This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coldacid(talk | contribs) at 16:55, 4 April 2015(→Oppose: a new XfD for drafts would just be playing Pong with the backlog, it wouldn't eliminate it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:55, 4 April 2015 by Coldacid(talk | contribs)(→Oppose: a new XfD for drafts would just be playing Pong with the backlog, it wouldn't eliminate it)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should this page be made part of the Deletion policy? The discussion that led to this page's creation, and the rationale behind it can be seen here. The aim of such a page would be to clear up the large number of WP:STALEDRAFT nominations at WP:MFD which almost never generate any discussion. Bosstopher (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Support. CSD doesn't apply to stale drafts eligible for the proposed DRAFTPROD, and this can help clean up MFD backlogs as the proposer has stated. There's nothing bad about this proposal except for editors who are too attached to existing bureaucratic process. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose since this circumnavigates the deletions via speedy deletion criterion 13. We don't need two different processes to accomplish the same goal. Also, the usual 7-day window is significantly less than the 6-month window for G13 deletions. In addition, if the draft truly should be removed/deleted immediately and uncontroversially, then it, in theory, should be eligible for at least one speedy deletion criterion in the "G" section. I don't see a good reason presented here to speed up the deletion of drafts quicker than already established via G13. And also, nominating drafts for deletion is a function of MfD, but in my opinion, there has to be a very good reason for nominating the draft for deletion prior to the 6-month window, such as basically qualifying for one of the "A" (article) speedy deletion criterions if it was an article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my reason stated here. This would result in behind-the-curtains deletion of drafts. A much simpler alternative to this is a minor policy tweak to WP:MFD. Admins may just be given the power to delete stale drafts nominated at MfD which have gone uncommented in the 7-day period. Another alternative is the one proposed by me and by Xaosflux, that of splitting out drafts to a new XfD venue. This solves the problem of uncluttering the MfD at the same maintaining an XfD system (which in my view is better for drafts because visibility of nominations is ensured). See the "here" link provided above for details. SD0001 (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creating yet another XfD board doesn't deal with the backlog this is out to clean up, it just moves that backlog around to somewhere else and ultimately solves nothing. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Might be worthwhile to reduce the time since last real edit criterion from one year to six months? Barring stale drafts that have been vandalized, G13may be applicable to some drafts before DRAFTPROD would be. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coldacid: G13 is already set for 6 months, not a year. I honestly think a more effective proposal that somewhat relates to this one would be to reduce the time that a draft would qualify for G13 even further. (In a discussion like that, I would probably be neutral since I really have no opinion on the timeframe, but rather don't see the purpose behind two different processes that accomplish the same goal.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
