This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As User:Legacypac has again flooded WP:MfD with unimportant cases, I propose that he be restricted from more than five nominations per day. Important considerations include:

• A continuing failure to articulate the problem with the page that creates the need for an MfD discussion. While the page nominated usually is utterly worthless, to review the nomination the review essentially is asked to go the page the form their own opinion.
• Too many nominations make reference only to things that have been confirmed in RfCs as not sufficient reason to list at MfD. The two big non-reasons are "notability" and "abandoned".

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A) discussion would be helpful before suggesting this. You know where my talk page is. B) abandoned is a valid reason to delete something with no hope. C) a simple click will tell you these are hopeless cases. We should not have to write three paragraphs to delete two sentences of effort by a throw away account. D) ignoring these noms turns them into a PROD style nom where they get deleted in a week baring some objection. E) I'm using CSD as liberally as I can without crossing people. F) if not now, when will these useless pages be removed from draft space? The unedited in 6 months non-afd report only went down 400 pages since last week and I was involved in nuking hundreds of pages from it plus 1000 in one go. The creation rate of crap is much greater than 5 a day. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not !voting on this - just a comment to Legacypac - you do seem to be bludgeoning the process a bit, your "D)" above really does sound like what you need here, get PROD extended to drafts and this goes away. Some bias here: I really think drafts should not be here (as they are "encyclopedic content" related) and should have their own deletion board - or shove them over to AfD. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The volume of Draft: nominations is a bit overwhelming when trying to monitor this page for interesting User:, Wikipedia:, Portal:, etc. issues. It would seem useful if PROD covered Draft: as well and I notice there was recently an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Drafts (along with one to keep G13) that approved of expressed some support for such a process. I tend to agree with Xaosflux that drafts, particularly if this volume is to be sustained, would be better off on their own board, as they aren't so much "Miscellany" as article-related. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Legacypac,

(A) We've had these discussions well enough.

(B) No, it is not, not on an individual basis via MfD. I have proposed tagging drafts with ((Promising draft)) and ((Hopeless draft)), with a longer term view of having the Hopeless drafts put on a deletion path, and a big advantage of attracting help by having a curated list of promising drafts. Were you not interested?

(C) No, it is more than a simple click. An MfD nomination should have a reason for deleted, such as a specific failure found in WP:NOT. Most drafts are worthless. You could throw up random drafts with your typical claim. The onus should be on the nominator to make the case, and reviewers to review and approve of the case as made. In time, a frequent nominator should become trusted. You, however, have a very high rate of MfD nominations that do no result in deletion. I'm glad to see you have become good at CSD, but you can't continue like this with MfD, at risk of breaking MfD.

(D) I strongly oppose unilateral PROD in userspace, less so but still in draftspace. No support at MfD should result in defaults to keep, especially where the nominator has not articulated a valid reason for deletion. "Abandoned" and "doesn't look notable" are not valid reasons, per se.

(E) Good. I see that. I also see that you are getting back into nominating pages that do not have a clear need for deletion. Speediable pages do. For drafts, I maintain, as I am sure I have said to you before, if it not speediable, there is probably no good reason to seek deletion.

(F) That requires policy discussion. Breaking MfD as a means to demonstrate a need for policy development is WP:POINT. Note a common response: Why do anything? Why not leave them there? And from me, how about you just identify the ((Promising draft))s among the non-speediable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My draftprod suggestion was only meant to refer to the actual draft namesapce, not user sandboxing. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lack of notability is a violation of the basic NOT criterion that makes us an encyclopedia: NOT INDISCRIMINATE. But at AfC we don't use it that way, but word it as "no prospect of notability"--I prefer in fact to say "no prospect of an encyclopedia article ", or more often "no prospect of an encyclopedia article after 2 years without action," or "no prospect of an encyclopedia article after 4 revisions with no improvement", DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No consensus always defaults to keep and any change in that would require a widely advertised RfC--which I think would fail (unsigned post)

I think DGG is quite wrong here. Very few abandoned drafts fail NOT INDISCRIMINATE. Also, WP:N is not based on WP:NOT, but WP:PSTS. And the real problem with citing notability at MfD is that notability tests require evaluation of all sources that exist, not just sources already listed. Everything in DraftSpace passing WP:N belongs in mainspace, subject to the separate WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Couple more points. I'm not trying to break MfD or make a point - I've just been spending many hours waiting in airports bored and seriously jetlagged with little else to do at 3am that that will not disturb anyone else the last few days. The best solution to useless Drafts is the extend G13 to all of Draft space. G13 postpone can be used to save the good stuff. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Are you open to tagging "promising" and "hopeless" (leave the middle ground untagged)? If the tagging templates were created?
• I am personally in favour of extending G13 to all of draftspace, and telling anyone keeping notes and other non draft stuff there to take it to userspace, or talk space, or a WikiProject subpage, that DraftSpace is for drafts. However, past proposals to do this met with resistance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm generally in favor of tagging and have done some testing but how to get around that the act of tagging an abandoned draft (ie unedited for 6 months) is an edit that removed the "abandoned" characteristic for another 6 months? I cane up with a different approach last night I'm going to try out small scale. I'll tag you SmokeyJoe if you want to work on it.

Not sure why SmokeyJoe says my MfD delete rate is problematic. The [1] XfD stats tool says I'm at 83.1% on MfDs. I'll concede that falls below SmokeyJoe's [2] impressive 84.1% but in my defense I'm mostly doing the more risky activity of nominating where no one has yet shown they hold the same view and he is nearly always voting on something someone else already says should be deleted by nominating the page. If I spent more time voting to delete doomed pages I could edge my percentage up a bit. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A full on discussion of the typical junk I've been nominating that emphasises the need for better process [3] Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• 83.1% versus 84.1%? Aren't statistics fun. If we wanted to argue stats, I reckon I could weasel out of this embarrassment. I was talking MfD nominations, and impressions. My impression is that Legacypac is very sensible with !voting on others nominations, that would be why he has good stats. For nomination only stats, I suspect the success rate (outcome=nomination) would be lower. But actually, my gripe is that his nominations are hard work to review, I have to form an original opinion because his nomination is so brief, and then when reviewed, I think the effort was not worth it. The MfD deletion discussion represents much more work than the page to be deleted. The central MfD point that seems in agreement is that we can't have every worthless abandoned draft fed through MfD.
  • Legacypac, I would like to count every "speedy delete" result on your nominations as an MfD failure. I would prefer to see you bring CSD-declines to MfD to examine the CSD-decline, as opposed to you becoming conservative and bringing more speediable things to MfD. I am fairly sure you don't disagree? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • User:SmokeyJoe a speedy after an MfD nom is already counted as a failure in the numbers, yet I occasionally CSD pages as the discussion develops which actually hurts my percentages. The chart shows I rarely end up on the wrong side of the result. Last month you and others were complaining I was sloppy with the CSDs so I finally fixed my CSD log. I've not changed my application of the criteria but disproved that allegation. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The twinkle CSD log is great. Without it, all that could be found was rejected nominations. There were several. The CSD log reveals the several to be from thousands. You're doing very good there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Tagging Drafts? Basically, the proposal is as written at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5#Tagging_drafts. Some equivocation over "Hopeless" vs "Non-starter". Reviewers should be tagging hopeless drafts as such on their first review. AfC review is too soft on early hopeless topics, and then they suffer tendentious resubmitting of the same hopeless draft, and I think this proves the failure to communicate the hopeless of the draft. Downstream possibilities include: (1) After 1 week, hopeless-tagged drafts are autoblanked; (2) After two New Page Reviewers agree with the the "hopeless" designation", the page is eligible for speedy deletion.
  The biggest positive about this tagging system is the the "Promising drafts" can be identified and categorised.
  The downstream blanking/deletion possibilities are predicated on G13 remaining restricted to AfC-tagged pages. Who agrees? If any, we should take this to WT:Drafts.

• Expand G13 to cover all draftspace? It would need to pass the WT:CSD crowd. Given previous resistance, I don't have enthusiasm for initiating a similar repeat proposal. However, if someone else did, I would support. An important difference to past proposals would be the removal, to userspace or talk subpages or WikiProjects, of non-drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think part of SmokeyJoe's idea is already covered. In AfC we tag pages as lacking reliable sources that show notability. That is a form of saying the subject is hopeless, though sometimes good sources get added. All reviewed AfC pages are categorized automatically by decline reason. The less severe decline reasons are a good indication the reviewer thinks the page has potential.

Perhaps a new "CSD G14 Page with no obvious potential as an article declined in AfC at least 4 times" ? That would remove the tedious resubmissions from MfD. Those with less declines just go G13 later anyway Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note a batch nomination of many really short useless drafts was rejected [4] with one admin threatening an ANi thread. The close there said nominate them one by one. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• AfC decline statements lack firm statements. "Failure to demonstrate notability" means it belongs in draftspace. Your mass nomination failed to articulate any WP:NOT failure. G14 proposals belong at WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I approve of what Legacypac is doing, but perhaps pacing the nominations more in line with the community's capacity to process them would be more appropriate.

With ACTRIAL now agreed and approaching roll out sometime soon, there might be a slightly greater influx of drafts (but not as great as the doom & gloom merchants try to make us believe).

I rather like the idea of a DPROD for drafts in either AfD or user space. The DPROD could have a short dropdown of canned deletion rationales such as those that have been suggested above.

I also think it's time to create DfD. So many namespaces have their own XfD: Redirects, Templates, Cats, etc., that it wouldn't hurt to have another one for Drafts that get dePRODed. This does not affect G13.

On G13, I would also be in favour of extending it to drafts in user space, but perhaps with the limitation that the creator has also been AWOL for 6 months.

If we go with any of these ideas, they should preferably each be the subject of a separate RfC, and staggered over a few months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• G13 already covers drafts in userspace if the have an AfC tag. Extending it would mean deletion of lots of userspace non-drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I know it includes the ones that already have the AfC tag. I meant specifically extending t to the ones that don't. Also, not all articles in Draft space are required to display an AfC badge, or even go through that process. Or am I missing something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Many user subpages are not drafts, but might be mistakenly caught up in the deletion of old userspace drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding userspace drafts - if they are placed in User:User/Sandbox and have gone stale - just reset the sandbox if you happen to come across it, it takes seconds and is process free. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I like the idea of tagging drafts that are unlikely to ever become articles with ((Hopeless draft)). I think starting a discussion with "here are the specific 1,000 tagged pages we propose deleting" would be more likely to succeed than a new or modified CSD criterion, for which it has been difficult to get clear community support. Such a batch deletion, even if taken a few hundred or a thousand at a time, would also be more time-efficient for the community than bludgeoning MfD piecemeal. The underlying issue, though, is that the reason there is no existing process to handle these is that there is no consensus that they should be deleted at all. Demonstration of consensus that draft space and user space should be "cleaned" at all should be a prerequisite to any additional MfD noms from Legacy, not 5 per day. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• If I could get a script that enabled a one-click addition of "*'''Delete''' per nom --~~~~", I might cheer up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried several times to properly format and MFD request for essay Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay but the full text of the essay kept appaering in the mfd log. What am I doing wrong? I copied/pasted the subst strings right from the how to directions on the project page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: when you created the discussion, you appear to have copied the content of the essay into the MfD discussion itself instead of the rationale, so then the essay showed up on the main MfD page. I also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Similar treatment is okay which might have contributed to the confusion? VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

All fixed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you both . Still don't know what I did , several times I used copy and paste on the icharacter strings from the instructions while manually replacing H&M with the name of the page . It was frustrating and missed fine to see the contents of the essay keep reappearing . Thanks again to both of you for your reply and assistance NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy go set up Twinkle. You'll never have to copy paste to MfD (or CSD etc) again. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks I will look into it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If we had a bot add the AfC template to all pages in Draft space every page would come up for review after 6 months or so off inactivity. If totally useless or problematic (as nearly all abandoned drafts are one or both) it could be speedied G13 with WP:REFUND. If it has potential it can be postponed or promoted to mainspace.

In addition to the garbage, there are actually abandoned Drafts that are ready for mainspace as is, but the creator perhaps did not know how to promote or did not realize they needed to promote the page. Adding AfC would cause some of these authors to submit their pages to AfC, resulting in feedback and potentially the articles being brought up to standards.

The current situation is cumbersome as it requires MfD to delete many pointless Drafts that do not strictly fall under a CSD. There is no NPP for Drafts so Draft space is full of copyvio/attack/spam and other inappropriate pages, plus other useless blank and super short pages and totally non-notable bios. Unless we develop a system that causes Drafts to be reviewed, Draft space will continue to grow bigger and bigger making it harder and harder to find amd remove problematic pages and identify good pages that can be promoted. Adding the AfC template is the lowest human effort solution and requires no serious process changes.

This solution is superior to implementing PROD in draft space because it removes the need to search for older Drafts (they will just come up in the G13 eligible category). PROD could be used to kill new Drafts which runs counter to the idea Draft space should give some time to develop the page. This solution also only targets abandoned pages, where PROD could be used to target pages still under development. There may be a place for Draft PROD as well, if someone wanted to assess newer Drafts, but the current backlog of over 6,800 abandoned Drafts presents a bigger challenge.

User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report shows the types of drafts that would be impacted. Check the history which shows how the list grows and shrinks weekly, due to deletions, newly stale pages, and how many pages get edited by bots, dropping them off the list for 6 months.

In summary, the proposal is to have a bot add the AFC template to every Draft page.

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about drafts above sprang naturally from a tangentially related proposal, but this probably isn't the ideal forum to establish consensus on this topic. WT:CSD or one of the village pumps would probably be a better place to seek the consensus that is needed prior to placing a request at WP:BOTREQ. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears Gestrid made a very similar proposal almost exactly a year ago: 1, 2. VQuakr (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that request. Personally, I'd still be in favor of that if only to get rid of all the vandalism and general trash that ends up in draftspace, though I think the general community wouldn't like having a bot doing this. Additionally, there are probably a lot of articles people are trying to keep under the radar in draftspace simply because they know they'll be deleted in mainspace. (Let me be clear: I am not advocating moving them to mainspace to delete them or anything like that. I'm also not accusing anyone of doing so. I don't want to bring that feud here.) By removing the template, they're avoiding the six-month time limit set on the draft, so many of those 6,000+ articles (not including the ones that actually are mainspace-ready) are likely already going in the recycling bin based on that alone.

Anyway, I'd consider the consensus reached in the second link inconclusive because only five people !voted (3 against, one for, one neutral). I'd also suggest looking into the ideas presented in the BOTREQ to make sure your proposal is crystal clear on what the bot will do, how it will do it, and how to undo it. — Gestrid (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Given an SEO link building post in Draft space gives PageRank benefits plus it gets mirrored which multiplies the effect, the idea people are hiding drafts that would be instantly deleted in mainspace has great merit. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent place to develop some local consensus and build rational for the proposal among editors who are familiar with how handling these pages at MfD works (the only current process other then for pages already eligible for CSD). If there is general agreement here we can take it to other correct place where we can support it together against editors with strong opinions but no experience in dealing with these drafts. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is enough highly experienced editors and Admins in this recent discussion Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Proposal:_the_use_of_G13_to_be_suspended_for_time_being voting against shutting down G13 and supportinh extending it to all drafts that a rephrased question would likely pass. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• The proposal is silly, as it is functionally equivalent to extending G13 to all draftspace, but is a more complicated implementation. Just extend G13. All non-drafts, and drafts wanted, move them to your userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

One difference would be existing drafts would get another 6 months, but I'm fine with just applying G13 to all Draft space. Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the state of current play at MfD, especially, in particular, the logs July 17, 2017, User:Legacypac appears to be nominating in blatant disregard to the well-participated RfC Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F, and in accepting these nominations, User:CambridgeBayWeather is encouraging him, and as a result MfD is thoroughly disrupted. Nominations of drafts due to non-notability need to be banned from MfD, as per the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

They looked to be abandoned and that's why I deleted them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Never saw this post before. That RFC is being interpreted with no regard for all the nuanced responses and has nothing to do with anything I've been working on. The question was wrong too. Had the question referenced "time given to establish notability" or asked if "we should permanently exempt Drafts from deletion even if they have no chance of meeting N or V" then the results might be applicable to periodic cleanup of abandoned Draft pages. Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a top-ranking website that anyone can edit. Do you agree that makes it a prime target for people wanting to record their random thoughts? Under what conditions would you support the removal of unhelpful material that plainly is unsuitable as the basis for an encyclopedic article? How should the mounting piles of crud be handled? Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Expand_G13_to_cover_ALL_old_drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well played. You don't want to engage the issue of mounting crud. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to engage the backlog of crud page by page one by one through MfD. I am thoroughly engaged, and have long been. Note your post on this page of 06:06, 10 July 2017. There are multiple layers of absurdity here. Something different has to be done. Legacypac is clearly pretty accurate on identifying worthless stuff. It is not as if there are serious "keep" arguments, "now that we are here". Calling out User:CambridgeBayWeather for co-operating with Legacypac's cleaning out of crud is half absurd, clearly deletion is the thing to do, but it is in clear conflict with the RfC, pretending they are being actively reviewed is not right, let alone being subject to community discussions. The quality pages Legacypac is finding are both rare and of very borderline worth. He is keeping logs, check them. He has got more flack from putting drafts in mainspace than having thousands deleted. The discussions on DraftProd were really unimpressive, no one will review them, they will be pseudo deletion. So let's just give Legacypac the right to speedy tag them, and CambridgeBayWeather the right to approve and enact the speedy deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I stuffed that up and have struck my comment. That page is on my watchlist and I will comment later. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability explicitly does not apply to miscellany, as discussed at WP:NMFD. It seems there's been an uptick in MfD noms that cite notability as a reasoning for deletion coinciding with a bit of a queue overrun here. I suggest that moving forward, any nominations that directly or indirectly cite notability as the primary reason for deletion be speedily closed. This proposal is based on a similar suggestion by SmokeyJoe a couple of weeks ago; thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: this seems to be a contested subject with different admins having different thoughts on this. I have seen admins on both sides of the fence here (two good examples can be found here (Premeditated Chaos), but there are undoubtedly more and I have been told that there was nothing wrong with the nominations by another admin via email). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It may be contested but it is not contentious; the linked info page and associated RfC are pretty unambiguous. VQuakr (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I agree as a general principle that notability should not be the overriding reason to delete a draft, speedily closing all MfDs that cite notability "directly or indirectly" is an oversimplified solution. There are various circumstances where lack of notability can and should be used as an important part of a deletion rationale. There are two broad circumstances where I feel notability does play into an MfD nomination:

1. Repeatedly submitted AFC drafts with no foreseeable chance at acceptance due to lack of notability. The rationale for this should be fairly clear, and I've observed this kind of MfD nomination run successfully several times in the past. Such drafts only waste the time of AFC reviewers, and we have to realize that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.
2. Long-abandoned non-AFC drafts about non-notable subjects with no foreseeable chance at becoming notable in the future. The draft space should not be used as a free space for articles about non-notable subjects to be hosted indefinitely – that is contrary to the spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST. For abandoned AFC drafts, G13 is there to clean up, but non-AFC drafts should also be allowed to be nominated and judged on their individual merits at MfD when the draft's creator has been inactive for a significant amount of time, and the subject of the draft is clearly non-notable. Something like "2028 Summer Olympics" or an upcoming Hollywood film has a high chance of becoming notable in the future, so a draft about it probably shouldn't be deleted. But drafts about WP:MILL things, like a garage band with no available sources, we don't really need to keep around.

Drafts should exist to benefit the project in some way – especially in the form of a future mainspace article. If a draft is highly unlikely to be an article in the future due to lack of notability, then such a benefit doesn't exist, and if we've given enough rope to the contributor to show that benefit, then keeping it around becomes a violation of NOTWEBHOST. Mz7 (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NMFD s a gross oversimplification of the RfC it is based on, an RfC that asked a leading question and was closed with way to simple a summary. If you asked "Should Wikipedia Draft space indefinately host non-AfC submitted WP:STALE WP:ABANDONED pages on topics which will never WP:OVERCOME issues with WP:N and/or WP:V" and added that "most of these pages are full of [WP:OR]] inserted by WP:COI one day wonder editors who never did anything else and never come back" I suspect that RfC would have a much clearer answer.

Many thousands of closed 'delete' MfDs show that User:Mz7's interpretation of concensus is a lot closer than that proposed in the first part of this thread. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• • I find it frustrating that you nominate a lot of drafts that are partial or complete WP:NOTPROMOTION violations, but don't mention that problem, citing only the "abandoned" and "non-notable" aspects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• It was made abundantly in RfCs, that merely being (i) abandoned or (ii) allegedly non-notable, neither, nor both in combination, are sufficient reason to entertain a deletion nomination at MfD. However, if (i) or (ii) apply in combination with a specific line item at WP:NOT, then it is worth mentioning. WP:NOTPROMOTION is the most common line item to apply. The most offensive drive-by dumps are attempts at promotion. "non-notable promotion", for example, a draft naming a company, describing its offered service, and listing company websites, is always deleted at MfD, BUT usually, I argue, better tagged ((db-g11)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Which RfCs are you referencing? I'm reading Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring, and the consensus is fairly clear (section A3) that drafts cannot be held indefinitely in the draft space if they are unlikely to become notable in the future, with most participants citing WP:NOTWEBHOST. Yes, it's not enough for a draft to be simply non-notable, and it's not enough for a draft to merely be abandoned, but if they are both (i) abandoned and (ii) have no foreseeable chance at becoming notable in the future, then I don't see any benefit in keeping the draft. I don't fully understand the apparent requirement of another "line-item" at WP:NOT. If the page creator – or any interested editor – ever decides to come back and say, "Hey, I want to keep working on this draft", I'm sure any administrator would happily honor that request. It is not really difficult to do a little WP:BEFORE check for sources and come to the realization that some topics, like a high school garage band, are not going to be encyclopedia-worthy anytime soon. Mz7 (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: This is the one referenced in WP:NMFD. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's my bias - I will very likely continue to close out MfDs for stale Draft space pages that anyone nominates consisting of things that don't even hint at notability unless there is a convincing argument to keep, even if the nominators rationally is non-notable. We've literally had "Draft articles" of singles sentences like:

Johnboy is a dog that can jump high and run fast.

Now, maybe, possibly this really is a draft about what is the fastest strongest dog in the world - and it actually deserves an article - but most likely its someones average pet. If that page has been there for a year untouched then someone can write up Johnboy's article anew later - and the presence or lack of any sort of afc templates isn't going to dissuade me from pressing delete. Now I also think this is a tremendous waste of MFD time and these should have a PROD or CSD criteria that can handle it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, the current situation has to be dealt with. "Johnboy is a dog that can jump high and run fast" should be deleted, but deleted quickly and easily. Per PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2017, I agree it is worth resurrecting proposals for management of drafts. Possibly...

(i) a draft Prod system, which I expect to be opposed due to "no one watches them"

(ii) A two-party, any two qualified NPR-ers (includes admins) in agreement may delete, or have deleted, any draft of no hope. Two people means a tagging system is needed. (is much like (i) PROD, but restricted to NPR-ers)

(iii) CSD#D* criteria, corresponding to A1, A3 and A7.

@SmokeyJoe: a Prod-like system would generate a category or list analogous to CAT:PROD and CAT:ALLPROD. I take it experience has shown that isn't enough to satisfy the community? VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(iii) strikes me as unnecessary; a draft that would qualify for A1/3/7 in mainspace is innocuous enough that it can sit for the duration of a PROD so we might as well address the bulk of the problem rather than incrementally addressing half of it. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I have experience getting out and stumping for new processes, I have little more enthusiasm for it than PMC. It is absolutely no fun to carefully create a proposal, and then to see it thumpingly rejected on the basis of a small error or oversight. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have five discussion participants here who have expressed unanimous agreement that something should be proposed. Having five co-proposers would help give a proposal some gravitas to insulate against flippant dismissal. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You summed up my thoughts on the matter precisely, xaosflux. Certainly losing a large, in-progress draft is a bit of a blow if you're starting a new article, but losing a single sentence (unless, I suppose, it's the best-referenced sentence on Wikipedia) is not really a loss.

I've been thinking about starting an RfC for Draft PROD for the past few days, since this discussion has been going on. It seemed to go fairly smoothly for File PROD, and there was this RfC that seemed to support at least something like Draft PROD, so I feel like it has a decent chance of passing. At the same time, discussion about Draftspace seems to be a bit done to death right now (lots of previous RfCs on the topic within the past year or so) so I don't know if it's a good idea to go prodding the hornet's nest right now. Plus I've never really been the type to go about proposing policy so I'm a little hesitant to go blasting in at full speed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What about some kind of system that combines PROD with your suggestion of a two-party system, SmokeyJoe? Like...what if Draft PROD lasts for a month normally (so there's plenty of time for review and no one can bitch that there wasn't), but if a second party comes along and endorses it (the way you can do with regular PROD), it shortens it to a week, or even makes it speedyable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Prod already is a two-party system, in that a nominator and deleting admin must agree. I can't think of a benefit to complicating the format with a 2nd, faster version (how about "semi-speedy"?). I agree that community-wide, there is established consensus that a process should exist to curate drafts. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with 100% of the prior discussion since I wasn't really here last year but I've gotten the impression from what SmokeyJoe has said that people were concerned about Draft PROD because drafts aren't heavily watched in the same way that mainspace articles are. Which is an absurd argument, because I PROD tag plenty of articles that are almost certainly unwatched, but they still get reviewed (either endorsed or removed) by people who check the PROD categories. But anyway, that's apparently why the proposals for Draft PROD-esque processes were suggesting a minimum period of a month rather than a week like usual PROD. My second concept (which I'm by no means married to) was just suggestion for a way to compromise about stretching draft PRODs to a month if unreviewed, and less time if reviewed, to get around that roadblock. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think my memories are from ~ten years ago, when PROD was first implemented. Wikipedia was much more active then. PRODded articles were reviewed, I think that is much less so now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: your response is totally reasonable and in line with IAR. The problem comes when a "so now that we're here" approach is applied to tens of thousands of miscellany. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• VQuakr, I recall strong arguments long ago against PROD in userspace. I think it was well before draftspace.

The problem CAT:Draft_PROD is that no one would browse it. It therefore may as well be a slow CSD. Then, people want the criteria to be objective. Then, it may as well be a CSD criterion.

The benefit of a two-party NPR PROD system, noting the two paties are restricted to authorised new page patrollers, is that it carries implications of PRODder responsibility and accountability.

XfD and mainspace-PRODding carries no formal requirement of responsibility or accountability. If someone is making excessive slaphappy nominations, short of invoking claims of actual WP:Disruption, the most we can do is grump at them. NPRs are supposedly vetted, strongly urged to read the tutorial, etc. Repeated displays of poor judgement can see the NPR right removed.

I think NPRs routinely reviewing each others PRODding of no hope drafts will turn out to be a good thing, culturally.

If two NPRs sign off on a draft as hopeless and to be deleted, it should be very easy for admins to carry out the deletions. I don't think it is fair to expect an admin to personally review every no-hope draft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

First, I think Draft PRODs would just get filed in with regular PRODs. File PRODs are in the same categories, for ease of use. I don't see any reason to treat Drafts differently; they'd be jammed in there with everything else and would be just as visible.

Second, I don't know about other admins, but I generally trust the judgement of the PRODder when I delete, or else I leave it alone. I fully admit I don't 100% thoroughly WP:BEFORE search every single PROD I delete, because I trust the PRODder to have done that. I also trust that there are reviewers who remove spurious PRODs, and that if a PROD tag remains after a week, it has probably been silently noted and not removed by at least one person. Like with anything else, there are PRODders who are more consistently trustworthy and some that are more slapdash; you get used to spotting regulars whose judgement you can rely on when you do PROD deletions consistently. I feel like Draft will be the same - some will be blatantly obvious to the deleting admin (the "Johndog" example), some will be removed as borderline, others may be a little more fiddly. People can pass over ones they're not sure about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer giving power to delete drafts to people holding the New Page Reviewer right, with the check of requiring two. Beware shenanigans when unvetted individuals act unreviewed. I think drafts would flood the PROD system, so it won't be me proposing it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Draft PRODs could swamp out the (relatively important) article-space PRODs. It is also likely they will have different acceptance criteria. As a result, sharing a category with article PRODs seems like the wrong direction. Having an additional maintenance category that shows both sets together would be trivial - much easier than sorting them if they started out grouped together. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, most admins are pretty vetted :| ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, admins are super-vetted. But have you looked at how many drafts Legacypac would like to PROD? I suggest sharing the load, leave the draft review to the NPRs, and when two sign it off as of no hope, have it auto-deleted. I like the likely side benefits of reviewers reviewing each other, even if cursorily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I just think it doesn't make sense to restrict DPROD to NPRs. Anyone should be able to drop a PROD on a crap draft without needing special rights (it doesn't take an NPR to recognize an awful draft when you see one) and second, NPR is super backed up anyway (from what I can tell, I don't hang out there), so I feel like insisting the NPRs take all the load is going to backfire and get no support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The is, or at least was recently, a move to restrict AfC reviewers to NPRs. Why would non reviewer be browsing and seeking deletion of non-speediable drafts? Anyway, we've discussed three options. An older two options are: expand G13 to every old draft page; and Do nothing as non-CSD#G* speediable pages are doing no harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The user right isn't purely synonymous with the activity. Over at NPP, there are people who patrol unreviewed pages that do not have the NPR user right. They can tag articles and nominate for deletion, they just lack the technical ability to mark a page as patrolled. VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I took a pass at distilling the conversation above (and previous proposals) here. Review and improvement would be welcome. VQuakr (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Drafts are a different type of "miscellany" than projectspace pages. There should be a separate DfD process. KMF (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is just far too broad of a policy of automatically closing MfDs. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Per my !vote and commentary here, I think some sort of consistent practice should be in place regarding deletion of drafts that have been recently refunded or moved from article space. What's the best place? Here? WT:REFUND? WT:BITE? Suggestions welcome. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not here? I always say, if you think there are several relevant places to have a discussion, pick one and go ahead, then drop a neutral link to it from the others. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

To User:Mr rnddude: WP:DEL8 is part of WP:Deletion policy, and WP:DEL8 should be read in the context that includes the policy WP:ATD.  Regarding WP:ATA, this is an essay, not the policy WP:ATD.

Further, Note 2 at Wikipedia:Drafts states,

"It was determined that the community consensus in this RfC regarding the applicability of Wikipedia:Notability to drafts in the userspace or draftspace amounted to "notability guidelines do not apply to userspace and draftspace drafts".

Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That wording is not accurately reflective of actual practice or precedent. It needs to be replaced. Ping User:Ivanvector Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think that the RfC answered the wrong question. Of course drafts are not subject to the same notability standards that articles are. They should however, in my opinion, be deleted if they are stale/abandoned and don't meet or have no chance of meeting notability. This is the case with Panzer88. The draft neither met any notability guideline, that would subject it to movement into mainspace rather than deletion, nor was it actively (or even inactively) under construction. That particular draft was a) stale, b) non-notable and c) incapable of becoming notable. I think that's a reasonable reason to delete the draft. Besides, if the movie was ever released and was notable, I'd say it's far more likely that somebody would just create the article in mainspace without bothering to look around to see if anyone had a draft article set up that had been abandoned. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

comments above copied from Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88

• Hi all, I moved this here because discussion of that particular draft had been closed before this thread started, and the discussion is likely better off in a more visible location. Further comments welcome (I'll comment myself in a bit). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• The relevant part of the alternatives to deletion section of the deletion policy seems to be WP:ATD-I, "incubation", which recommends preservation in draft space of "[a]rticles which have potential" (emphasis added). In order for an article or draft to "have potential" it must be about a topic which would pass any relevant notability guideline, or has some indication that it is reasonably likely to become notable in the short term. If content in draft space is not going to contribute to the encyclopedia, there's no reason for us to keep it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ivanvector I assume that you would agree that WP:N is neither a deletion policy nor a deletion guideline, and that it is WP:DEL8 that is found in the applicable deletion policy, a policy which includes WP:ATD.  Your argument at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88 began, "...topic...presently fails WP:NFILM, with no indication that this will change."  In reply I asked, "...failing WP:NFILM is not an argument for WP:DEL8 deletion were this page in mainspace.  So is there something different about draftspace that the WP:ATD can be disregarded?"  As part of my question, I wikilinked WP:IGNORINGATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this circular logic. Of course "failing NFILM" is an argument for DEL8 deletion in article space, that's literally what DEL8 says: that "articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" may be deleted, and NFILM is the relevant notability guideline. You mentioned ATD repeatedly but you did not suggest any alternatives; if you had one to suggest then you should have done it, rather than complain about process and blather on about policies and expect someone else to make your argument for you. As it happens, this content could not have been improved and could not have been useful anywhere else, as there is no way at all to say that there might one day possibly maybe be a movie made about whatever topic this was, without that statement failing WP:IINFO. I absolutely do not agree with your assertion that notability guidelines are not deletion arguments: notability guidelines are literally the standard for what topics are included or not, and the opposite of inclusion is deletion. Yes, sometimes content not fit for a stand-alone article can be used elsewhere, but Draft:Panzer 88 was not one of those situations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My take is that you should be explicit in stating, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, that Panzer88 had no viable merge or redirect option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC) WP:Notability does not mean delete if the topic can be part of another article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: First of all, thank you for your response. 
  As for me "suggesting ATD alternatives", my position is that the draft has been working to serve the encyclopedia without any requirement to "do something" about it. 
  As for "making my own arguments", part of that idea is that I can post text from WP:IGNORINGATD.  Below is the text from WP:IGNORINGATD, which redirects to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection), and the oldid here is oldid=794585120.  FYI, I've also collected relevant material at WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.

Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection) Shortcut WP:IGNORINGATD Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples: Delete Non-notable – I don't like redirects, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) Delete Fails N and all relevant SNG – Who cares about ATD?, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC) The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete and redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia search shows four results for "Panzer 88", three of which are relevant: Peter Briggs, Gary Kurtz, and List of World War II science fiction, fantasy, and horror films.  Given these search results, the point remains, even though the draft is no longer visible, that a notability deletion was not theoretically possible.  And your !vote, as per WP:IGNORINGATD, does not "advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection".  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've said pretty clearly now that the content of the draft, and in general any information about a rumoured future film that shows no evidence that it will ever actually be filmed, is unencyclopedic and could not have been re-used in any article anywhere in the encyclopedia. If you think it's noteworthy at all that either Briggs or Kurtz have been trying but failing to make this film for many years, add a note to their articles. If you think that the film should be listed in the WWII list you mentioned, you're simply wrong: that list is for films that exist. None of these options depend on a draft about a topic that cannot be an article per our current standards. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have started a base discussion regarding moving discussions regarding pages in the "Module:" namespace to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Should pages in the "Module:" namespace be discussed at TfD instead of MfD?. Input from editors who volunteer at this page is appreciated. Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help#Unreviewed drafts at MfD where problematic MFD nominations have been identified. They are effectively interfering with the AFC reviewing process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

They have been "Speedy Keep" closed by Primefac, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118 alex for deletion. Could an established user help me to finish the process? Thanks Goodsasd (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Aren't you a funny troll. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have posted an RfC that may impact this project and/or be relevant to the users who frequent this page. You can find it at WP:VPPR#RfC: Three Strikes Rule for AfC submissions and reviews. Your comments are welcome. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! Using a script, I marked several MFDs yesterday to be relisted as there wasn't a consensus in the discussion. Template:Mfdr implies a bot will move those on the MFD page to the current date section, just like other XfD pages. However, in reviewing the last 1,000 edits to WP:MFD, no bot does that. I poked User:Legoktm about it and he said User:Legobot, which currently edits the page a lot, is only for archiving, not for relisting (unless someone writes a script!). Is there any institutional memory about what's going on? Or are we fine with leaving these "relists" on the original date section? Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Even, better, don’t relist them. Instead, comment on why you fail to find consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ;) Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Per this diff, Legobot clearly does move the relisted MfDs to the right spot, and has done so for quite some time. The edit summary says "Removing archived MfD debates", but the content of the edits shows the bot moving any relisted things to the right place. It just takes a day or two for the bot to get around to things, not sure why. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh. Thanks for checking the diffs. I was looking only through edit summaries and a couple of the bot edits (not that specific one you linked). Makes sense now! Killiondude (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Although people don't always read the header, I thought it might be useful to summarize some common conventions about draft articles there so people who aren't regulars can familiarize themselves. Here are my rough thoughts, please feel free to offer changes.

• Drafts are not subject to the same stringent notability criteria as mainspace articles (see WP:NMFD). Generally drafts should not be nominated on the basis of notability alone unless the nominator can demonstrate that the draft would never be suitable for mainspace (ie, it is entirely original research or is about a topic that would unquestionably fail an A7).
• Common reasons accepted for deletion of drafts include: failure of WP:NOT (original research, creative writing), tendentious resubmission with little improvement, blatant advertising, and copyright/paraphrasing issues.
• Drafts for which a mainspace article exists should be speedily redirected to the mainspace article. If the mainspace article was created as the result of a copy-and-paste move from draftspace, it should be history merged to preserve attribution history.

Bullet point 1 attempts to explain the fact that yes, we do sometimes delete drafts on notability alone - but it's much less strict than mainspace. A draft that would be an A7 speedy in mainspace requires a full MfD, for example. Bullet 2 attempts to summarize what arguments we do accept for deletion, although it obviously isn't an exhaustive list. Bullet 3 is common practice and generally doesn't require a full discussion; I want potential nominators to feel empowered to just do the redirecting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea! Here's my take:

• Draft creators are given more time to demonstrate notability then Mainspace creators. If it can be shown the draft will never be suitable for mainspace (ie, it is entirely original research or is about a topic that would unquestionably fail an A7) seek deletion.
• Before nominating a Draft to MfD consider if a CSD clearly applies. Problematic Drafts usually can be speedy deleted as G2 (test, blank), G3 (Hoax/Vandalism), G11 (advert/spam), G12 (copyvio) or G13 (abandoned) and do not require a discussion. Edge cases amd declined CSDs should be brought to MfD.
• Common reasons accepted for deletion of drafts at MfD include: failure of WP:NOT (original research, creative writing, web hosting), tendentious resubmission to AfC with little improvement, and listed speedy deletion criteria.
• Drafts for which a mainspace article exists should be speedily redirected to the mainspace article. If the mainspace article was created as the result of a copy-and-paste move from draftspace, it should be history merged to preserve attribution history.
• Comments and edits welcome. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• All the above sounds good. I definitely like the idea that a draft duplicating an existing topic should be speedy redirected. As a rule, I only !vote to delete where a page violates something at WP:NOT, and I wish nominators would cite the usually easily matched WP:NOT section, not just for me, but for the obvious benefit of the author or other observers who come along later and won't understand the minimal explanations and SNOW delete !votes. Also, MfD is great for resolving disputes concerning a page: a reverted redirect, or a reverted blanking, should always be welcome at MfD, with my wish that the other party should be explicitly pinged from the MfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)