite note of explanation on the author's talk page. Among other things, that note links to Wikipedia:Drafts, which tells them that if they object to the draftification, I'm obliged to return the page to article space. I rarely if ever feel the need to elaborate on the canned text when I draftify, but there have been occasions when a new page patroller has draftified in what seems to me to be poor judgement, and I've discussed it with them and/or the author, or moved it back to article space.

WP:DRAFTIFY WP:ATD-I is policy, and WP:DRAFTIFY has wide acceptance to be linked from that deletion policy. There is no similar policy similarly accepted explanatory supplement for moving content to User: space. SmokeyJoe on the one hand says "there is concern that unilateral draftification amounts to back-door-deletions", but on the other hand says "I have not seen actual problems". The issue is muddied by concerns that draftification is so rampant that it significantly contributes to the Afc backlog (something for which I've seen no evidence), and by some editors desire to unify Afc and NPP. If there is thought to be a problem with the current system, it would be useful to have data to guide us. How many draftifications are there? How many are performed by NPP? How many are performed by inexperienced users? How many attract editors in Draft: space other than the original author? How many follow each of the possible paths from draftification - reverted and not taken to AfD, submitted at AfC with various outcomes, returned to article space one way or another but taken to AfD, kept alive indefinitely by occasional edits, moved/copied to User: space, abandoned and deleted via G13. Of the last, how many were salvageable (perhaps measured by how many are recreated in article space, or estimated by random samples evaluated by editors experienced at article rescue)? What effect do they have on new editor retention? Data would facilitate a better shared understanding of the problem, if any. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Small correction. Explanatory supplements are not policy or guidelines. They are equivalent to essays. However, some guidance and documentation is certainly better than none. We can at least use this page to track current consensus.

I agree with the revert and removal of text. The current consensus is that anyone can draftify. The same way that anyone can move a page or CSD. Any change would have consequences and should get consensus. For example, part of my NPP school was draftifying. Would I not be allowed to do that if draftififation was restricted to NPPs? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I see the now reverted text as an improvement. The flow from NPP to Draft: has become significant. It dumps new authors into a whole other WP bureaucracy and if they are unable to navigate it, their contribution is deleted, potentially without further review. The problem with unilateral draftification is that new editors are often on the receiving end. The best of them may be able to figure out how to revert an edit but are unlikely to understand moves and how to revert them. The argument that WP:DRAFTIFY does not WP:BITE is weak. It's a mosquito bite vs. a bee sting. Is there some compromise that can be reached here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

Phabricator task to have software prevent draftspace pages from being placed in article categories

 You are invited to join the discussion at phab:T299286. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of "meet WP:STUB"

In the criteria for draftifying an article, item 2a-i says "it does not meet WP:STUB". Can someone explain what it means to "meet" stub status? Even after looking at WP:STUB, I haven't been able to work it out.

It seems like it should mean "not even big enough to be a stub", but I don't see anything on WP:STUB about a minimum standard for stub status. There is guidance on when a stub should stop being a stub, but that doesn't seem to fit the context in which it's used here ("obviously unready for mainspace"). -- Perey (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it means: Very little content, barely meets WP:V, no WP:V concerns, but is not a topic likely to be challenged for notability.

Browse Category:Stub categories to get some idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There is some relevant information at WP:STUB: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." So I imagine not even meeting WP:STUB means, having little verifiable information or no apparent notability. A one-line unsourced article about a member of a national parliament would meet WP:STUB, for instance, because there is information (membership in the government body), it is almost certainly verifiable (even if not using information from the article itself), and is enough to create a prima facie case for notability. To not meet WP:STUB, an article would have to be even less than that low standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question Perey. I'd encourage us to hammer out what parts of WP:STUB are meant here, then edit WP:DRAFT to reflect that. Could be as simple as using a more detailed link (e.g. WP:STUB#Creating and improving a stub article) or adding parentheses with some additional explanation (e.g. 2a-i. it does not meet WP:STUB (questionable notability or not sufficiently verified)). –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've sort of wondered about this for many years. STUB has seemed to mean a a bare definition for topics, especially where it is one of many similar topics, where there is an intention to come back and flesh it out later. This was certainly pre-draftspace days.

A challenging notion was criticism of "permastubs", as bad for Wikipedia. Permastubs were stubs that could never be expanded, because there was simply no more information. Examples were 18th century politicians, and obscure organisms where the only information comes from a database.

Unlike athletes, historic politicians and obscure organisms stubs have not been controversial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

2a. speedy deletion

2a-iii. or it meets any speedy deletion criterion. Interesting that this is included. I believe the community frowns upon draftifying something that should be speedy deleted. In fact right above that in 1a, it says do not draftify junk. Any idea as to the origins/use cases for this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Novem Linguae, yes, some bits of memory.

Some speedy criteria, Eg A7 and G4, don’t apply or are not applied readily in draftspace. I think there was at least one expressed concern that a reviewer may reasonably choose to Draftify something that could be speedy deleted from mainspace, that this should be in the reviewer’s discretion. Note that that this comes after (1) “some potential merit” and (1a) “… is plausibly notable …” as necessary conditions. Within point 2, the question is whether it is good enough to leave in mainspace, and meeting a speedy criterion sure means it is not.

A page that meets a speedy criterion can of course be tagged and deleted. These draftification instructions do not limit WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Why draftify articles that aren't being actively improved?

I somehow missed this contradiction until now, but if the aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement, why do we only draftify articles where there is no evidence of active improvement? – Joe (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Because most of the time the rules for draftification are used to provide excuses for getting rid of bad content that does not meet speedy deletion criteria, without overwhelming the AfD system, rather than with any serious expectation that draftification will be a step towards making the content mainspace-worthy. "To allow time and space for the draft's improvement" is one of those excuses. Sometimes it even works out that way, but only rarely. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptably flawed articles can camp in Draft space for 6 months or more. In main space, they'd typically be deleted in less than a month. Also what David Eppstein said. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning that there's an editor that patrols the back of the 6 month queue and tries to save fixable unsubmitted drafts. So some drafts do get fixed and republished. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a way to avoid biting newbies who create articles, and it extends them some good faith that they will continue to work on the article, especially one that should exist. That it doesn't often work that way for most drafts isn't a flaw in the draftify system as such. BilCat (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete own draft?

Earlier today I created a draft for a tv show. Later in the day I found out that a more extensively worked draft for the same subject has already existed. Is there any way to delete my own, now useless draft or should I just wait for the 6 month of no edit time limit? Thariqziyad (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thariqziyad. Hey there. You can add {{Db-author}} to the top of the draft and that will flag it for deletion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Thariqziyad (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

90 day limit on redraftification

Why does it state The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. Articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD.[note 5] when that wasn't conensus at the village pump RFC. scope_creep^Talk 20:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep: It was? – Joe (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

90 days was a rule of thumb according to your close @Joe. That wording does not say that it's a rule of thumb it says that it's a rule. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I should have re-read the whole thing. The pertinent wording actually comes at the end, in my view: Specifically, I'd strongly recommend follow-up discussions on: Whether the threshold should be 90 days, 180 days, or another figure. Given the fact that the head count was evenly divided that part of the close - there's consensus for the idea but not this execution necessarily - felt like an important element to accurately summarizing the consensus reached by participants. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, to try and summarise it more briefly: there was a decent consensus that old articles shouldn't be draftified, but not so much on how old is too old. However, since we have to pick a figure in order to effectively implement the first part (a rule of thumb), I went with the one originally suggested and supported by a plurality of participants (90 days). But it should be considered subject to change. – Joe (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

With respect that's not what your close says. It doesn't say "implement this subject to change". It says it needs discussion or else should be considered advisory. So if that's what you meant it's not what you wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And since Novem has now brought a close challenge up, I will add that this element of the close was a major reason I choose not to challenge the close at the time. It was far easier for me to see how a consensus could be weighted in favor of the concept than the specifics and the close seemed to reflect that dichotomy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That was my intention. I don't really see the practical difference between "implement this subject to change" and "this should be considered advisory", nor between "you shouldn't do this" and "as a rule of thumb, you shouldn't do this", which is probably also why I'm not seeing the problem here. Do feel free to clarify it. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Is 45 support, 46 oppose a plurality though? Full disclosure, I am considering appealing this close at AN but have not decided yet. Some of my reasoning is located here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, I suspect an appeal nearly 2 months later of the close will face challenges on procedural grounds. That said here's a conversation Joe and I had at the time about the close that may be of interest to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A plurality means that, of the people who supported a specific limit, 90 days had the most support. By the way, usually the first step if you disagree with a close is to discuss it with the closer. I'm happy to do that, though obviously I was aware of the head count (it's in the close) and wrote a nearly 700 word explanation of why I assessed that there was a rough consensus in spite of it. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep (and others) I went ahead and attempted to use language that more closely matches the RfC. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Don't forget about Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation – that's the actual policy this page explains. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Incoming redirects after draftification

When an article is draftified, then any incoming redirects it may have will get more or less automatically deleted (via WP:G8). This has been a known issue for a long time, has anything been done about it? If not, what can be done? Can the draftify script be expanded with the functionality for logging incoming redirects? And until anything like that is adopted, is there a way to track down the deleted redirects to a particular draft that doesn't involve manually sifting through the G8s in the deletion log? – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean for the purpose of restoring the redirects once the draft is published again? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

For that, yes, or – in case the draft doesn't survive in the end – retargeting them to any previous targets they may have had. – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a challenge. The only solution I can think of, which isn't ideal, is looking at the deletion log for the admin who deleted the CSD R2 redirect from main space to Draft space. If you use Twinkle, then redirects to that page are deleted at the same time. However, if the page mover doesn't leave a redirect when they draftify, which they don't, or if the admin doesn't use Twinkle to delete pages, then the broken redirects are either tagged individually, which makes them basically untraceable, or they show up at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. I've done work at WP:REFUND and locating redirects that were deleted when, say, Proposed deletions are deleted can be a hit or miss task. I know no bot or report that tracks redirects that are deleted when a page is deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

One potential solution could be making Twinkle or the MoveToDraft script look for incoming redirects while draftifying, and listing them on the talk page. But that of course won't happen for people just normally moving the page to draftspace. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Draftify after deprod

My understanding is that WP:DRAFTIFY is an WP:ATD. In this light, I assume this means that the target article has to be eligible for deletion. An article that has already been WP:DEPRODDED must be deleted through WP:AFD or WP:CSD. Until there is a deletion discussion or an administrator makes a call, I believe these should not be eligible for WP:DRAFTIFY. Does that seem right? ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Draftify explicitly says that it is 'not intended as a backdoor route to deletion it is, as noted, an alternative to deletion. So in the same way a redirect or merger, other alternatives to deletion, may be appropriate after a PROD, I would suggest in some (few?) instances DRAFTIFY may be appropriate after a PROD is removed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It may say that, and it may even be the case that the people who initially wrote WP:DRAFTIFY did not think of it as a backdoor route to deletion. But in practice it is in fact intended as a backdoor route to deletion, by the NPP patrollers who do it. The statement you quote is false and should be removed. Or else, we should crack down much more strictly on new page patrollers and not allow them to draftify articles in cases where they have reason to believe that it will lead to a six-month-delayed deletion. I happen to think the new page patrollers are largely doing an important and thankless job (although occasionally they make oversteps) and would prefer to bring our guidelines in line with what they do rather than tie their hands more. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

DRAFTIFY was written in full awareness that draftification provided a backdoor deletion route. Interestingly, there is no evidence of anyone abusing draftification as a backdoor deletion route, eg the anti-ATHLETE editors have not tried draftifying all ATHLETE stubs.

When NPP patrollers Draftify, they are supposed to be draftifying with a soft implication that the page can be improved and re-mainspaced. They are not to Draftify due to draftification being easier that AfD nomination.

There is the possibility of process misuse here, but my impression is that NPP patrollers are doing a good job. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anything is a "must" after DEPROD. It may be improved, redirected, draftified, nominated at AfD, etc. This is not an admin call, however a prior discussion is best when there are contradicting opinions on what to do with it. Jay (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, an article must not be prodded again after a deprod. (It can be prodded again, but the correct response is to unprod it upon discovering that it is the second prod, regardless of notability, and then maybe to take it to AfD instead.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I guess the consensus here is that WP:DRAFTIFY after WP:DEPROD is fair.

Can somehow explain to me how the not intended as a backdoor route to deletion squares with WP:DRAFTIFY item #3 there is no evidence of active improvement. There is little chance that another editor will work on articles in draft space. The original author has gone dark. There are a couple of us who monitor User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon but there are hundreds deleted every day. How will this end in anything but G13 deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Item# 3 is for New Page reviews, and not relevant to the prod/deprod discussion, unless there are cases where the author of the new article has abandoned the work and it's up for PROD. Adding to what Joe Roe said, the de-prodder would have made the decision on how to keep it - as an article, redirect or draft. Jay (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Point 3b of WP:DRAFTIFY is that there must be no assertion that the page belongs in mainspace. Is removing a PROD from an article not a pretty clear assertion that someone wants it in mainspace? – Joe (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Deprodding is an assertion that the page belongs in mainspace. The de-prodder may choose to Draftify instead of allowing the page to be deleted via PROD, but any other editor must then use AfD to delete or Draftify. (Few exceptions include a newly discovered G12 application) This is a good rule, despite the occasional occurrences of mass deprodding, which is disruption, either on the part of the mass deprodder, or the mass prodder. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree that Draftify should be considered an ATD. Draftify is a reversible pseudodeletion or a slow path to deletion. If a page should be deleted, it should not be draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

With these latest comments, it no longer looks like we have a consensus. I don't believe WP:DRAFTIFY after WP:DEPROD happens often so I think it is OK to leave it as a gray area.

As a separate and more serious issue, I don't think the not intended as a backdoor route to deletion piece of WP:DRAFTIFY is being realized. ~Kvng (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Kvng, when asked cold, does DEPROD imply an assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, my answer is “yes”, but maybe the rule shouldn’t be to not DRAFTIFY, but to ask the PRODder. If the original PRODder agrees to draftification, then AfD should not be needed. I guess it would be proper to merely ping the PRODder, when draftifying, inviting them to WP:DRAFTOBJECT more explicitly.

I can easily imaging that someone might PROD a new page that doesn’t look notable. Someone else DEPRODs because it could be notable, and a 3rd editor thinks it should be DRAFTIFIED due to being unsourced but possibly notable. DRAFTOBJECT is the clear rule that if anyone objects, it should go to AfD for a formal decision.

I think DRAFTOBJECT is a sufficient safety net to catch hypothetical problems of draftifying after a PROD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You don’t think not intended as a backdoor route to deletion is being realized? I’m not sure what you mean by “realized”. I think it is a simple fact that when draftspace was created, the reason was not for it to be a backdoor deletion. It was in fact to contain newcomer cruft from mainspace. “Don’t use draftification as backdoor deletion” is a good rule. “Draftification is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion” is just a softer way of writing this, and similar to above, DRAFTOBJECT is the safety-net rule for rescuing problems, and sufficiently so.

I think I recall, without any notes, (in the G13 discussions) that there was a profound fear by some of deletion abuse by draftifications, but as there is no evidence of abuse, I suggest keeping the soft worded statements. For any concerns, DRAFTOBJECT is a good enough answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No evidence of abuse is a little strong, isn't it? Nobody has looked at it systematically, granted, but there have been plenty of individual cases of bad draftifications leading to a slow death by G13. I find them pretty much every time I look at draftspace. The big weakness of WP:DRAFTOBJECT is that it's usually new editors that have their creations moved to draft and nobody tells them they can object. From what I've seen, most just give up. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Or they need to learn the AfC process and wait in the queue to be declined a couple times before presenting something acceptable. I would actually like to see an example of a draftification that was either objected or eventually accepted without the intervention of a more experienced editor. We are loosing a lot of good-faith contributions with significant potential via G13. There seems to be an implicit consensus that this material is not worth salvaging. If that had been the attitude when Wikipedia was starting, the project would never have left the ground. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

No evidence presented that I was aware of. Bad draftifications that were later G13-ed are below the threshold I had in mind. I mean draftifications where the draftifier acted in bad faith to have a page deleted by having no one notice. Abuse, versus misuse.

I’ve not tried to be systematic, but my spot checks haven’t picked up draftifications where I would have !voted “keep” at AfD.

I agree with you about that weakness of DRAFTOBJECT. Maybe, article first authors should be notified, mandatorily, or by bot, of their article having been draftified, and their notification include mention of WP:DRAFTOBJECT.

However, I more believe that new editors should not be invited to write any new pages, but should improve existing content first. I know from real world connections that new editors writing in draftspace experience nothing of the editor community, and are disheartened to see their creation go nowhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I expect that kind of abuse is very rare indeed. But what I have in mind when I say draftify is being used as a backdoor to deletion, and what I think others do too, is that editors (especially NPPers) are sending articles to draft-followed-by-G13 when they previously would have been discussed at AfD or just tagged for improvement. "Not ready for mainspace" has basically become the motto of NPP, but I've never seen anyone define exactly what "ready" is. WP:DRAFTIFY ought to do that, but the criteria are contradictory and in practice regularly ignored.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

I can see the argument for discouraging new editors from creating new pages. I can also see the argument for letting anyone create new pages again. What seems crazy to me is the current situation, where we say "yes, of course you can create a new page! Anyone can edit!" followed by "your article is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page." followed by months-long cycles of AfC submissions and declines. It's completely alienating. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I support “discouraging” newcomers from creating new pages by devoting more space in AfC to “encouraging” them to improve existing content. One standard suggestion it is create mentions of their new topic in existing articles, and see how other editors respond. This means some interaction with the community or ordinary editors, and picking up some experience. Also, I warn that a new WP:ORPHAN page has a very poor prognosis.

None of this is actually “preventing” a newcomer from creating a new page. Except, I would require autoconfirmed accounts, elimating IP page creation, but if a newcomer is really determined with an exceptional case, they can use {{helpme}}.

The goal here is very largely to make newcomers engage with other editors, which is what happens with mainspace editing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can call it good faith if a reviewer thinks moving an article to Draft: will somehow cause the article to be improved and then reenter mainspace. I guess that's what the guidelines say should happen. This is not what actually happens. As far as I can tell the only time one of these drafts ever makes their way back to mainspace is if an experienced editor happens to be watching User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and notices a reviewer mistake. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, improvement of others drafts in draftspace is not what actually happens. Draftifying *is* a backdoor deletion route, despite not being intended to be so.

Back to Draftify after PROD, I think it should go to AfD, and mainly because at the AfD the de-PRODder will be looked at. You can dePROD for any reason, but you can be challenged on it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring on a draft article

I have an editor who is editing a draft article that I created, deleting my sources for notablity, and using WP:BLP as a cover. Neither are the case. My understanding is that Drafts are supposed to be a place where you can edit an article without edit warring. Can i get a clarification on the rules? 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to Draft:Alina Lipp? WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, including drafts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Deleting non-notable

Which is the deletion process for deleting obvious non-notable drafts? By obvious I mean vanity drafts, such as a school student writing their classmate's bio, or someone writing a bio of a commoner who they happen to know. It may have been written because the editor is not well versed with Wikipedia notability guidelines, or assumes that in a free encyclopedia anyone can write about anyone, or has written it to test their writing skills. Do we have to wait for the draft to be abandoned (6 months) before we delete it, or is there a way via CSD/MfD? These would be drafts that are written in proper language, thereby ruling out G1 or G2.

Similarly, if the draft was deleted as abandoned, and the author requests undeletion, are there grounds to avoid the restoration of such drafts? Jay (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think waiting 6 months for G13 is the norm for non-notable folks in draftspace. From what I've observed, for the worst "social media profile" type drafts (clearly unencyclopedic, full of social media links, etc), G11 can be applied. I don't think MFD is usually used due to being time consuming. The AFC reviewer "reject" option is also used sometimes to prevent resubmission of non-notable drafts. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We have had AfC reviewers that made use MfD for drafts. I haven't seen much talk of this option recently but I beleive it is still an option, also a waste of time IMO. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae and Kvng, I'm fine with using MfD given that we don't have a CSD option. But from what I understand, there is no provision even at MfD to list neutrally-written non-notable drafts, unless it has been submitted and rejected multiple times. I did ask DGG at the talk page of WP:NDRAFT for examples of "hopeless" drafts that can be nominated at MfD. Jay (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get there, but there are so many other priorities. DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• If it were notable, it should be in mainspace now. Putting your efforts into deciding “obvious not notable” from “not notable” is not a good use of your time. Calling in the community at MfD to join you is a net negative to the project. Please don’t. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NMFD and WP:NDRAFT applies. Not checked for notability or sanity. But if it is essentially a website promotion you could try CSD U5 (misuse as web host) or G11 (blatant advertising). If it's about a non-notable minor and not covered by news articles, you can request for oversight on it. But if it's just a student writing up their friend's or teacher's bio, those usually stale out to G13 unless they are persistently resubmitted. You can also check whether previous AFDs, MFDs, RFDs, or page protections have dealt with the subject in case they are trying to push notability for a person that has already been deemed non-notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

U5 doesn’t apply to draftspace. Should it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, good question. I was thinking when someone uses it as a record page for their league's stats (not Wikipedia-related stats), or as a photo album profile with multiple links to their social media and contact us info. I guess we can let it go a little bit unless it gets submitted persistently in that state or is copyright G12 of another web site. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see multiple strong arguments for U5 style speedy deletion in draftspace. But there are counter arguments, such as false positives, of the reviewer inferring where the newcomer is headed, and of the lack of harm of a small proportion existing in draftspace. Where people fear or allege egregious NOTWEBHOST violation, I ask them to point t9 the evidence in pageviews data. I recall one egregious case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to seek out hopeless cases to list at MfD, but when I do come across a case, it feels helpless knowing that such drafts are so well protected against deletion. Couple of reasons behind my original post were:

1. The original purpose of drafts is for turning them into articles. The luxury of time given to drafts is for them to get into a shape for acceptance as articles, and ideally not the time to debate whether the subject satisfies significance. Drafts are not meant as sandboxes where newbies get to learn to write bios of (obvious non-notable) people they know. And not a webhost where they have a Wikipedia page saved against such bios. The fact that the page is in draftspace, or that drafts are not indexed in searches doesn't matter. I have borrowed the term "obvious non-notable" from WP:NOTCSD#4. Perhaps what I was looking for was drafts not being exempt from WP:NOTCSD #4, or a draft equiavalent of U5 that AngusWOOF suggested.
2. I patrol WP:RfU and see requests for restoration of such drafts that we know "obviously" won't make it as articles, and have to face the moral dilemma of sticking to guidelines. The creators may or may not have similar awareness about notability, but they make use of the draftspace because they are allowed to. Some examples at RfU:
   • Draft:Madison McKell with one edit by an IP. While I declined the undeletion request, another admin accepted it.
   • The undeletion request for another "random student" was not accepted (nor declined), and other admins seemed to concur.
   • A request from today on a youtuber.

Hence my question about restoration in my original post. Jay (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that drafts are non indexed does matter.

I’ve nominated Draft:Madison McKell at MfD. All you have to do is not rely on notability for the reason for deletion. There’s a large number of reasons that can be found at WP:NOT, none of them are “non notable” or even “obviously non notable”. If the problem is merely notability, leave it alone. If it is vanity, promotion, or an unsourced BLP, use CSD or nominate it at MfD without using the word “notable”.

If you don’t want to restore a draft, don’t. Policy allowing the restoration on request is not compulsion on any volunteer to do anything. Go further, and comment why you don’t restore. If others start to note their agreement, it could be the beginning of new policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I use G11 where appropriate. I don't know of any CSDs for vanity or unsourced BLPs (G10 is for negative bios only). Also, vanity guidelines may have been important earlier, but currently WP:VANITY redirects to WP:COI which makes no mention of "vanity". Although I did use the term "vanity draft", I'm not sure if vanity implies non-neutral self-promotion. My discussion was about neutrally-written non-notable bios. Jay (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:BLPPROD could be extended to all namespaces, including draftspace. As draftspace is barely watched, BLPPROD there would be a pseudo CSD, and arguably subject to WP:NEWCSD. It fails WP:NEWCSD only on frequent. It is therefore an excellent rationale for sending every case to MfD, and if there are many cases, we can make a strong argument to extend BLPPROD to draftspace.

Currently, “unsourced BLP” is an extremely strong argument for deletion at MfD.

”Unsourced BLP” is a sufficient reason for deletion and includes unsourced vanity, and unsourced child information, and unsourced private information, and many borderline G10s.

I think that vanity drafts become easier to fit to G11 if they include a poor quality source.

In any case, where you have a deletion reason that does not rely on the word “notable”, I encourage you to nominate it at MfD. There are far to many harmless worthless non notable drafts to process them all at MfD. Given the resistance to extending BLPPORD to draftspace (see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#BLPPROD in DraftSpace), I suggest pushing gently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages#Keep redlinks? for a discussion relevant to drafts. The associated project page (a list of mathematics drafts) includes an instruction not to remove redlinks and to request undeletion when a link becomes red (generally because its six-month grace period expires), effectively preventing any listed drafts from being deleted even when they have no updates in over six months. This has been causing cascading issues of other editors pushing dubiously-ready drafts to mainspace to try to clear out the list (ping @Beland: and see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schneider's sine approximation formula). The project talk page discussion concerns whether this instruction is appropriate or whether the drafts should be allowed to die like other six-month-abandoned drafts in other topics. Additional opinions welcome there. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously unready

Kudpung has added a new criteria. I don't see where this was discussed. It's news to me that articles that need editorial work are not appropriate for mainspace. It is less likely they will be improved if moved to draft space. ~Kvng (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Kvng it's probably not a good idea to take things out of context. Stating the blatantly obvious ('the sky is blue) does not need a discussion. I have simply split and expanded the descriptions to make the blatantly obvious even clearer. There is a clear difference between articles that need a bit of editorial work and those that might just possibly have some potential but in no way can be allowed into mainspace. We need to keep the mainspace free from being littered with junk like Bognor beach after a bank holiday, that then gets indexed for ever by Google. The onus is on the creator to submit policy compliant articles, and nowadays the vast majority of articles that need editorial work are not the kind that anyone is going to be wanting to bother improving as I'm sure you are aware from your own recent patrols of the new pages feed - and this month's Signpost . Do join with us and talk to the WMF and complain to them for not creating a standard welcome page that helps users to understand what they can and cannot create. BTW, there is still time to join this month's NPP backlog drive. If your not sure what to do, ask MB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You added an entirely new 2a-i item to the list of examples. The content if 2a-i is not WP:BLUE or otherwise an obvious expansion of 2a The page is obviously unready for mainspace. I disagree with your assertion that we need to keep the rough edges out of mainspace. If you believe there is consensus that this sort of content should not be in mainspace, use WP:DELETE. Moving these to draft is not a good solution. ~Kvng (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The new wording "would probably survive an AfD" is obviously a much stronger condition than the previous "is plausibly notable". There are many articles that are not A7-eligible but for which it is not clear that they would probably survive an AfD. It is a change to the criteria and should not be made unilaterally without consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It all comes down to the subjective decision if the patrollers, so it doesn't really matter what the guidelines say. The important goal is to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and reduce the workload for those who work for nothing to do it. Revert if you wish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The patrollers already draftify too many mainspace-worthy articles. The last thing we need to do is give them an excuse for more. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you never draftified an article? As I have said to you before David, you are going to need to prove that claim with some concrete proof - we're already working on it in the aftermath of the last blitz backlog drive, so please give us names and numbers and if there's a pattern, if appropriate you can use your tools within the policy I wrote to yank the perps' perms without further ado. But I don't believe for a moment that it would come to that. Evidence needs to be substantive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You know that logs are public, right? You can check these sorts of things rather than assuming them to be true or false and looking foolish when your assumptions turn out to be incorrect. It appears that my most recent draftification was of Draft:Comparison of hyperparameter optimization software, last August. I have a significantly larger number of moves in the other direction, undoing draftifications (mostly not of drafts written by me) that I thought were problematic. My complaints about these draftifications were not hypothetical, but I don't think it's likely to be constructive to continue to point fingers here, which is what you appear to be asking me to do. If you want to see which ones I mean, you know where to find the logs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung I'm pretty sure that there is no consensus that patrollers should be able to use WP:DRAFTIFY instead of WP:DELETE to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also see indications that some patrollers are doing this and I also don't think it should be encouraged. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Kvng, there absolutely is not such a consensus and if anyone should try to propose anything like it I would oppose it with tooth and nail. If you ...also see indications that some patrollers are doing this, then you would be well advised to provide some concrete, indisputable evidence, and I would be one of the first to do something about it - I did not create the New Page Reviewer right for it to be abused. WADR, please read what I write for correct context. Also, I did not coin the phrase '...and would probably survive an AfD'. That is an expression that has been used a great many times in the context of draftification, and also by DGG (who I believe might even have been the first to use it, but he will correct me if I'm wrong. He and I have worked together to improve AfD since July 2012). I would however concede to substituting 'probably' with the modal 'might'. Finally, Wikipedia:Drafts is an essay. It's not even a guideline. It's ombox is not the one that states '...Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. To wit, the changes I made were not substantive, they were merely elucidations on what is already commonly known and/ior accepted by the new page control community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"There is no evidence of a user actively working on it."

It would be good to clarify this in terms of hours/days. I'd think that a few days, up to a week of no improvement, would suffice, but recently I had a "pleaseure" of getting my stub draftified overnight before I was able to finish it (~7h after I stopped working on it). I'd think that's too quickly, but maybe there are some recent-changes-patrol time tables to consider here? Although then there's the question of the recent patroller or such not being able to distinguish a work of a n00bie from a work of someone who has created thousands of accepted articles :P In either case, maybe the best solution for veryfing it that criteria is met is to require messaging the creatr and giving them a set amount of time (24h? 48?) before the draftification occurs? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not a bad suggestion, Piotrus, if it were applied to NPP for articles that still just have enough quality to remain in mainspace for a very short while. Perhaps it should be mentioned at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to put some brackets on it: The WP:G13 definition of inactivity is 6 months without any edits. I consider it too aggressive to WP:PROD articles that are less than a week old. ~Kvng (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

PROD and BLPPROD are of the deletion types that are best served straight from the New Pages Feed within about 30 minutes of creation if it seems obvious that it has little potential and the creator seems to be finished with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kudpung, where does this 30-minute figure come from. My understanding is we don't want to try to delete articles that are under active development. If the most recent edit was 30 minutes ago, I think it is fair to say it is under active development. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Kvng, there are actually no hard and fast rules, one has to apply some common sense when PRODing. Whichmeans reading the article and checking in the editing history of the creator before pressing any buttons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose

I notice that with 15 bullets, WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose. This is bad because complicated processes are good for wikilawyering, but are hard to follow to the letter. And also our documentation should reflect reality. Here's the common situations that I see NPPs use draftification for:

• Article has borderline notability - i.e. WP:BEFORE not turning up enough coverage, but seems promising
• Article is a little bit WP:TOOSOON - i.e. an article for a film that hasn't been released or a sporting event that hasn't happened yet
• Article is obvious COI/UPE - There's a couple of tells that I won't mention here but that make this obvious. According to the guideline WP:COI, these folks "should" use draftspace.
• Article fails WP:V - because it has no sources
• Machine translations - added per feedback below

Thoughts on rewriting WP:DRAFTIFY to be more concise and emphasize the ideas above? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. But not these two:

• Article has borderline notability – "borderline" is as vague as anything in the current criteria. Either a topic is notable or it isn't. If it is, and there are no other significant problems with the article, it should be in mainspace. If it isn't, it should be deleted. I don't believe this is a use of draftspace that is supported by policy or wider community consensus.
• Article fails WP:V — if an article fails WP:V, i.e. it is unverifiable, it should be deleted, not moved to draft. But that is not the same thing as lacking sources, which current policy says is not sufficient reason to remove an article from mainspace. Unless it's a BLP – but again, then it should be deleted, not moved to draft. Moving articles to draft solely because they are unsourced or poorly sourced was recently resoundingly rejected at VPP.

Other than that, maybe the current criterion about rough/machine translations is worth keeping? I'm not sure how often that comes up in practice, though. The caveat that only new articles should be draftified should also stay, because it has explicit consensus behind it. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I interpret that discussion at VPP to be a rejection of mandatory draftication and the range of time to which said proposal would apply to. If an article is unsourced and fails WP:V, or the notability is questionable, then moving it to the draft space gives someone a chance to improve the article to show notability and that the article can meet WP:V. It seems like a much gentler and better alternative to deletion or making someone else do the work to bring it up to snuff.

Out of curiosity, when do you think it's appropriate to move articles to the draft space @Joe Roe? I ask as I've seen you object to draftification in several places recently and I think it'd be helpful to understand your stance. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

What I consider appropriate is less relevant than which reasons have community consensus, though I think I've been quite clear from the beginning that I think draftication a bad idea in general. But NPPers are to some extent like administrators: we expect them to use their tools on behalf of the wider community, not based on their personal opinion of what is "ready for mainspace". The current practice of draftifying an article because the notability of the topic is unestablished, or because it lacks citations, though widespread, is not part of any guideline (NPP's or otherwise) and in my view contradicts the spirit and letter of several existing, well-established policies. If we're going to rewrite DRAFTIFY , it's a good opportunity to actually discuss with the rest of the project on what makes an article "not ready for mainspace". – Joe (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:, already WP:What Wikipedia is not is a good starting point for what is "not ready for mainspace", but anyone with a modicum of intelligence and wanting to be part of a Wikipedia quality control system's team should be able to recognise quiite easily what is not ready for mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Lots of machine translations are still showing up in the NPP feed. Most NPPers don't recognize/screen for this, but they should. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely no excuse for not draftifying machine translations. It's the laziest way of creating new articles and a total demonstration of innocent ignorance of what an encyclopedia is, what our policies are, and that other Foundation Wikis have much lower standards of notability and verifiabiity. Even if a translation were word perfect, if it can't come with proper sources, it can't have a place in mainspace.

Whatever our guidelines might 'suggest' there is absolutely no obligation for NPP to clean articles up. If the topics have potential, Draft is the place for them - and still no one is obliged to copy-edit them. That said, I certainly don't mind spending an hour to clean up a genuine translation, but it has to be mainspace fit from the start. In defence of the machine translator article creators, I will admit that it's the WMF's fault for abandoning projects to produce a proper landing page for such users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft is the place for articles that need work only if someone is actively working on them. This is clearly the case for drafts created via WP:AFC. It is rarely the case for articles that come via NPP. Articles that aren't being actively worked on are G13 deleted. Policy is clear that draftification is not intended as a backdoor to deletion. If patrollers find an article "unsuitible" but don't think it would WP:LIKELY be deleted at WP:AFD, it should not be draftified. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

So a poor article should become a perma-tagged piece of crap in mainspace - is that what you're saying? Any articles that reach G13 were never their creators' serious projects and the creators were never serious about building Wikipedia with useful new articles . G13 is where they belong but it is absolutely not a backdoor route to deletion, any suggestions to that effect are disingenuous. Again, the WMF is wholly at fault for not allowing a proper landing page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project and it most often takes a village to complete an article. Yes, we have a lot of incomplete work in mainspace and that's how the project was envisioned. Readers come across crap and they have the option to fix it and that's one of the ways we get new editors involved. Characterization of unfinished material as permanently pieces of crap demonstrates impatience or indicates that you no longer trust the process that got us to where we are. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

G13 postponement

A bot notifies a draft author after 5 months of inactivity. If the author adds an additional space after a sentence, and nothing more, the G13 is now pushed by another 6 months. Is this a good faith edit? Is it still fine to tag this with G13 a month later? Is there a way to reset the clock back to the 5th month, and is fine to do that? Jay 💬 10:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the G13 admins are fairly procedural and only delete after exactly 6 months of no edits. It doesn't usually hurt to keep drafts around for another 6 months. If there is a user that is mass editing spaces in order to postpone G13, that might be another story, but in general I think this behavior is tolerated. A more saavy user might have instead added a {{Promising draft}} template to accomplish the same thing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason to push any harder on G13. We encourage trivial edits as a way an author can indicate they still want to keep the draft. G13 is for abandoned drafts which means the author and everyone else has forgotten about the draft. That's clearly not the case if the author visits the draft and does something to it. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Notifying editor who worked on draft before publishing?

It has happened that an editor published a draft into article mainspace without consulting its creator who had been working on it just a few hours before. The editor did not agree of its publishing at the time. Yet the editor who published it pounds on it that it was their right to do so citing this shortcut. Maybe there could be made an amendment to the essay demanding the editor working on the draft (lets say until a month) should be asked if they had any advice etc. on how to proceed before publishing it. Similar to WP:AFDTODRAFT just the other way around. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with such a change because rejection creates no (must be consciously held to create no) prejudice against future acceptance. The editor who didn't submit in a case such as the one you described would not be affected in any way. On the othe hand if someone else submits and it gets accepted, that's great, works as intended. —Alalch E. 01:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Footnote 8 on deletion of redirects

Does this also apply to Draft_talk redirects? Have just (boldly) deleted a bunch before trying to look up if there is a rule on this. Shyamal (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If instead of deleting, you had only tagged them as G6, they would probably have been declined as pointless deletions. If the talk page of a draft page never existed, it is fine, but for an existing page whose talk page is deleted, readers may wonder what did it have. Jay 💬 13:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Pages that are being actively worked on should not be moved to draft

@WikiWikiWayne: That's the message here. Allowing a whole hour to pass while retaining an assumption that the page is actively being worked on is extremely generous actually. I contest your removal done here, and have reverted it; I'm interested to see if maybe you misunderstood what these words are supposed to mean in practice. Regards—Alalch E. 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• For example Template:In use is also about an article being "actively" worked on, but this template should be removed no later than just a few minutes after you've finished actively editing (making consecutive changes in real time). "Actively" commonly denotes a very short interval in this context. —Alalch E. 14:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E. – I'm reverting you, but feel free to edit that one-hour tidbit of nonsense to make sense in context. Editors have to sleep, work, relax, do chores. Hourly edits or it goes to Drafts is draconian and absurd.

See {{Under construction}} which is the toggle template for {{in use}}.

Please discuss more, before reverting again. We can work this out. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 14:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiWikiWayne: Wait please, don't revert. Give me some more time to explain. —Alalch E. 14:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review addresses a certain scenario pertaining to New Page Review. The part you're disputing deals with the following question: "When a new page patroller encounters a page about a topic which has some potential merit, but the page does not meet the required standards for mainspace retention—however, someone is actively working on the page, meaning that it may be continuously approaching those required standards: How long to wait to see if it is really being actively worked on, or if the work has paused?" That's what it's about. It has nothing to do with someone staying awake 24/7 to make an edit every hour. —Alalch E. 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The text which you dispute was added on 27 November 2022, in this edit by User:MB -- his rationale was clarify "active improvement" per latest NPP minimum deletion/tagging time. —Alalch E. 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E. – Requiring an edit in the past hour is absurd as ammo to draftify. Please do not re-add that terminology again. This essay started 10 years ago, without that snippet. Thanks. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 15:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne It is the opposite of ammo to draftify. It isn't an argument to draftify, it's an argument NOT to draftify. It's something PROTECTING an article from draftification in order to preserve the continuous effort someone is putting in the article, while it's ongoing (no point in doing so when it's no longer ongoing). If you remove the "one hour" text, the meaning thus produced will paradoxically be the opposite of what you intend, it will mean that it's fine to draftify MINUTES, not an hour after the last constructive edit. It's a safeguard against overzealous draftification. Cheers —Alalch E. 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Hello! Pinging you for a third opinion as one of the page's recent editors who appears to be currently active. —Alalch E. 15:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely with Alalch E. As written, it discouraged draftification if the article had been edited within the last hour, and an hour seems reasonable to me. I'm not sure where "24/7" has come from. (Note that I don't generally get involved in mainspace deletion/draftification.) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

To avoid draftification after one hour's inactivity you need to edit it at least once an hour. No? Otherwise, after you have been asleep for an hour (any hour, 24/7) the article may be moved to draft. Thincat (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're making constructive edits for hours at an end, one would think that the obstacles to mainspace retention have been or are somewhere in the middle of being removed -- conversely, if you've been making nominally constructive edits for hours at an end (for example, fixing grammar of an initial version that was entirely written in bad English or translating an article created in another language), but the content is, for example, not verifiable—so a core reason why the page should not remain in mainspace is not being actively addressed, that doesn't mean that you're incentivized to stay awake and edit Wikipedia 24/7: it means that the article should be draftified, as there is no evidence of active improvement in the relevant sense of "improvement" (active removal of the concrete obstacles to mainspace retention). —Alalch E. 18:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the merits or demerits of moving to draft. I was remarking on the consequences of being able to wait as little as one hour before moving to draft. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's only a consequence if someone is both: (1) incentivized to work 24/7 on an article; (2) is then let to operate based on such an incentive. I argue: no one is realistically incentivized in the described sense; even if someone had been incentivized and would have made nominally constructive edits for hours at an end, the article would still be draftified if it doesn't look like it's close to being ready for mainspace. So it isn't a consequence. Edit: in other words, not a realistic practical implication of the used language. —Alalch E. 19:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, the relevant distinction is the purpose of this page vs. the purpose of a NPP manual. This page is about draftspace, not where NPPers should go for specifics of how to do NPP. As far as this page is concerned, I don't think we should set a time limit. I appreciate that NPP may find it useful to set up some guidelines for things like timing for practical purposes, but that doesn't need to be reflected here. Personally, I don't agree with an hour being long enough to assume someone's not actively editing (it's not true for me, and it's not true for newbies, whom we also expect to research all the relevant policies/guidelines/styles/templates at the same time), but isn't this the wrong place to make that point? You'd have to convince the NPP folks to change their practice, not edit war over a site of secondary documentation. It should be removed here because it's not necessary here IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with every word of that. I recently actively edited a mainspace article making about 100 edits over 10 days. To avoid interference I copied the entire article to my sandbox (it's still in the history) and pasted it back when I'd finished. Fortunately no one had edited the main article in the mean time. I wish I didn't feel I needed to take that sort of evasive action. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)