Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: Not an appropriate method . Individual pages may be re-nominated individually at will but this was not an appropriate way to try to mass delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report[edit]
This is a mass nomination of every page on this report up to 150 in size. None of these drafts have been edited in 6 months. They are either completely blank, contain only a repeat of the title, some nonsense, or at very best a little bit of info that is not enough to consider a proper start to an article. I cite WP:G2 test pages, either of the Blank Speedy criteria, and G13 (although they lack the AfCtemplate). Putting an AfC template on these pages is just a waste of time and process for process. To be clear I'm not seeking deletion of the report, only the pages up to 150 in size. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete
...and G13 (although they lack the AfD template). Putting an AfD...
I think you meant AfC :) But anyway I'm all for deletion of the really small drafts. People have been working off of this report for about a year and a half, and I've seen a lot of time wasted through MfD'ing them. There might have been some that were kept but not to my recollection, and surely a low percentage. Overall, in my opinion we need a new speedy criterion for old, useless drafts. We're not worried about conserving disk space or anything, rather these are cluttering up the Draft namespace, obscuring those that actually have a chance at becoming articles — MusikAnimal talk 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -
Keep Draft:Geoffrey de Lusignan and Draft:Dooa El Adl, i.e. 2 out of the first 50 due to their page history. Neutral on the other first 48. Will expand this later.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)- Oppose this as seeking to develop end runs around the G13 process. Instead, openly seek to broaden G13 to cover all draft pages, and then see the discussion develop with respect to things in draft space not simply as new topic ideas. "Putting an AfC template" on pages to make them G13 is highly objectionable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment valid redirects and subsequently expanded pages would not be deleted by any Admin working this list. Godsy should not be unblanking a page that failed AfC and then was blanked by the only author making it G7 deletable, just to disrupt this MfD nomination. The author requested deletion already, give it to them already. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep all per SmokeyJoe; I misread the part of the nomination statement which they pointed out. No prejudice against proper individual nominations or speedy deletion requests for any of the pages. Even a proper group nomination would be more appropriate; it doesn't sit well with me that no {{mfd}} notices were applied to the pages and the authors were not notified as is required and recommended respectively. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep all per SmokeyJoe. This kind of mass-nomination is totally inappropriate, and as SmokeyJoe said, an attempted end-run around the consensus limiting G13 to a narrow set of circumstances. This clearly a form of gaming the system. In fact, i am thinking that an ANI discussion is warranted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.