Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 5

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 5

Check User policy

A discussion is currently taking place at Clarification to CU policy concerning an amendment to the wording of the policy. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 5

MARKED DROP IN QUALITY

It was bad enough before we introduced the New Page Reviewer group. In the last few days the new page backlog has dropped somewhat (now down to 16295), but at considerable detriment to quality. (Wrong CSD criteria, tagging innocuous nascent articles within minutes, etc.). I warned that review drives are not necessarily conducive to achieving the best goals for Wikipedia, as evidenced by the problems associated wit the drives at AfC. Since I retired from micromanaging NPP/NPR nearly six months ago, I spend a lot of time simply doing what I can at the coal face, and frankly, from what I see, I feel that my earlier efforts have been wasted. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Some examples would help support your assertion, then maybe we can address root causes. It doesn't help that the community has often contradictory standards for what's acceptable and what's not, or we have clunky systems to managing the torrent of bad articles. Much of the work could be automated, and some changes to policy could address much of it as well.- MrX 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of tools exist to help with reviewing, but it would be nice to know that they are used more consistently. Checking for copyvios is really not optional. I find reviewing the logs for pages helpful as well, and the talk page of the page creator usually provides some insights. I've made some changes to my Toolbar to access logs, earwig, and links to find references (to satisfy WP:BEFORE) quickly. I can see that eventually new articles can receive a score, much like email spam that can bring particularly unsuitable articles to the attention of reviewers. For now, there's https://ores.wmflabs.org/ui/. Mduvekot (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, examples would help us understand and improve. There are different expectations among editors as to the quality of new articles. In my view, most new articles are flawed but they don't become good articles by sitting in draft space or the review queue or by being deleted. We will always have crap in mainspace because, by design, that's where article development is primarily done. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

While many see me as a deletionist, I believe that even relatively crappy pages on Notable topics with at least some referencing (WP:V) belong in mainspace not stuck in NPP or AfC (where they may be deleted as stale) or user or non-AfC Draft. The editors that work behind scenes are few but the ones who work mainspace are many. Let the many fix those malformed refs or poorly worded paragraphs. Why are we insisting everything be perfect before we release the page to the wild? Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

By not protecting the quality and integrity of WP, I fear we will end-up with an overpowering image as a poor quality, untrustworthy pile of crap except for the thousand or so GAs and FAs. WP will remain a "do not cite" resource comprising articles each with its own biased POV because of COI, along with an increasing number of poorly written articles that damage the integrity of the encyclopedia overall. Based on the shrinking numbers of GF editors doing the work, we won't be able to keep up, and in a few years because of this unsustainable rate of development, the lump sum results will be a shoddy encyclopedia anyone can edit which will eventually become the brunt of jokes on late night tv...again. A bit of foresight tells us that shoddy work will cause the contributions to dry up and good editors to lose interest (editor retention already being a serious problem). With the increasing number of paid editors, they will eventually comprise the bulk of the editing community which will be writing promotional material for business entities and advocacies. At that point we risk becoming known as the WP Business-Advocacy encyclopedia that anyone can get paid to edit, which in turn, will shrink our readership, cost us our place in the top 5 Google searches, or worse yet, WP gets sold off to Google and paid advertising. It's already knocking on the door. ^Atsme?? 16:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia aspire to be a source someone can cite when our own policies reject user edited sites as RS? Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not? If we fix the issues that prevent it from being a RS, the policies can be updated to accommodate those changes as well. Striving for betterment goals can only make the project better whether we achieve or set goal or not. Putting limits on what we can or can't improve about the project and allowing things to go along as it has been at the current rate of unsustainable development will only make things worse. The stats have proven it. ^Atsme?? 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You'd have to drop the Wiki part of the name and the "anyone can edit" idea and start strict editorial control before Wikipedia would ever become a reliable source. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does this idea that we want WP to be citable come from? People looking to do that would be better off citing our citations. In order for the order of things to be otherwise, we would need to start allowing WP:OR to create the sort of novel content that deserves a direct citation.

The quality goal for a fully-developed article should be that readers should be able to trust that the information presented in articles is NPOV and matches the citations in these articles and I think we're all behind that. I think Atsme would also like us to eventually have no under-development articles in mainspace. This can happen by fully developing all notable topics (unlikely), narrowing our definition of notability (happening daily in AfD discussions) or somehow hiding articles with maintenance tags or low or no quality ratings (initiative advanced by creation of AfC and Draft: namespace). ~Kvng (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already moved on to another concern that I believe could potentially grow into a huge issue; that being an increasing number of RS behind paywalls. It's bad enough to read fallacioius preconceived notions about oneself from complete strangers but I seriously doubt many editors will be willing to go out of their way financially to create and/or verify articles. Example: WaPo is now behind a paywall and allowing fewer free views, $99/yr subscription fee - The New York Times is also behind a paywall after so many free views with a $9.99/mo subscription offer. More will follow suit. That will leave WP with paid editors who can justify paying subscription fees, academia where most have access to libraries, and so forth. There will be fewer cited sources available for free to NPR. On a brighter side, paid access may help tone down the WP:NOTNEWS issues. ^Atsme?? 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

src: bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com

Proposal-Approve everything created before March 1/17

It's indexed anyway after either 30 or 90 days. If truly problematic either a NPP caught it already or we are not going to catch it and we rely on the big world to fix it. If we mass approved everything over 90 days we would at least make a dent on the backlog. This is in line with the WMF report recommendations. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is the same mistake the WMF is suggesting: solving the problem by pretending it doesn't exist. We need a list of articles in main space that have not been reviewed so that they can be improved. Having them in the feed is beneficial even if they are not marked as reviewed because it gets more eyes on them and more improvements compared to letting them languish untouched for years once they lapse out. The indexing is a concern, but in the end, the quality and integrity of Wikipedia depends on what is currently in the encylopedia, not what is in the Google cache or a mirror Again, if you prefer looking at only pages that option already exists at Special:NewPages. I would support the filtering by date range that has been suggested above and actually think that might be a way to dramatically decrease the backlog by making it easier to view the pages in the middle: namely the pages that would be affected most by this proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of older articles outside the feed that are in worse shape. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• The WMF report recommendations are neither necessarily correct nor accurate (and that's why we're having this discussion). Simply mass approving everything that has not been patrolled is a purely cosmetic approach. The reason they have not been tagged is because there is clearly something wrong with them, and to allow them to be simply absorbed into the encyclopedia conflicts very heavily with the Foundation's own insistence that Wikipedia should be a quality product. .

Furthermore, the downside of such a solution will be met with the following conclusion from the reviewers: 'Oh, heck, there's something wrong with this article and it shouldn't be accepted, but I'm not sure what to tag it with. No matter, it will be patrolled by default after 30 days anyway, so it won't be my fault if the Wiki is full of junk.' In the worst case scenario, reviewers (or potential reviewers) will see the importance of the New Page Reviewing process as having been downplayed, and thus not be worth doing anyway. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But the vast majority of these pages are patrolled many times, tagged with issues but are just not marked with the check. They are also indexed at 30 or 90 days so effectively the pages are in the encyclopedia already. Unless a NPP is willing to act against the page it defaults to accepted anyway (except it stays on the list). Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose marking old unreviewed articles as reviewed establishes a false equivalence between the hard and difficult work of reviewers and doing nothing. That is an intolerable indignity. Mduvekot (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Many of us work from the back of the list so the oldest pages have seen a lot of eyes. There is nothing wrong enough to justify AfC or CSD, but they have some issues still. If we approve them, we risk our NPR rights being revoked. If we sendmore than a couple for deletion we risk being dragged to ANi. If the page is not something any of the active NPR wants to fix up, how does it get out of the feed? Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose--:Well, I believe this idea of ignoring the backlog is typical BS.This is somewhat akin to a hypothetical situation described below:-

If the proposal is to ignore the backlog, why not ignore the entire backlog(Maybe keep the counter-refresh time a few minutes!)?Won't it be more soothing to our eyes?Problems are meant to be solved; not to be avoided!(esp. when the means are so cowardly as this.)Winged Blades ^Godric 15:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - As you say, it's indexed anyway after either 30 or 90 days... I don't see how, "Making a dent on the backlog" achieves anything useful. ~Kvng (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The entire point of AfC is to pass only articles that are unlikely to be deleted at an AfD. If we simply pass everything, we might as well abolish AfC, and we will have lots of things speedy-deleted and AfD-deleted. Moreover, the promise of AFC was that new and inexperinced users would get a reviewer who would activly give feedback on drafts, not merely pass or delete them. If this is done, i will cease advising new users to use the AfC process, because it will have been proven to be a fraud. This actually violagted WP:BITE far more than the current backlog. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right David, but the thread above is not about AfC and it's already over a month old. And the issue has been technically addressed. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Kudpung ??????? (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is Wikipedia, not Nupedia. This should be understood as a one-time reset, not a policy change. -The Cunctator (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Head in the sand is not a solution. The backlog isn't insurmountable, just keep chipping away at it, and hopefully ACTRIAL will help us out a bit in a month or so. The real solution is for most editors to patrol pages from somewhere in the middle of the backlog, to avoid all of us duplicating each other's work at the front or back of the backlog, and to patrol one page at a time, not looking for 'easy patrols' but instead patrolling each page one after the next without skipping. -- InsertCleverPhraseHere 16:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

src: static.pulse.com.gh

COI - of a different kind

Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers SPI, COIN), I have started an informal chat on what to do about paid editing. See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

src: www.zonaeuropa.com

Grants application

A grant has been applied for to develop a solution that may or may not assist in the way new pages are controlled. The community is invited to comment on the request at meta. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

src: spidercatweb.files.wordpress.com

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

src: www.zonaeuropa.com

It's so unfortunate that they forgot

To tell us that there's a VPI thread that directly concerns the abolishment of an integral part of this project, despite commenting in a section above, on some related issue. Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Time to call time on the Articles For Creation.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi thanks for posting this here. Just so you know, I posted a discussion in the Idea lab not the Policy proposal, so nothing is binding. I just wanted to gauge opinions on the AFC and wasn't sure if this was the page for it. Sorry if this was a bad call. Egaoblai (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

src: www.zonaeuropa.com

Thoughts on NPP-AFC merge

(Thread moved from user talk:Kudpung)

Hi, I got your ping in the discussion about merging NPP and AFC on Legacypac's talk page. I realise that this has been a proposal for a while and having done the reading (WP:NPPAFC etc) I've come up with a rough idea as to how it could be done although obviously securing ACTRIAL as just AC is the priority at the moment. Here it is, although stats will probably be needed to back up my assertions which I've formulated just through reviewing.

Premises:

• A large number of AFC submissions are put through the process because of deleted and SALT-ed mainspace articles.
• Sometimes this is due to COI.

Suggestions:

1. Merge the access to the AFCH script into the new page reviewer right and transfer across any people with access who aren't NPRs. Potentially add another button to the Page Curation module.
2. Tweak the new landing page for creating articles to disallow SALT-ed articles and automatically convert it into a draft.
3. Give AC users the option to start a draft anyway (IMO draftspace curation is better than mainspace esp. when considering WP:BITE).
4. Create a separate category of unreviewed drafts which is accessible through Special:NewPagesFeed. Reviewing would essentially be curation plus a move when accepted.
5. Back-and-forth improvement is a major quality of AFC so the new module should have a decline option that puts it as reviewed but doesn't index it in the mainspace.

Again, I realise that this is early days and securing a permanent AC solution is the priority but I just thought I'd air some ideas. Also pinging in those interested in AFC, NPP, COIN and the tech side etc.

@Doc James, TonyBallioni, MusikAnimal, Nick, Primefac, DGG, and There'sNoTime:

DrStrauss talk 09:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• In fact, would WT:NPPAFC be a better venue for this? DrStrauss talk 09:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

well WT:NPPAFC could be a good place, I doubt Kudpung's talk page is the right venue, although it probably gets more traffic - it might be a good idea to link to the discussion at the village pump. Dysklyver 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kudpung's talk is an appropriate venue for now, a good amount of project space brainstorming happens on user talk pages before anything formal is proposed. I have a rather simplistic view of how what should be done with this moving forward: follow the Huggle model and make the NPR permission the technical requirement for using AFCHS. It'd be easier to maintain than the current checklist, and it would also ease the pressure on Primefac as the gatekeeper by making everything go through PERM. When Kudpung discusses a merge, this is the first step I think of, and I do think it would be a net positive to Wikipedia. Some I've talked to are afraid this will make AfC simply an extension of NPP, which is the absolute last thing I want at this time. I keep away from AfC like the plague, and if NPP and AfC were merged completely into one project I would probably disengage from it as it stands now. I enjoyed AfC 10 years ago when it was used primarily by IPs to create decent articles. Nowadays its often explaining to people who have no chance of having their article in main space what they can do to get their article in main space, and I simply don't have the patience for that (but have much respect for those who do). What I see as a potential way forward and benefit is for the WP:NPPAFC project to take off again now that ACTRIAL is up as a collaborative space to think through the future of how we deal with new content. We're going to have to have another ACTRIAL RfC in April 2018, so thinking through things along the way would be beneficial to that. Closer collaboration between those who focus on AfC and those who focus on NPP is crucial for moving forward in any reform of our process of dealing with new pages, and I'm grateful to Kudpung and DrStrauss for starting these conversations. These types of conversations will help us figure out how to better integrate AfC and NPP and might eventually lead to a combined system that works well for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Ok well my view is that AfC and NPP are quite different, with different focuses and different workflows. here is a comment I made on DrStrauss's talk page.

I believe the primary reason AfC and NPP are separate is that the processes are infact quite different, especially now ACTRIAL has been introduced. Notwithstanding the technical differences in the draft approval/rejection script v page curation toolbar, there are also significant differences in the workflow, as you can't 'decline' an existing page, and many pages are floating around in the NPP backlog which would never pass AfC, but are also notable/feasibly relevant and therefore would be kept at AfD. Additionally (according to the current documentation) drafts accepted via AfC will still be reviewed at NPP, which creates a 2-review workflow for these new pages. After ACTRIAL has taken effect, a drop in new pages direct to mainspace should be evident, this is made more so by deprecating the option to create a mainspace article from the article wizard. The effect of this should be to further restrict AfC to pages created by new editors, and NPP to pages created by editors who have at least edited elsewhere (and AfC accepted pages), which creates a situation where the type of pages, and subsequently the workflow, is different. An additional factor worthy of note, is that the bar for becoming an AfC reviewer is much lower than the qualities needed to pass WP:PERM/NPP, where the track record of content creation etc is looked at more thoughtfully. In short merging AfC and NPP would be creating a whole new system, you could not just tack them together.

Dysklyver 14:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• When I first started reviewing new pages I essentially proposed EXTRIAL (ACTRIAL but with 30/500 instead of 4/10). Once I was told how much of a task it was (about 6 years) just to get to an autoconfirmed restriction, I was surprised. I see what TonyBallioni is getting at; AFC is unlike NPP in that your talk page will be plagued by COI editors whinging about declines. The key thing is that they are both to do with filtering or new content which is why I think some kind of merged workflow could come about. DrStrauss talk 14:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Also, a potential first step is to keep the workflow the same and do as Tony says, make AFCH recognise users by user right and not a check page. That'd be a good start. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think mid to long-term a merged workflow could work. Right now, however, I think our focus needs to be on taking small achievable steps towards further integrating NPP and AfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

the general idea of merging NPP and AFC is a very good idea, but it's too early to talk about details. As I see it, the key problems are 1/ the goals are different: AfC is just to keep out unlikely (usually COI) articles, not to mark them for needed improvement; the goal of NPP is not just screening for deletion, but to indicate what major improvements are needed. 2/ if we look only at the deletion aspect, the standards for passing are different. The standard for AfC is that it be likely to pass AfD; the standard for NPP to avoid speedy is much lower, just that it not fall under CSD. 3/ we're currently having so much difficulty maintaining standards in both processes, that trying to combine them will cause serious confusion DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If I understand it , the specific point of DrStrauss' current suggestion is a proposed extension of the future combination process to deal specifically with salted articles. Many, probably most, salted articles are protected for because the article is disruptive or totally inappropriate, not just because they have been deleted several times. Anything that would encourage their re-creation is a poor idea. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to talk about the details of what could be done. (even if it is too early)

if both AfC and NPP were abolished and replaced with a unified new pages system (UNPS) or (NPS), it could have several layers to make things easier.

A stream for draft pages, which are dealt with and then promoted to the second layer.

Draft pages are those made by IP and unconfirmed editors.

A second layer where the approved page is reviewed and promoted to the third layer.

New pages made by Autoconfirmed users start in the second layer.

A third layer where approved pages are patrolled for significant mistakes made in the lower layers.

New pages made by Extended confirmed users and admins start in the third layer.

A separate feed to patrol projectspace and userspace for webhosting and attack pages.

A separate feed to patrol new templates. (patrolled by template editors and third tier patrollers.

Note that this allows people to specialize in what they want to focus on, and makes most new pages go past 3 reviewers. At any stage the page can be deleted or demoted back one or more layers. Each layer could have a separate useright as a kind of tiered experience system.

The tiered layout allows for the fact pages created by experienced users are more likely to be suitable.

> Dysklyver 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A system requiring three editors to pass a page is going to be hopelessly backlogged and result in too many declines by editors who are being conservative and afraid to lose their AfC/NPR PERM. Already, forcing a AfC approved and promoted page through NPP is a little silly. Wikipedia is filled with errors, inappropriate pages, and problems to fix. Alienating new editors that may help existing pages later by over curating their new pages prior to publishing is not helping.

A very needed change is for AfC reviewers to seek deletion on anything that needs deletion, rather than just declining it over and over and over. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're jumping the gun on the suggestions of fine details. Before anything can be done at all some stats will need to be prepared such as we did in the run up to ACTRIAL such as (and this list may not be exhaustive):

• Backlog - growth of backlog over a year
• Average time in queue
• Average processing time
• Active reviewers over a year
• Number of reviews by user
• Number of users disbarred
• Number of indef blocked users, and number of users blocked during their AfC tenure
• % of AfC submissions declined
• % of declines by decline rationale

All this would help to provide an objective overview and avoid RfC voting on a simple 'like/don't like' basis - nobody likes to see their favourite workplace deprecated even if it's for the better good; a good analogy here is the current discussion on disbanding the Reference desk. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Good stats ideas. I think there are some modest but significant changes we can make without a full RfC. Mainly adjustments to reviewing standards and default procedures. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, Legacypac, and perhaps should be tried, let us know your thoughts. Enforcing them however, would be the greater challenge. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor change #1 - Approved AfC pages auto-reviewed in NPR

If an AfC reviewer has promoted a page to mainspace the AFCH script should mark the page Reviewed for NPR purposes. Either we trust our AfC reviewers as much as our NPR reviewers or we don't, and if we don't, we need to change our approval criteria for AfCH script use. There is no point throwing a carefully vetted AfC article into the NPR backlog for another many months. Even if one argues that another review would be nice, surely NPR reviews of AfC accepted articles is a far lower priority than reviewing completely unreviewed new pages in a huge backlog. Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the things I was curious about, Legacypac, and why, a few threads above, I asked when/if the two would be merged. Now I'm wondering if "merging" would still be necessary in the broader sense or if there's a way to simply add the AfC tools to the NPR dashboard, that way only approved reviewers have access to both? For example, when I'm working in AfC and see that an article passes but just needs better sources that I know are available, I will approve the article in AfC, then add the sources when it's out of Draft. At that point, it would be handy if I could also mark the article reviewed when I'm done so it doesn't end up in the NPP queue. Only those editors who are approved as NPR and AfC should have access to the combined tool dashboard. I'm not sure how quickly an AfC approved article is added to the NPP queue, but if we can eliminate that one step it may help reduce a growing backlog. ^Atsme?? 14:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

At the moment Atsme, everything new in mainspace appears in the New Pages Feed. This will probably remain deliberately so until we can be sure that the standard of AfC reviewing is a high as that of NPR. And when it is, then there will be no need to have separate processes - just the templates from the HS for the drafts. Bear in mind that NPR is a core process governed by policy, while AfC is a Wikiproject and is governed by its own by-laws.Kudpung ??????? (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe the AfC accept standard is much higher than NPR Reviewed standard. Of course bad actors can creep into either process and occasional mistakes are made. Pages created by users with Autoreviewed or whatever it's called) PERM (and presumably Admins are in that group automatically) are not put in the NPR list. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Al new pages are featured in the feed. The ones by autopatrolled users are shown already with the green check mark as patrolled. With virtually no rubbish pages arriving since ACTRIAL, it's now possible to scan through the autopatrolled articles in the New Pages Feed too, and catch any that need attention - and there often are. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support but only after the check page and NPR user right are merged (i.e. all active AFCHers get NPR and the script is configured like Huggle to allow only people with certain userrights to access it. DrStrauss talk 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• I would only support this if the checklist was removed and having the NPR right was required to access AFCHS (again, Huggle model). For any AfC participants who don't have the right, several admins who are active in this area could vet and hand it out if the requirement were met. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support after NPR required for AFCH. To join AfC and NPP the NPR useright must be shared and required for both jobs. -- Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• On the flip side why don't we just grant NPR to any vetted AfC reviewer that does not have it already? Surely getting accepted at AfC is as high a bar as NPR? Then we can build in the NPR checkmark into the AfC process. Approved for AfC =>Approved for NPR.

1. If and only if NPR right is required for AfC reviewing, and this should happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pages that get AfC approved should not need further NPR review, but pages that fail NPR are sometimes sent to AfC process - so it follows the slightly senior right should be AfC which should include NPR. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose until AFCHS require the NPR flag. Then I would be fine with it. Currently AFC does have a lower bar than NPR does, and we often weed people out at PERM based on poor AfC reviews. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor change #2 - Seek immediate deletion on obviously Non-Notable AfC submissions

Current standard practice is to decline SPAM and other evidently unsuitable pages. The decline reasons are worded to encourage the submitter to fix the identified issue - but many issues like zero notability are not fixable. A given topic is either notable or not notable before anyone drafts a single word. No amount of searching for sources is going to WP:OVERCOME an obvious lack of notability. AfC reviewers could cut way way down on the resubmissions that clog AfC by using CSD and MfD much more liberally. I suggest doing the decline, which gives the submitting user a reason on their talk, than immediately applying the deletion template, which gives them further feedback on talk. They can contest the deletion if they disagree. Many can be CSD'd G11

• Oppose: I do think that the draftspace is a place where good-faith articles which show no WP:CCS can be converted into mainspace-ready articles. DrStrauss talk 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We may want to add a "Not Notable" decline that says "This submission does not credibly indicate why the topic is WP:Notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will now seek deletion of this Draft." Maybe we could even get the script to prepopulate an MfD listing with text like "Rejected AfC submission on a topic that is very unlikely to meet Notability standards." This may prove controversial with the crowd that insists Draft space is a place where non-notable topics can be hosted but I'd argue that by submitting a page to AfC a user is asserting they believe it belongs in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would oppose this, as the draftspace is a space where newbies can learn about how to create an article without getting bitten. Also, I have seen cases where there was a draft declined for a lack of notability, and then accepted after more sources were found. Thus, I don't think that this should be implemented. RileyBugz^??_???? 18:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Interesting thought re the assertion of notability via submission. I think AFC reform is less the concern but more making it more compatible for an NPP merge. DrStrauss talk 19:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• This is already an option for really extreme cases, but it takes MfD. More often, the quality of an AfC submission is so low that it is not all that easy to decide quickly whether or not it has a chance of being shown notable. Then new editor if not being absurd altogether deserves a chance--I agree with DrStrauss on this. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm only intending this for obvious cases. Garage bands, bios where there is no assertion of significance etc. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

then try to reword this in the language of A7, no indication of significance. But even so, we have consitently said that A7 is not a good reason for draft space, and I think it should stay that way to avoid drift into deleting articles because they are incomplete and not give them the 6 month grace to be worked on. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• This would be easier if we changed G13 to be a shorter timeframe or created another G-criteria for "repeatedly submitted draft that shows no signs of improvement and has no indication of significance." TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. If and only if AfC reviewers must be First NPR reviewers, if any two NPR reviewer agree a draft is hopeless, it gets deleted on just a cursory admin review. Bad delete supports to see reviewers lose their NPR right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose If you really want to end up driving off new editors then this kind of policy will be one that will increase it. Just because an article in one form isn't notable, doesn't mean that the topic cannot be proved to be notable eventually. This kind of policy would go against community based collaboration, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be.Egaoblai (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor change #3 - Seek immediate deletion on non-fixable AfC submissions

Seek immediate deletion on anything G1: Patent nonsense. .G2: Test page (including blank) G3: Pure vandalism and Blatant hoax G4: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion G5: Banned or blocked user G10: Attack page G10: Wholly negative, unsourced BLP and G11: Unambiguous advertising G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement should be CSD'd rather than rejected. This will cut way down on resubmissions and cut way down on time spent processing G13s (which require yet another editor to review the page again before tagging) Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Partial support: a row at an MFD erupted a while back as to whether WP:G11 was applicable on AFC articles. Personally I am against it, but yes for all the others. DrStrauss talk 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Though G11 is acceptable, the standard for it at AfC is more flexible than in mainspace, because there is often a chance that it might be fixed. I am not however really sure how to word the difference to make an unambiguous guideline.

• Strongly Disagree on G4. One often used way of dealing with a deleted article that might have possibilities is now to draftify it, either at the AfD, or by the closing admin on request. Whether to do this is a matter of judgment. At present, if the article does then get improved, either the deleting admin can be asked to restore it or the contributor can go to deletion review. And about half of such requests at deletion review end up as permit restoration, with the option of anotherAfD. Adopting this particular part of theguideline would foreclose what is often the most effective menthod for getting articles improved to meet our standard. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree about G4 and G11--DRVs fairly permit (and shall) permit re-creation of deleted articles in draft-space in lot of situations.G4 in draft-space is thus meaningless.I am personally for a less-aggressive implementation of G11 in draft-space and would prefer MFD be utilised instead.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Agree for obviously irreparable G11's. Draft space should not be a sanctuary for spam. This is apart from promo tone drafts that can be fixed.
• Disagree for G4 for the most part. There is the hope that reliable sources can be found through diligence or the passage of time fixing cases of notnow. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Reject this idea as non-redundant with CSD#G* criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The point is to encourage AfC reviewers to use existing CSD criteria to delete problematic Drafts more often, more quickly, not to create any new criteria. It's only a behavioral instruction change. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If the point is to encourage use of G11 wherever it applies, I agree. I think it applies very well on any topic that is commercial-related (includes the company, its products, the CEO, the founder), and when all the sources are non-reliable or non-independent. If the content was based on inappropriate sources for starting a new topic, it needs to be written from scratch if other sources can be found to demonstrate notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral - G11 is one of our ambiguous policies that requires unambiguous criteria . I've just about given up on using it. I was advised that if only one sentence can be considered not promotional or advertising, the article stays. In the interim, manufacturers/game developers/PR agents/marketing firms/et al can take full advantage of WP to promote their products/people. Example: articles about non-notable soon to be released video games, upcoming concert tour dates, in-production movies, book promotions, etc. The issues arise because of misunderstandings of policies (and all their ambiguities) regarding what is and isn't notable about a tour that hasn't happened, a video game that hasn't been released, a movie that hasn't been produced, etc. Notability is not inherited, the topic has to be notable on its own. Yes, there are exceptional concert tours that get a lot of media attention and are clearly worthy of inclusion - I think that's the direction the scales should tilt - unambiguously not promotional rather than the way we have it now. Notable tours practically write themselves because of the coverage in MSM. The same applies to other topics as well. When an article is dubious at best, it takes time to read the cited sources to determine if you're reading a journalistic article, or a press release that PR firms are distributing to various news sources, or if the source is the venue's website where you buy tickets (which means it is not independent of the artist/performer), and so on. There are also websites that cater to the entertainment industry, and allow PR agents/independent performers access to the site to publish tour dates, etc. I've seen keep arguments at AfD that cite such websites, and even ticket venues. Ok, I've gone on long enough. Bottomline - we need to start eliminating some of the ambiguities. ^Atsme?? 18:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor change #4 - Prevent very short AfCH submissions

I have yet to see an AfC submission of less than a paragraph that is acceptable. Insert a length check that prevents the submission of blank or very short pages to AfC. Return a message like "You are attempting to submit a blank or very short draft article. Please expand the topic before submitting" This will cut down the backlog and reduce time spent rejecting such pages. Legacypac (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Indifferent: I'm not a fan of permastubs but policy allows them. DrStrauss talk 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We need a minimum byte count of about 150 plus the AFC template. This is mainly to cut out anything less than 3 sentences without a ref down to zero words - useless pages that can't be approved. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree This proposal in inconsistent with settled policy. Stubs are allowable, and there is no reason whatsoever than one could not be appropriately submitted via AfC. Some will grow in main space, some may remain permastubs. If the information there shows notability, and the article is not copyvio or promotional, there is no reason to delete the draft--and no reason why it should not be approved for mainspace. If a draft will make an article in mainspace that will pass afd, it would be abasurd to delete it just because it was submitted as a draft. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong disagree--Stubs shall be always allowed.I have seen fair many GAs grow up from stubs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One line articles are allowed according to policy. A one line article that establishes context, and contains 2-3 references to reliable sources should actually be approved by the AfC process. If these sorts of articles are not being approved, then we have a different problem altogether. -- Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too unimportant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If an article is neutral and adequately supported by reliable sources, then it should be approved, no questions asked. I would be fine if there was an auto decline for blank submissions, but no more than that. I say this because of the fact that it would cut down on the work that AfC participants need to do. RileyBugz^??_???? 04:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - allow submissions, but don't approve them for mainspace until they reach a minimum prose size and show "article potential". WP will run short of editors before people run short of ideas for articles. If we work with the article creators and explain what is needed, we may actually be incentivizing new editors to join the project. Short stubbies may also be better suited for Wiktionary or Wikispecies, depending on the topic. ^Atsme?? 19:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor change #5 - Add instructions to WP:G7

Source of the article : Wikipedia