Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale

Workshopping 1

Question 1

Should we create a speedy deletion criteria for articles sourced to a source (or several sources) only mentioning information that do(es) not meet GNG? Articles nominated for a speedy deletion should have been created by experienced editors and the criteria would be able to be applied retroactively.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

PC, apologies for misreading if that's what I'm doing...you seem to be limiting this question to articles created by experienced editors? Valereee (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I also calculated the concern of biting the newcomers. But you are right, it can be worded better. My aim are the basic stub articles of (mass creating/by bot or manually) editors that were/are on wikipedia for/since years.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

If this has any hope of being workable it needs to be much more objective - what is the definition of "experienced editor"? Whose opinion about whether a source meets the GNG matters? Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The same point about sources could be applied to all of the proposals put forward at this point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Broad community consensus; editors will be expected to be aware of community norms and conform to them per WP:CIR. In the context of proposal 2, this would mean that editors repeatedly prodding articles that do have a source that plausibly contributes to GNG, and editors repeatedly removing such prods from articles that do not have a source that plausibly contributes to GNG, can be taken to ANI and sanctioned, similar to an editor who repeatedly makes bad AfD nominations. BilledMammal (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep using "plausibly contributes to GNG" but there is no "broad community consensus" on what that means. We have AfDs where people in good faith argue the same source very clearly does and very clearly does not meet the GNG. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If it isn't a fringe position that the source meets GNG then it plausibly contributes to GNG; I don't consider this complicated. I will add that very few of our policies have strict bright-line definitions and the community is able to handle those without issue; this won't be any different. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a proposal to allow speedy deletion, which requires objective definitions. Evaluating all the sources in an article to determine whether at least one of them has enough coverage that "it is not a fringe position that it meets the GNG" (whatever that actually means in practice) is not something that can be reliably done by a single admin patrolling speedy deletion categories. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I would note that my reply was more in response to Blue Square Thing saying that the same point applied to the other proposals. For this specific proposal I'm not experienced in CSD procedures but a brief review of them suggest that non-objective definitions have precedent; for example G4 uses the subjective phrasing "sufficiently identical copies". BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A limited amount of subjectivity is inevitable, but G4 works because a reviewing admin can quickly and easily compare two versions of the same page. I very strongly recommend becoming familiar with CSD procedures, especially WP:NEWCSD, before proposing new criteria as they require very careful wording (this comment is addressed generally, not just to you). Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

isn't a fringe position? Who's going to define that? Or does it just depend on someone saying "no, such and such an author is not an expert on the subject because I say so". Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not really what WP:CIR means though, is it? Especially in the context of AfD etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that anyone who is extended confirmed or has created more than 25 articles is enough experienced to be included in the criteria. This is enough time for the AfC and NPP teams to have prepared the once new editor for article creation. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed seems a reasonable way of defining this to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't really have any chance. You want to speedy delete articles that may be notable and verifiable based on sourcing -- and not even "mass created" articles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2

(Based on Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, and conditional on the relevant proposal from the mass creation RfC being passed)

All mass created articles (except those not required to meet GNG) must be cited to at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source, or else it can be proposed for deletion. The {{prod masscreate/dated}} tag may not be removed until such a source is added and if none is forthcoming within seventhirty days the article may be deleted. This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on mass created articles, including mass created articles from which the mass create prod has been legitimately removed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Seven days isn't very many if there are thousands of such tags in play in a project area at any one time. You might want to be more generous or limit the number of tags which can be applied at one time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the number of tags can be practically limited, so I've increased it to a month. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A month makes sense - thank you. I tend to think that, with there not being a deadline and so on, that it's not unreasonable to suggest a limit on tags - or perhaps once tags reach a particular level the time allowed is increased

I've thought about this, and I'd very strongly object to the need to physically add a source if this is going to be applied retrospectively to huge numbers of articles. If I can show the such a source exists, that should be good enough - per WP:NEXIST. It takes far too long to add sources - and this is placing a huge burden of work on those who review such lists, especially if there are large numbers of articles requiring review within a relatively short timeframe. As I've said in other places here, the idea of reducing the requirement for a full and detailed BEFORE is reasonable; in the same spirit, I should only have to be clear that sources exist - a job that can take seconds - rather than add them - a job that requires longer as well as direct access to the actual source (which can be tricky, especially with offline sources). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: Showing a source exists can only be done by providing it, but content from the source would not need to be added to the article to meet the requirement; it would be sufficient to add the source to the reference section, an act that would only take seconds to do once the source has been identified. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Gut feeling is that it would take much longer than that and at the scale that I imagine we're envisaging would mean it would be difficult to do. If we could agree some sort of limit to scale, it might be more practical. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Articles which were mass created without formal consensus from the broader community, or whose consensus was later revoked, are subject to mass-draftification. This is done through a discussion at WP:VPR, where any editor may propose either a list of articles to be draftified, or a quarry query that produces a list of articles. This proposal must meet the following criteria:

1. The articles are limited to a single creator
2. The articles are limited to a single topic area, broadly defined
3. The articles are limited to mass created articles with few (<5%) false positives. "False positives" are articles that were not mass created, or were mass created but later expanded.

Arguments for or against approval of the mass-draftification on grounds other than whether they meet or do not meet this criteria must be ignored by the closer.

Articles may be restored to article space under one of two circumstances:

1. Individually, when they can no longer be considered mass created; this includes false positives, articles that were expanded after draftification, and articles that have been converted into redirects
2. As a group, if there is there is a consensus to approve the mass creation

BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

False positives is intended to avoid the discussions turning into train wrecks; I do not believe its inclusion will cause issues, as any editor will be empowered to move those articles back into article space. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What does "later expanded" mean in this context? How do you propose to deal with clearly notable articles which have not been expanded or only expanded marginally and already have sources in the article which demonstrate this? Wikiprojects should clearly be informed and time provided to check through lists. As an aside, it strikes me that "false positive" means "nominator made an error" or "nominator didn't bother checking", not actually false positive. Or are we simply going to use queries to generate lists and not bother checking them? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What does "later expanded" mean in this context? After the initial mass creation, an editor - either the creator or another editor - came along and further developed the article.

How do you propose to deal with clearly notable articles which have not been expanded or only expanded marginally and already have sources in the article which demonstrate this? Interested editors will be encouraged to expand those articles and return them to article space.

Wikiprojects should clearly be informed and time provided to check through lists. That is part of the reason the proposal is to draftify, not delete, the articles; to give Wikiprojects time to do that.

As an aside, it strikes me that "false positive" means "nominator made an error" or "nominator didn't bother checking", not actually false positive. False positives can mean one of three things; that the nominator made an error, that the current status of an article is ambiguous, or that the article was expanded after being nominated. It is intended to ensure that nominations aren't derailed by a small number of false positives, since the fact that the articles are draftified, and editors are empowered to move individual articles back to article space, mean that the consequences of false positives are minimal. BilledMammal (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll bullet for clarity:

• so, *anyone* has to have added *something* to the (body of the???) article? Even the original creator? And even if it's just quite limited? Or are you considering that there needs to be another way to define this?
• similar to my point in proposal 2, there can't be an emphasis on a requirement to expand before returning an article from draft space if it is really obvious that an article is clearly notable (I'm not talking about fringe cases here - but cases such as Lalit Yadav (Delhi cricketer), an article that could easily show up on such a list but where quality sources clearly and obviously exist). Again, if we're going to remove the need for a detailed BEFORE - or any form of BEFORE - then we need to allow articles like that to be returned to article space where any editor can develop them;
• I think you overestimate the ability of editors to find things in draft space or use it in any way. I suspect you'll simply see articles being re-created, perhaps with slightly different names - it'd be dead easy for someone who doesn't really know what they're doing to create Habib Ahmed (cricketer) and not even spot Habib Ahmed has Draft:Habib Ahmed
• There are alternatives to deletion beyond drafts.

More general issue below. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Any non-trivial content added to the body of the article would count as expansion; editors would be expected to not game this, such as by adding content based on a boilerplate. This would not include copyediting, adding an infobox, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Editors would be free to develop the articles in draft space, project space, or user space. Once expanded notable topics can be returned to article space.
3. Editors wouldn't be expected to expand these articles if they prefer to create a new article. I don't see them not noticing the draft and creating a new article as an issue.
4. Editors would be free to implement those alternatives; the proposal would not prevent editors merging these articles, redirecting them, etc.

BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you might have trouble with "any non-trivial" as a definition, but it's worth considering. In terms of people not noticing the draft, I think you overestimate the ability of many editors to spot things like this. The number of infobox parameter warnings or cite warnings, for example, that simply aren't picked up is worryingly large. I can certainly see major issues with draft warnings just not being noticed.

On ATD, I can't redirect an article that's a draft though, can I? Or do you mean I put the draft back and then redirect it? For examples? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

If they don't notice the draft and instead create a new article I don't see that as an issue because there is no obligation to expand the draft and some editors may prefer to have a clean start on the article.

There isn't anything preventing you from redirecting a draft and then moving it back to article space, but moving the draft and then redirecting it moments later would also be acceptable; any objection to such an act would be condemned as wikilawyering, so I don't see any need to confuse the wording by making it explicit. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thought about this a lot recently, and I don't think that it's sensible to limit the proposal to either a list of articles to be draftified, or a quarry query that produces a list of articles. Other methods of producing a list are either possible or may become possible. It would be better to simply say a list of articles to be and at that point I'd replace draftified to considered for... and at that point I'm not sure about the wording. Drafting isn't always the solution - in cases such as schools or hamlets there is a long established consensus that redirecting to the parent location is a good AtD that deals with all sorts of issues. The same may well become true of railway stations.

As a further point, I would specifically object to the inclusion of a quarry query that produces a list of articles unless you can show me that that's easy to access in Wiki-space and that the list is clickable. I've got very little experience with such queries, but any list absolutely must be accessible and have clickable links to articles - and if that places the emphasis on the person writing the query to get the output sorted in that fashion then I'd be perfectly happy with that.

I'd also want to feel that any automated query methodology was actually reliable. If it included articles that clearly shouldn't be on such a list at an unacceptable rate (lets take Charles Kettle (cricketer) as an example) then I would think that the whole list should be rejected and the operator might find that they have the ability to submit such lists removed via ANI or similar. We can't get this wrong - this isn't just about removing 93,000 Lugnuts articles, it's about AfD at scale going forward. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if we should add a note, saying that while a quarry query is acceptable the proposing editor would be required to post a copy of the list in the proposal for ease of access?

I want to ensure the process to handle these articles is kept simple; we move them to draft space, and interested editors can handle them as appropriate. This would include returning them to article space as a redirect pointing to the parent location. There is no need to complicate the process when once draftified WP:BOLD actions will be allowed and encouraged.

included articles that clearly shouldn't be on such a list at an unacceptable rate; agreed. That is why the 5% "false positive" limit is there. A few errors, given the scale, are acceptable; unacceptable rates would result in the list being rejected, and repeated nominations of lists with unacceptable rates would become a behavioural issue. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry BilledMammal, I never got around to noting your replies. My apologies - been far too busy...

So long as I have a list I can click I'm perfectly happy with how the editor has gotten the list - so long as they've checked through it themselves first. I think I just meant don't use quarry to dump some query code on people and expect them to deal with it. But the results do need checking through I think.

I remain unconvinced about draft space of course, but the 5% rate seems reasonable - but it'll depend on how it ties in. I should also, of course, be able to ping individual articles out of that list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced about draft space of course Do you have a preferred alternative destination, or is your preference just for redirection? BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it probably depends on the area and type of article. In some areas there's a long-developed consensus for redirection where a target exists or an obvious way to redirect (railway stations, for example), but in other areas there may be other ways of dealing with them. I just don't think draft space is used by the vast majority of editors and has the potential to make things worse. I know I'll almost certainly end up ignoring any article placed in draft space more than 99% of the time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Should we have a separate draftspace (with different time constraints) for holding mass-created stubs that do not meet some minimum criterion? (Adapted from the August workshop): Set up a watchlistable pseudo-draft space with a longer/indefinite time limit where mass-created articles that do not meet [CRITERION] can be moved. Then, have those drafts be eligible for AfD, but only some defined number are allowed to be nominated per week. Editors can also move articles out of pseudo-draftspace, but only if they meet the minimum requirements, the moved drafts go into NPP, and only some defined number can be moved per week beyond anything kept at AfD. Pseudo-draftspace articles would be categorized like we do with DELSORT and wikiprojects could transclude the current lists of drafts in their categories. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Flatscan who looked into the technical feasibility of this at the workshop. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I mentioned WP:Controlling search engine indexing in my previous post that you linked. It happens automatically for all of User: space, but Wikipedia: will need something, probably a template. Flatscan (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As per current practice, users can work on articles on subpages of their user page. If more than one person is working on an article, it can be hosted as a subpage under an appropriate WikiProject. The lifetime of the pages can be managed by the editor/WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but for mass draftification it would be infeasible to host articles in userspace, and we would still need some way of categorizing such articles for them to be automatically put into appropriate project subpages. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Historically, keeping a work-in-progress draft around has been most fruitful when one or more editors are actively interested in working on the draft. If user X is the only one interested in working on the drafts in question, I don't see why it's infeasible for the drafts to be subpages of user X's user page. Yes, some kind of categorization is needed if the drafts are being given to active WikiProjects to work on, whether or not the pages are moved to subpages of the WikiProjects. To me, responsibility for the drafts is more clearly delineated by having them under the WikiProject, or the specific user working on them. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary; WikiProjects and users are already permitted to move articles from draftspace to their space. Noting this may be useful, however. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This would really be for instances where there are dozens or hundreds of articles that ought to be draftified, and so single users hosting the drafts in userspace wouldn't be particularly viable. The number one complaint people have against draftification is that it's a "backdoor to deletion", number two is that it's hard to collaborate since draftspace isn't very searchable/browsable. Any proposals in this RfC that even faintly loosen criteria around deletion/draftification will be opposed heavily by certain crowds, so having something like this as an option might be a compromise. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

In my view, putting works-in-progress in user space or Wikipedia space solves both those problems, without any new code or rules. The pages will no longer be subject to the G13 criterion for deletion, and the editors who have shown interest in working on the potential articles can assume responsibility of making the works browsable by other editors interested in the relevant domains. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, which is why I'm suggesting we develop some way of doing this at a larger scale than what is currently in practice. "Pseudo-draftspace" needn't be a new dedicated -space, per se, but we would at least need to create the framework that would make mass projectification/userfication viable system-wide. Like, make it an option for NPPers or an outcome at AfD. We'd also need some language governing when these "drafts" can be moved back to mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

My intent with proposal three is to establish such a framework, though I am not certain whether it will find consensus and a more scaled-down option may be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

4.1

Make a template projects could place on drafts they are interested in working on that would delay/prevent G13 deletion. This would automatically add the drafts to a projectspace list. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If such a template is present, then the relevant WikiProject should be notified in the same way that the draft creator is for G13, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The perennial response to this: what's going to stop editors from adding the template to every draft in their topic area of interest? As we have issues with mass-PROD and mass-de-PROD, I fear we'll have issues with mass-templating and mass-de-templating. (A template by any other name...) Levivich (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be that much of a problem if people mass-templated drafts to prevent G13 deletion? The only negative I can see would be cluttering up the projectspace list with thousands of drafts with inconsistent mainspace viability, which would be something the project could handle itself. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Proposal: add mass-creation as an example reason to WP:BUNDLE

Should we add creation of articles by the same editor using substantially the same sources and format as an example reason for bundling the resulting articles into a single AFD at WP:BUNDLE? FOARP (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. is already included in BUNDLE. Also I do not believe that the mass creation alone would come through. I suggest a reason additional to that of mass creation to be included in the proposal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle - That's right, we already have a heading under which certain kinds of mass-created articles can be bundled. This is merely a proposal to generalise it. I honestly don't know why anyone would oppose this, it is only a proposal to give a specific heading under which articles made in the same format and using the same sources can be bundled. It does not prevent unbundling. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm with PC here: I'm not certain this is necessarily needed. It might actually be harmful - this might give the impression of limiting it to articles created by the same user etc... whereas all we need now is to have them "nearly identical", which I think is going to be the case in enough cases if they're produced by the same person with the same sorts of sources, aren't they? So I wouldn't have an issue bundling articles like Eugeniusz Waszkiewicz, Albert Langereis, Francisco António Real etc... right now - assuming the sources in the articles at least had been checked of course. I'm not sure it needs to clarified, does it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Proposal: Amend WP:BEFORE to clarify that "the expected amount of work that goes into doing a WP:BEFORE by the nominator is proportionate to the amount of work done to substantiate the notability of the subject of the article concerned by other editors (such as the creator) prior to it being brought to AFD, as evidenced by the sources present in the article". FOARP (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The idea here is that a failure to, for example, search dead-tree archives in Norwegian, should not longer be used as a reason to cast aspersions on the WP:BEFORE of someone nominating a series of articles created solely from sports-reference.com listings. This, of course, does not prevent people with access to archives doing their own search and finding support for notability where it may exist. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I am generally in favour of reducing some of the demand with BEFORE searches in mass-bundle cases (see elsewhere on this page), but isn't this impossible to judge? I'm not sure the wording works, does it? I suspect we'd be better off saying that only the major sources included in the article need to be checked - so, to use my favourite example on this page, Lalit Yadav (Delhi cricketer) has seven sources on it, three of which are scorecards so I'd immediately ignore. Four might be interesting, but it only takes seconds to check the profile one, scroll down and see that there's no doubt at all as to his notability - multiple, coverage etc... I just see that as more practical than the specific proposal here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This is simply to give freedom to closers and people reviewing at AFD not to, in every case, have to do the full BEFORE where the amount of work done by the article creator was so little that it is simply pointless. I do not think the kind of rigid proposals made elsewhere on this page are appropriate as they are in some cases too much whilst in others not enough. FOARP (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I get the intention, and I'm happy to agree that there are many cases where we should be reducing the requirement, so long as there are safeguards in place (someone gets to check the list in a reasonable timeframe and can ping any out that need further consideration etc...). That's all consistent with the requirement to reach a compromise position and makes sense. I'm just not sure, with the experience of the creation RfC, that this is structured enough to pass is it? The idea's good, but I can see people opposing it as unworkable, undefined etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing - The full AFD process (which typically runs 2-3 weeks BTW, and Wikiprojects are automatically pinged on) is still gone through and can still be DELREV'd where needed (nb., the protections and review for RFCs are not so well-developed, which makes me wonder about proposals to use RFCs). My experience of the creation RFC is (assuming good faith here that the opposes weren't just finding any reason to oppose) that detail only served to draw resistance/nit-picking, and anyway that rigid proposals are unlikely to be workable where an all-new system is being proposed. I think good proposals still leave things in the hands of the editors. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to say that the nominator should at least check the major sources already included in the article. I suppose this is probably implied anyway: if you looked at an article such as Edwin Anderson (sport shooter) (currently at AfD) I think you *must* check that either link doesn't have something obvious in it to raise a concern that there may be more obvious notability. I'd argue that the creator must have checked at least one of those in order to get the details for the article. If this is what you mean, then isn't it clearer to say that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This is intended more as a guide to what is and is not a reasonable BEFORE in all circumstances including (but not only) bundled nominations. Some have raised the idea that, because dead-tree/foreign-language archives can in some cases contain relevant material, that not searching these means that BEFORE has been failed. This is to clarify that where the creator (and any others who worked on the article) did not bother to do that kind of searching (e.g., where the only sources are electronic database ones) then there is no expectation on the nominator to go beyond this - they can, but there is no need to. Of course, where the article is one that more effort went into, and which includes sources that show more work was done in, then a BEFORE might normally be expected to have gone further.

I take your point that the original wording did not quite do this and have added some new bits in underline. FOARP (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The underlined bits help - although I'd still like to see it explicit that the sources do need to be checked. I do wonder if some of the BEFORE stuff being discussed here needs to go to a wider forum on a separate basis actually, but that applies to more than this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My problem with this is that it could be taken as endorsing the point of view that the search suggested at WP:BEFORE is obligatory rather than just a suggestion, which contradicts WP:BURDEN. The only people required to perform searches during or before deletion discussions are the people who wish to retain the article, fullstop. There is no requirement - none - to perform even the most cursory search before nominating an article for deletion, nor should there ever be; and I would strenuously oppose any wording that could be further misconstrued to imply that such a burden exists. --Aquillion (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Aquillion. Two responses to this:

1) People are already being regularly dragged to ANI for allegedly "failing" to do BEFORE, and,

2) This amendment does nothing to change the degree to which BEFORE is mandatory or not - it only gives an amount of work expected when it is done. Obviously, where no work was ever done to establish the notability of an article, I would say the BEFORE should be proportionate to that, and zero multiplied by anything is still zero.

Your proposal 13 is helpful and appears to offer a way forward to clarifying whether BEFORE is obligatory before nomination or not. I intend to !vote that it should not be mandatory, but if the result turns out to be the opposite then something like this proposal is needed. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

1) People are already being regularly dragged to ANI for allegedly "failing" to do BEFORE - never, so far as I know, successfully. If we're going to hash out the debates over WP:BEFORE we should start with the basic question of whether it's obligatory or not. I do not think there's a consensus to make it obligatory (and I categorically reject any arguments that that's the way it already is or somehow represents the status quo; a consensus would be needed to make it a hard requirement, which has never been produced. AFAIK it has clearly been contested every time it has been seriously discussed.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion - As I said, I don't think it should be/is obligatory, just strongly advisable, but that doesn't touch on this issue, which is just to describe an expected (i.e., not obligatory) level of effort when doing it. Your proposal 13 will decide whether it is or isn't, and if it isn't this proposal will be governed by that. On the other hand if it is found to be obligatory, but this proposal passes, then the bar for mass-created articles will have been set suitably low since the level of effort put in by the creator will have been simply to look at a single database for the whole set of articles and the level of BEFORE expected will be only similar levels of effort (e.g., showing that the database does not sustain notability). FOARP (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the proposals need to be linked somehow? Not clever enough to work out how - and that might simply put too many obstacles in place; perhaps they simply need to be next to each other in the actual RfC? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Although it may not be obligatory, there's clearly concerns about the lack of consideration by nominators - which would be magnified massively if we were looking at a very large number of articles. Isn't one of the points of this RfC that we need to find a way to manage this which satisfies people who have different opinions? There's also an argument that doing a reasonable BEFORE is just good manners and in the spirit of co-operative editing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 7

Proposal: All nominations for the deletion of a bundle of 10 or more pages must be preceded by a discussion involving at least two uninvolved editors (excluding the nominator) about whether it is an appropriate bundle. Discussions of smaller bundles are allowed but optional. The discussion is explicitly without prejudice to whether the articles should be kept or deleted.

Nominating a bundle of 10 or more pages for deletion that does not have consensus at such a discussion is grounds for the discussion to be closed as speedy keep without prejudice to smaller nominations. An editor repeatedly nominating such bundles without consensus that the bundle is appropriate may be sanctioned, which may include (but is not limited to) a ban from nominating (bundles of) pages (of a certain type) for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How would we determine if the two editors were "uninvolved"? Levivich (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that in this context involved editors would be

• Editors who have have significantly contributed to (a substantial portion of) the articles
• The editor who wishes to nominate them for deletion
• Anyone working with either of the above to create or review a set of articles that includes (a significant portion of) the articles in the proposed bundle.

The idea is to get an unbiased opinion about whether or not the proposed bundle would be likely or unlikely to be a trainwreck if nominated at AfD. ie. can they be meaningfully and fairly judged as a set at a 7-day AfD? The ideal people to do this are those who are uninvolved with the specific articles but familiar with the topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems pretty unrealistic - AFD just isn't so well attended and many mass-deletions are uncontroversially bundled (see the Iranian village examples). This excludes people who want the articles deleted from the discussion so, seems that just a couple of people who want to keep them can block deletion regardless of how many favour deletion? Inventing an entirely new process especially for large bundles is also pretty WP:CREEP-esque. FOARP (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody would be able to block deletion discussions, indeed such a discussion would facilitate deletion because it would prevent trainwrecks. The discussion is explicitly not about keep or delete (or alternatives to deletion), solely about "will nominating this bundle at AfD result in a trainwreck?". It is not a replacement for AfD but a precursor to it - think of it like a pre-screen for AfD, breaking up the clogs that would block the system into manageable chunks that can pass through cleanly. If the answer is "no, this wont be a trainwreck" then it will proceed to AfD without an issue, if the answer is "this is likely to be a trainwreck" then it will be split into multiple AfDs that wont.

Something like the Iranian villages example, where a very large bundle was uncontroversial would not be hindered by this process - it would be uncontroversially agreed that it was a good bundle and then the nominator could take it on to AfD, where the discussion can focus on whether they should all be kept/deleted/merged/etc rather than that and whether they can be fairly treated as a set

The reason for excluding the nominator and someone working with them is that the goal of the discussion is getting independent assessment of whether the bundle will lead to a trainwreck or not, those proposing the bundle are independent and they aren't excluded from the discussion, just excluded from the count of independent voices (because they aren't independent).

The reason we are here is because AfD can't handle things as they are, so something needs to change - it is not creepy to suggest a change to fix something that is broken. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see the aim here, although I'm not sure that the number (10) isn't too small. I might be able to go to at least 25 without worrying too much. Or make this a suggestion? Provide a service - a noticeboard or so on perhaps? - so that a sensible bundle can be arrived at? My biggest concern with bundles is that really diverse articles get bundled together at times - anything that encourages sensible bundling of really similar articles is a good thing. But I'm not sure that this will necessarily get us there - and I imagine that a common sense proposal starting with "editors are encouraged..." will get rejected very quickly as not being something that can be enforced... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the workshop will be more productive if this proposal specifies which noticeboard(s) the bundle approval discussion would go on, even if that's just the existing AfD queue (for example). DavidLeeLambert (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 8

Proposal: Where a single nomination at AfD bundles 10 or more articles, and there agreement prior to the nomination from at least two uninvolved editors other than the nominator that the articles are sufficiently similar that bundling is appropriate, the requirement for a WP:BEFORE is reduced to (a) examining the sources present in the articles, and (b) attempting to find sources for a representative sample of them. A representative sample is defined as the greater of (i) 5 articles, or (ii) 10% of the number nominated (rounded to the nearest whole number). Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I can certainly support the a) and b) bits - it seems a reasonable compromise (yeah, *that* word). As above, I might place the value higher than 10 (25 perhaps - I don't know what bundle says; I'm not averse to starting with a number like that and tweaking it with experience). I would think that if we removed the bit about agreement from two editors - which I think might be problematic - that this might be workable in a cut down form? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• The search suggested at WP:BEFORE is not and has never been a requirement (per WP:BURDEN, which is very clear about where the formal obligation for sourcing resides), and I would strenuously oppose any wording that could be misconstrued as making it one. We cannot "reduce" a requirement that does not exist. --Aquillion (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't BURDEN dealing with verifiability rather than notability? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 9

Where editors want to discuss a bundle of 100 or more articles, they should use RfC rather than AfD. A full 30-day RfC should take place, advertised on the relevant Wikiprojects.—S Marshall T/C 16:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

9.1

Only one such RfC per Wikiproject can be open at a time.

9.2

Where the disputed articles are BLPs, a "no consensus" outcome at the RfC means they are moved to project-space (not draftified, but moved to subpages of the RfC page). Any good faith editor in good standing can move such an article back to mainspace on their own authority.

9.3

Where editors want to discuss a large bundle, tentatively defined as 500 or more articles, this RfC must be advertised on WP:CENT as well. No more than one large bundle RfC can be open at a time.

Empowering Wikiprojects to block deletion, when Wikiprojects are the source of much mass-creation (see particularly the whole WP:NOLY and WP:NCRIC farragoes) seems unwise. FOARP (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Is notifying the Wikiproject your only objection to this idea?—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No, actually I'm perfectly OK with that. It's only having one discussion per Wikiproject open at a time that's the specific issue I'm talking about here - something that gives a Wikiproject the power to act as a jamming point - but not the only one. To expand on other issues: there's the WP:CREEP issue, the use of RFC rather than AFD where people have more experience with deletion issues, the potential to bog down CENT which only really has space for one of these discussions at any one time, the need for a full 30 day discussion where many large-scale deletions are uncontroversial (see the Iranian village cases), etc. Happy to discuss further. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. The intention here is to make a workable plan for AfD *at scale*, i.e. one that could realistically review 93,000 Lugnuts BLPs in a somewhat acceptable timescale. I'm thinking it's realistic to allow maybe 5 years for that project? Which means we have to be able to talk about 1,500 to 2,000 Lugnuts articles a month. AfD cannot and will not cope with that kind of volume, so we have to use an alternative. The limit per Wikiproject is there because if you put a bundle of 1,000 Lugnuts-created Olympian stubs up for deletion on Tuesday, it's not then fair for me to put a bundle of 1,000 Lugnuts-created Olympian stubs up for deletion on Wednesday: we don't have the people to do the reviewing.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If only Lugnuts was the only ex-editor whose stubs needed clean up, and Olympics the only Wikiproject that would need to be pinged on this work! Both Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46 made thousands of Geostubs, all of which are going to involve pinging multiple country-projects, country-projects that would also get pinged for other issues because of e.g., sportspeople from them. Lugnuts' Olympics stubs will involve dozens of Wikiprojects (the Wikiprojects of each country, the Olympics and sports wikiprojects, and the Wikiproject for each sport). Cleaning up sports bios for Turkey this month? OK, so no cleaning up Turkish village stubs then? I get the intent, but it seems unworkably rigid and requires a slew of new procedures.

For pure sanity's sake, mass TNT is just a much better way to go, not treating cookie-cutter stubs created in a matter of seconds based on the same source as being each an individual special snowflake. We've already seen this approach being deployed successfully and without any great controversy against the worst of the Iranian "village" stubs - once people understood that the source was bad then even people who would normally balk at mass-deletion were OK with it. Obviously there's other areas where people are much more invested in the subject, but that shouldn't stop us from going more quickly where possible. FOARP (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well, this RfC is about AfD at scale. If we can get consensus for mass TNT, then, great, and AfD at scale is no longer needed. I think that might be a bit unrealistic though.

I propose that where several Wikiprojects are in scope, the consultation requirements apply only to the most relevant one.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@FOARP: Part of the issue here is that we're not just limiting this to any set of editors. This is a way forward for the long term - and to apply to sets of articles where sources are reliable, just not very detailed, rather than "bad" (I don't know the details, but I can imagine). I'm not sure that TNT is good enough here - we have things like attribution and so on to consider Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A specific point to note, is that there seems to have been a wide-ranging and long-lasting consensus that sorts of articles created by editors involved in these sorts of projects were, at the time, notable - certainly there are AfD going back years where articles were kept and I think most people would agree that a consensus had formed. So, I can find examples of AfD from 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 etc... and right up to this (note Lugnuts' contribution) and then this, err, discussion in 2018. Consensus has changed since then of course, but I'm not sure that using the fact that some editors at some wikiprojects in the past worked with the consensus that seemed to exist at the time is really a justification for calling them a farrago is really a fair representation of current views (represented by, such as, this recent unanimous AfD). We should inform wikiprojects. If editors are obstructive unreasonably, ANI is there. We should use it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing - NCRIC and NOLY were examples of where a local consensus amongst Wikiproject enthusiasts was laundered into something that it wasn't (an overarching policy/guideline) through repetition at AFD. We should be moving towards wider involvement, not giving Wikiprojects special powers. FOARP (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of examples where it's true, though, that AfD over the years produced a much broader consensus than a couple of people agreeing something at a wiki project. Schools, railway stations, populated places etc... Sure, wikiprojects shouldn't have special powers, but you'll get better guidance on what might or might not be sourceable if you ask them. And asking people to check through the lists produced is a really sensible idea - we're not aiming to delete obviously notable articles here, are we? Projects are more likely to have people who can judge quickly and who are interested in checking these lists of, potentially, thousands of articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing - Things got out of control. Somehow things that were only ever supposed to be guidelines for what would *likely* be considered notable became "sure, create thousands and thousands of articles that only just meet this guideline but not the underlying policy, and no-one can ever challenge their notability, indeed if you do so repeatedly we're going to try to take you to ANI". The same thing happened on GEOLAND as well, which was, again, only ever supposed to be that articles about settlements were "typically presumed to be notable" and never intended to be just a licence to create tens of thousands of articles about, say, minor geographical features in Antartica (this is definitely ripe for a NOLY-style dethroning BTW). FOARP (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the reply here - I don't disagree with you, but the AfD record shows that whatever happened was essentially condoned. I argued against creation of articles in the way you describe, but lost that argument, both where it was discussed and then at multiple AfDs. It was what it was - now, lets move forward and deal with the fact that we've changed our minds and figure out a way out of this mess! Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I could get behind something like this. In terms of the numbers, frequency of nomination etc... I think we're better off starting with a lower number, such as the ones proposed here, and then seeing, with experience, how we go in different areas and with different sets of articles. We might also be able to reduce the 30-day time period in some cases (remind me, someone can call for an RfC to be closed if there's obvious agreement, yes?) or with experience. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• 9.1 is completely unworkable because it's vital that mass-deletions be able to occur at the same rate as mass-creations. I'd also strenuously oppose any sort of formal connection to wikiprojects - this suggestion should not mention them at all. Wikiprojects are informal organizations of editors and have no special say or right to be "notified" of anything. --Aquillion (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth does notifying people that there are a bunch of articles that they might want to check through become a "bad thing"? As I've said below, get over the fact that this is going to take some time. It's more important that we get it right - and wikiprojects provide a way to help do that - than we do it quickly. Yes, let's do it as quickly as we can, but do it properly at the same time. And that, again as I've said below, requires compromise. Involving wikiprojects is one way to get that compromise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• This basic idea makes sense to me. On 9.1, maybe instead of WikiProjects it should be rate limited by delsort category, or in some other way. Levivich (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 10

Proposal - We agree with the statement that: "there are certain sets of articles for which WP:TNT en masse is an appropriate response, and a consensus in favour of doing so at a suitably-widely advertised AFD discussion listing those articles is sufficient grounds to do so". FOARP (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of this is to simply protect ourselves against the time-sink that mass-created stubs of a particularly-low quality represent. Some people have cast doubt on the idea that mass-deletion even could be done. This affirms that, where there is a consensus to do so in a widely-advertised discussion, then this can be done. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

In regards to WP:TNT I agree with FOARP as I believe, a redlink will encourage more likely for a creation of the originally intended article than a redirect. With the creation of an article from a redlink your name gets added to the article creators and the editor also receives the notifications connected with the article creation.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Paradise Chronicle. It would be great if there were some data either way on this, though my instinct is that red-links are more attractive than stubs (but I've expanded/created both). Either way, regardless of whatever other more intensive processes are created for some sorts of articles, a simple TNT of an arbitrarily large set of articles should always be an option. WP:DELREV is always present as a back up. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about redlinks simply leading to the re-creation of probably not very notable articles actually. In that sense, redirection strikes me as better - people have to have something to add rather than just do a similar sort of thing to what was done before. And potentially worse (look at some of the AfCs we get...). And in some areas of the project redirection is a well established AtD. Best not to lose sight of that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The suggestion that there are certain sets of articles where an approach based on really rapid mass deletion is appropriate is totally reasonable. I'm not sure it's necessary to actually agree this - the issue will be on what grounds I imagine! Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, necessary, I've seen numerous AFDs closed by closers who simply refused to carry out the clear consensus in favour of mass-deletion/redirecting due to formalities. Here's an example - note how 95%+ have been red-linked since that RFC, with half of the remaining blue-links being redirects (e.g., Camp Spaulding, which is now a link to Lake Spaulding Dam, Canebrake (former town) which now redirects to the actual town of Canebrake, Crystal Springs which now redirects to Sanitarium etc.) and even the ones that were kept were basically re-written and might as well have been new articles. This would act as a reminder that, yes, mass-deletion is an appropriate response to some sets of articles, and yes that deletion should be carried out where there is a clear consensus to do so. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

As I say, I imagine that the issue is more likely to be the practicalities of dealing with this sort of thing - I think you might fall down on simply saying "at AfD" or if someone raises the concern that this can be applied too broadly. Yes, there are sets of articles that most people could agree about. But what if someone brings 3,000 to AfD all at once? How do we deal with *that*? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The same way you'd deal with any other AFD - assess the consensus, and if it is in favour of deletion, then delete. There should be no set of articles too big for deletion if there is a sufficiently-strong consensus in favour of doing so. The technicalities of carrying out the deletion would be an issue for the closing Admin to work out with support from the AN board and others. DELREV is always there as a forum to challenge the deletion. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

And that's the problem: we're being asked to discuss deletion at scale. That suggests that there are concerns or issues with nominating too many articles at the same time. If proposals ignore the fact that there are concerns, I don't think they have a chance of passing. Wait till we have 10,000 articles about one subject at AfD at once and you'll end up with the nominators at ANI being told to calm down and spread them out. The point here, I **think**, is that we need to be finding ways forward that allow us to deal with that, not simply say, "yeah, it's fine, nom as many as you like without doing a proper BEFORE". I might be wrong, but I thought that was the intention. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no magical wand that can be waved over people who simply do not think that deletion should happen in a specific case - only a consensus one way or the other can settle the issue. If someone does nom 10k articles (which would still be less than the largest deletion made in the Iranian "villages" case) then that should just be handled as a normal AFD case. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The key with the Iranian villages was that it was a clearly defined set that pretty much everybody agreed was appropriate to discuss as a single unit (whether they favoured deletion or not), at least in part because articles where other considerations apply (e.g. significant content added by others) had been explicitly noted and removed from the discussion. This is the sort of thing I'm trying to get at in Proposal 7 - if you do the preparation right and get someone to check your work, then the actual nomination will go much more smoothly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

So, sounds like there are such article-sets for which a straight TNT is appropriate. This is not about smooth or rough nominations: this is about closers hesitating to close as "delete all" AFDs where there is a clear consensus to delete, and giving an instruction from the community that, yes, that is what they should. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I do think the consensus has to be overwhelming in cases like this. I'm not familiar enough with the Iranian villages situation and how it was handled to be confident of how that consensus was arrived at. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 11

Proposal - Where one or more editors feel it to be appropriate to nominate a set of articles for deletion, it is not reasonable to expect other editors to assess that set in a shorter timespan than that over which they were created, nor in any circumstances, to expect them to be assessed in fewer than 7 days. For example if a set of articles was created over 6 months then it is unreasonable to require editors to assess them all over less than six months; if the set was created over six years then taking 6 years to evaluate them all is reasonable.

This is a statement of principal to set reasonable expectations of speed. It does not set any rules or limits, including no minimum or maximum times - the 7 days just says that even if the articles were created in 24 hours its reasonable to allow a full AfD, but it doesn't preclude early closures (or even speedy deletion for those articles that meet a criterion) if the consensus is clear. Some evaluations will take longer (e.g. 5000 articles created in 10 days will likely take longer), others will take shorter (e.g. 20 articles created in 30 days), but an approximate 1:1 timescale is not too slow. If there are some articles within a set that need to be dealt with quicker than that for some reason, then nominate them first. Thryduulf (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Some sets of contentless stub articles were created over ~10 years. The content of the articles is far more important than however many days the creator spent cutting and pasting content from a database into Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thryduulf, do you feel this should apply to biographies of living people as well as the geostubs?—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As noted this is intended as a general guideline that sets general expectations for everything. It does not set limits and does not impose restrictions. If there are sets of articles created over ~10 years then taking ~10 years to assess them all is not unreasonable. If it happens quicker than that then there is no problem, the problem is demanding other editors work quicker on assessing them than it took to create them. If there are articles within a set that are higher priority to assess then assess them first. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying 10 years is a reasonable timeframe for assessment because 1000 such articles were created (commonly at a clip of <2 minutes per article) over a 10 year span makes no sense because overall creation time is less than a couple of days. For the articles concerned, reasonably matching the time for assessment to the time spent creating would allow for little more than glancing at the article and the database source it was copied from, and assessing against the relevant SNG/GNG/other – frankly, this is sufficient. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Even as a statement of principle with no limit in practice, I would still oppose this. The task of reviewing all these articles is monumental. The project's failures of recruitment and retention mean that our resources of editor time are very limited nowadays. I feel that we need to be very realistic about how many poorly sourced biographies of living people we're dealing with here.—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• This seems unnecessary since 7 days is not a hard deadline at AfD. If enough editors have assessed the article to reach consensus, the discussion is closed after a week. If additional time is needed to get more input, it's relisted. This often happens when there's a backlog and folks are taking longer to get through the list. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Although it may not be a hard deadline, people still have to have a reasonable chance to take a basic look at least. We need something that says that if there are hundreds of AfD proposed in a batch that we have to have the chance to do at least a basic checkon those. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing is absolutely correct here - the principle must always be to allow a reasonably amount of time for those who wish to check articles to do so. The lower the requirement for any checking prior to nomination the more important time for others to check after nomination is. After all the goal is to delete articles that should not be articles, not to delete articles because they were mass created (simply being mass-created is not a sufficient reason on its own for deletion - they must be mass created and bad articles for some reason). Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, this would impose more restrictions on deletion than on creation, which is unworkable for WP:FAIT reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it more important to get a system that's workable, with enough safeguards in place to ensure we don't delete stuff that we should keep? It's going to take a bit longer. Get over that! :-)

The danger here is that I think the creation RfC probably showed that a set of absolutist positions has little chance of getting consensus. The time is right to compromise on how we do things so that there are enough safeguards to reassure people like me that I can raise a sensible (not absolutist) objection but that we can get on with the job of dealing with a load of standalone articles that we should probably do something with - whether that's to delete them or do something else with them. If people simply object to any attempt at a compromise position we're going to end up with nothing passing. Again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 12

Disruptive mass creation in violation of consensus, and of the policy on bot-like editing, is added to Wikipedia's list of reasons for deletion. The reasoning is the same as for proposal 6: cleaning up each non-notable article shouldn't require more effort than that employed in creating it. Avilich (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC) edited Avilich (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Simply being mass created (with or without consensus) should never be a reason for deletion - it must also be the case that the articles are about clearly non-notable topics and/or are of such poor quality that improvement in place is not realistic. As has been repeatedly noted, it is possible to mass-create quality articles about notable topics. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why I explicitly added 'in violation of the policy on bot-like editing'. If the mass-article is already notable by virtue of an SNG, then the meatbot policy wasn't violated because the guideline explicitly allows the creation of such articles. On the other hand, if the mass-created articles in question are about unverifiable Iranian pseudo-villages or non-notable sportspeople, then this proposal creates a policy basis for dealing with the situation. Avilich (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The policy on bot-like editing contains no references to notability, SNGs, the GNG or anything similar. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

the policy on bot-like editing

Bot-like editing Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary.

It's right there where it says "ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in pursuit of speed or quantity", "contrary to consensus", and "the disruptive editing must stop". It covers disruptive mass creations, and what is disruptive or not is defined by other policies and guidelines which have been sanctioned by community consensus, naturally including notability. The final draft could make explicit reference to "Disruptive mass creation" in order to make it clearer. Avilich (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Contrary to consensus" is clearly only referring to consensus to make rapid edits and neither the reference to quality nor "disruptive editing must stop" imply anything to do with notability, let alone SNGs. If you want your proposal to be in any way related to notability it must specify that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"Consensus" and "disruptive editing" are unqualified, and so apply to whatever global rules exist regarding consensus and disruptive editing. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Since it apparently can't be helped that the linked policy will be reinterpreted on the basis of nonexistent wording, I added the words 'disruptive' and 'consensus' to the original proposal. Avilich (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really understand how this applies to mass deletion. And I'm not sure that you could show whether consensus didn't exist in cases where multiple articles have been kept at AfD over a number of years. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• How about "Articles created in violation of WP:MASSCREATE"? Levivich (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that MASSCREATE has been adjusted in accordance with the previous RfC, I think that this is better. Avilich (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 13

Proposal: Should we make the search for sourcing that WP:BEFORE describes (and which WP:NEXIST strongly encourages) strictly obligatory, and should WP:BURDEN and WP:NEXIST be updated to reflect this? Or should WP:BEFORE be updated to make it more clear that that the search for sourcing is merely strongly suggested, as the text at WP:NEXIST suggests and as WP:BURDEN currently requires?

I have seen a number of people implying they believe it already is obligatory; but I do not think that that is a settled matter, so we should ask it as part of the RFC. See the discussion in the ArbCom case that this grew out of and my comments on the evidence page for reference; it is clear that there is currently no consensus supporting the interpretation that WP:BEFORE searches are obligatory, so it is plainly one of the core questions we need to resolve. This question is obviously vital to mass-deletions, as some of the discussions above imply (since the people who argue that WP:BEFORE searches are already a hard requirement would say that it is one of the primary impediments), but I, at least, would flatly and unconditionally oppose any wording that might imply that WP:BEFORE searches are obligatory; this is a question we need to settle first before we can refine the more detailed aspects of what BEFORE should say about deletions (mass- or otherwise.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• It's important I think to note the difference between some sort of BEFORE being mandatory (which I believe it currently is and should be) and specifics of what constitutes a sufficient BEFORE (about which there is definitely no consensus). Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• If you think you have the consensus to make WP:BEFORE mandatory, you should be able to demonstrate it here. If you think a previous consensus made it mandatory, you should be able to point to that consensus (but repeated discussions have failed to do so, and have constantly shown that despite the strident assertions by people who want to make it mandatory their proposal remains controversial.) But no, I flatly disagree with your assertion that it is currently mandatory; it is simply not, nor has it ever been, nor can it be without a consensus to rewrite WP:BURDEN (which I do not believe exists.) If you believe this discussion will reach a consensus that it is mandatory sufficient to modify WP:BURDEN and want to discuss precisely what that would mean, please make a separate point for that - I feel we need a simple, straightforward "is it mandatory" up-or-down discussion to determine if a consensus to make it mandatory exists so we can avoid these circular discussions about an aspect of policy on which there is clearly no consensus and where the text of multiple policies and guidelines seem to conflict. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The main argument for WP:BEFORE being made mandatory, if it isn't already, is that in order to claim that an article does not meet WP:GNG (or any other guideline), one must actually show that it does not meet WP:GNG. Otherwise, the claim is based on nothing; it might as well just be a !vote consisting solely of "delete." This does not conflict with WP:BURDEN -- it is the same line of logic, applied to a different space. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability is established by presenting reliable sources that support notability. If such sources have not been presented, then notability has not been established. It is the responsibility of anyone claiming a subject is notable to produce the reliable sources. We are not in the business of proving a subject is not notable, we are in the business of determining whether or not reliable sources exist that establish the notability of a subject. Proving that such sources do not exist is a logical fallacy. All you can show is that such sources have not been found. And until such sources are found, we don't shouldn't create an article for the subject. Donald Albury 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Edited 23:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

AfD isn't in the business of creating articles, either. It's in the business of reviewing ones that already exist. Notability is not determined by the state of the article itself (WP:ARTN, which is cited in WP:DELETE), but by the existence of reliable sources. And there is no way to determine whether or not reliable sources exist than to actually go looking for them and seeing whether they exist -- i.e., doing a WP:BEFORE search. Proving without a doubt that they don't exist is indeed a logical fallacy, which is why it is impossible to mandate any "sufficient" standard of WP:BEFORE. But in order to make any kind of credible argument, one has to present evidence. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"Notability is not determined by the state of the article itself" This is a principle that's unique to Wikipedia and may need to be reassessed as well. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether a principle is unique to Wikipedia or not? We're only dealing with Wikipedia here. Reassessing that principle would be out of scope for this discussion, but if you do propose it somewhere you'll need to explain in detail what benefits it will bring to the encyclopaedia as I'm at a loss to think of any. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, the obligation to provide reliable sources to support their claim that an article is notable is entirely and solely on people who believe it to be notable; that is the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, - the article creator and people who want to keep it. Nothing there could reasonably be construed as allowing you to shift that burden to someone who wants to remove it or nominate it for deletion. Someone who wants to nominate an article for deletion has absolutely no obligation to "prove" a negative, nor could or should they ever have such an obligation; the simple fact that the article contains insufficient sourcing is already sufficient. The system you are proposing - where someone could create an article with no sourcing, then demand that other people do the footwork of looking for sourcing before their actions can be reversed, or indeed before they're even allowed to propose reversing it - is contrary to WP:FAIT and WP:BURDEN and is completely unworkable. If you think sources can be found, you're free to produce them in the AFD, but nominators have no obligation to WP:SATISFY your demands that they do your footwork for you. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is who has the burden to demonstrate that the sources support a page's claim of notability (a page that makes no claim of notability generally falls under WP:A7 or one of the variations on it and can be speedy-deleted without even going through AFD.) WP:BURDEN is clear that that burden falls on the people who add the claim or the people who want to retain the material in question, which means that it's entirely reasonable to send an article to AFD because they've failed to do so; someone doing so has no obligation to do that search for them. Otherwise, people could add uncited articles, with uncited claims of notability, then flatly refuse any attempts to remove them, while making no attempt to source their claims, and insist that other people do that search for them. In the most extreme cases people have actually tried to argue that editors can be sanctioned - and attempted, unsuccessfully, to seek sanctions at ANI - for not doing such a search before nominating things deletion, even when there's no indication that the article creators or any of the people who want to keep the article did such a search for their own claims of notability. That is plainly absurd and contrary to policy; the burden for that search is ultimately on the people who add or want to retain content, never on the people who want to remove or delete it. This is extremely relevant to AFDs at scale because, historically, people have added large numbers of articles at once with no or minimal efforts to find sourcing for their claims of notability, then falsely implied that WP:BURDEN means that anyone who wants to nominate their creations for deletion has some sort of obligation search for sources for them, individually, before nominating any of those articles for deletion; this makes article creation into a WP:FAIT situation where people can make take action and make wildly unsourced claims and then demand other people provide evidence before their uncited additions can be reversed. Things that are asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence; if someone creates an article, without providing sources that demonstrate notability, it is 100% correct and proper for me to be able to send that article to AFD without burdening me with a requirement to do that search on their behalf. In some situations it might be a good idea for me to do such a brief search to avoid wasting time on trivial cases, but I have no obligation to do so and we can't create an obligation to do so without creating WP:FAIT situations that turn WP:BURDEN on its head. --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• As a proposal this would need work in order to create a statement that people can vote on - "should we or not..." as a proposal is unlikely to be clear enough. Anything which is as broad as this I'd suggest needs to go to a wider forum as a specific RfC which gets input from hundreds of editors - its scope is much broader than AfD at scale. Where we're specifically relating the requirements to reduce the amount of BEFO checking done to a set of mass deletion articles, this is an appropriate thing to discuss here. This is just way too wide ranging for this RfC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• WP:BEFORE is not, should not, and must not be mandatory. WP:BURDEN is policy: it is for those seeking to keep content to show that it is verifiable/notable. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  BURDEN and BEFORE are not in opposition to each other. Those seeking to delete content must give a reasonable opportunity for editors to find sources. What "reasonable" means differs in different circumstances - finding sources for a contemporary pop culture topic is always going to be quicker and easier than finding sources for things related to niche historical topics in non-western countries for example. WP:BEFORE is part of this - not flooding deletion spaces with topics that a few minutes work shows are unquestionably verifiable and notable is an essential part of editing in good faith. We should all be here to build an encyclopaedia and every minute an editor spends defending a notable topic against deletion is a minute they can't spend improving the encyclopaedia.

  Perhaps if WP:BEFORE were phrased as "you must make a reasonable effort to ensure you are not needlessly wasting other editors' time" the opposition to it would be more clearly seen for the anti-social position it often (but not always) is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  The counterargument is that article creators shouldn't be needlessly wasting other editors' time by flooding article spaces with topics that don't demonstrate their notability. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles isn't really wasting anyone's time – if you don't want to work on it, don't work on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if that is true it's completely irrelevant - you cannot solve a waste of time by wasting more time, and in almost all cases a non-notable article remaining in the mainspace isn't actually harming anything or anyone (and in very nearly all cases where it is, it can be speedily deleted so is irrelevant to AfD). Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles in mainspace that shouldn't be in mainspace harm Wikipedia; they make Wikipedia worse. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Firstly that is entirely a matter of opinion, secondly even if it is true it is nowhere near the level of harm from things like copyright violations, attack pages and other things that can be speedily deleted, thirdly those articles that shouldn't be in mainspace are only a subset of the articles being discussed here - articles about notable topics that don't demonstrate that notability are still notable (also remember WP:V is vierifiable not verified). So, even if we assume that these articles are somehow actively harmful, the level of this harm doesn't come remotely close to justifying not giving other editors a reasonable chance to determine whether a given article is or is not notable/verifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

No one is arguing that articles that fail to demonstrate notability should be speedy-deleted; every proposal here and elsewhere gives other editors a reasonable chance to determine whether a given article is or is not notable/verifiable BilledMammal (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is an essential part of giving editors a reasonable chance, because it means obviously notable articles are not nominated for deletion and it reduces the amount of work needed to be done by others (e.g. if you say you've searched X then I don't need to do that as well). Thryduulf (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 14

No mass deletion process should be initiated, and certainly not approved, without the prior involvement and review of at least one person who is knowledgeable about the subject matter and can provide access to sources during, and preferably before, the duration of the AfD. If the subject matter is primarily covered in non-English-language media, the process should not be initiated or approved without the involvement someone who speaks that language.

Specifics: This does not imply any sort of request for formal credentials. It does not necessarily include the articles' creator -- if that person is even reachable anymore. It may include the WikiProjects on the subject, and these are probably the best place to find such people, but they don't have to come from there. It may, and probably should where relevant, include the non-English-language Wikipedia communities.

The rationale for this is simple: the more sweeping a change one wishes to make to the encyclopedia at once in a short period of time, the more critical it is to have some level of oversight by someone who knows what they are doing. AfD is populated largely by English-speaking generalists, and there is a great deal of misinformation that can be perpetuated by generalists. For example, on multiple AfDs on cricketers, John Pack Lambert attempted to use as a valid argument "he can't be important, we don't even know what his name is," when it is exceedingly common for people with patronymic names to go by initials only. The fact that, so far, many of these mass deletions have involved non-Western topics (Iranian villages, non-English-speaking cricketers), scientific subject matter (species), and other subjects that Wikipedia is regularly criticized in the media for neglecting means that there is a high possibility of the project looking really bad, perhaps in public, if this is not done right. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Similar to some of the other proposals here, this is "people who really love this topic-area should have a veto over deleting anything in it", which is a recipe for disaster. Typically these articles have been created by people who had little knowledge of the subject area (e.g., Carlossuarez46's Iranian villages) so one might ask why it is possible for someone having little knowledge to create the articles, but deletion requires approval from the fan-base of such articles.

The entire reason why these mass-deletions tend to occur in more obscure areas for the average editor is because mass-creations also tend to occur in them as these areas are less well-policed and editors are less likely to face opposition to negligent mass-creation from non-SIGCOV databases within them. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to FOARP, I like this idea. I don't think the wording is perfect yet the but the principle is solid. This is not about anybody having a veto over deletions, it's about ensuring that the basis for any nomination is factually correct. You (FOARP) bring up non-SIGCOV databases, this just ensures that someone with subject specific knowledge checks the nomination to ensure that the coverage is actually not-significant and that no articles about subjects that are very obviously notable get mixed in with articles about subjects that are truly not-notable. The goal is to delete articles that are either incorrect or unexpandable, not to delete as much as possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Determining whether something is or is not SIGCOV does not require subject-specific knowledge. I do not see why barriers should be placed in the way of deletion that do not apply to creation - anyone can create an article, anyone can nominate it for deletion. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Determining whether something is or is not significant coverage is very much subject-dependent knowledge in some cases - e.g. please show me what significant coverage of a 17th century Polish poet, a Polynesian religious rite, an Ethiopian cultural historian, a Peruvian plant geneticist, a town council in Uttar Pradesh and an oral tradition in Botswana looks like in all cases. The only "barriers" being placed in the way of deletion are those that will ensure that time is not wasted discussing the deletion of things that clearly should not be deleted. Say for example you find an article about a Georgian academic sourced only to a database - clearly delete you think, but then someone who can read Georgian sees that one of the entries in the database is actually an extensive list of the press coverage about the subject, all in Georgian, that demonstrates he was the pre-eminent scholar of the history of the Georgian language of his generation and meets the GNG in spades. If there are multiple such entries in the batch you nominate for deletion, then the discussion is going to be a train wreck having wasted the time of multiple editors. If you'd just checked beforehand with someone with subject specific knowledge they'd have separated out the notable from the non-notable, you could then nominate only the non-notable ones for deletion and they'd be gone in a week having generated no bad feeling, done no harm to the encyclopaedia and wasted nobody's time or effort. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thryduulf - "please show me what significant coverage of a 17th century Polish poet, a Polynesian religious rite, an Ethiopian cultural historian, a Peruvian plant geneticist, a town council in Uttar Pradesh and an oral tradition in Botswana looks like in all cases" - there is no difference in assessing SIGCOV between these. In every case it comes to whether or not the subject is described directly and in detail, beyond a mere passing mention, such that it can be understood and used to write an article without original research. A biography of the poet/historian/geneticist over a paragraph or three, a description of the town/oral tradition of similar length, in an independent and reliable source, is sufficient for this. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The point is it sometimes takes specialist knowledge to determine whether that coverage is relevant and significant (because despite the letter of the policy that is what everyone at AfD asks for). Are these 300 words about a subject you know nothing about relevant detail or just routine fluff? This is especially true when the source is in a language you don't speak. I genuinely don't understand the opposition to input from someone who knows the subject area and language before deletion - surely they are best placed to accurately evaluate? Giving content a fair evaluation is the only way we can ensure that the goals of Wikipedia are met. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thryduulf No-one is opposed to projects being pinged for AFDs... which already happens automatically on every AFD anyway. I am against hobbyists being given an effective veto. At best it creates a situation where simply by not giving any input the system is log-jammed, and at worst it means elevating people who are supposedly subject-matter experts (remember that Carlossuarez46 claimed to speak Persian? That Lugnuts was supposed to be an expert on emerging country cricket?) above the community. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep talking about a veto, but this is not what is being proposed, likewise nobody is being elevated above the community. As I previously commented I support the principle here, not the exact wording, and having received no input within a reasonable time of reaching out for it would be something that would need to be a reason for proceeding without input ("reasonable" would probably have to depend in part about how many editors on en.wp are knowledgeable about the topic area and how active they are - it's more reasonable to expect a response to a query about 21st century American sportspeople within 24-48 hours than it is to expect a response regarding 19th century Georgian academics in the same timeframe). Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Very belatedly: This is not intended as a veto. It may work both ways, and may and often should include the AfD nominator. If somebody (to take an example of mass creation at scale) has access to historical censuses and knowledge of what on those tends to be mislabeled and just a gas station or whatever, then that would count as "subject-matter expertise," even though it's being used as an argument to delete.

This is also not meant primarily to address whether the existing sources meet SIGCOV, but ensure that there is somebody involved who actually has access to whatever sources may (or may not) exist, which in many cases may mean searching something other than the Internet and whatever paywalls one can get past, or going in person to a library that may be in another country. But with foreign languages and publications in particular, even if sources have been found it's not easy to assess whether coverage in a language you don't speak is truly significant, or how reliable a publication is when you can't read it. WP:RSP heavily if not entirely skews English, and journalistic standards vary widely by country. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like it would create an imbalance between the effort required for creation (no expertise needed, no need to understand what the name of the topic even means and in many cases, no demonstration of notability) and deletion (must track down a subject matter expert who reads the local language). As others have pointed out, you don't have to be an expert to assess whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 13:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• It's not unreasonable to check with people who know where sources are whether the mass deletion process your're suggesting is reasonable. It would be quite embarrassing if a large number of articles in a proposed deletion list could easily be shown to have quality sourcing associated with them. At least as a very strong suggestion at the start of a process this is a sound idea. May need some work on the wording. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. A professional shill writes a borderline promotional piece about a company based in the Punjab, and we can't delete it until we find someone who knows the Indian business world and reads Gujarati? A Palestinian writes a borderline hatchet job about an Israeli politician, and we can't delete it until we find a Hebrew-speaking politics major? This is an immensely problematic idea.

Wikipedia works because whether or not you're an expert, you have to cite your claims to reliable sources, and if you don't your work may be deleted. This proposal would undermine that basic principle. If implemented we would need to rewrite large parts of core policy, specifically WP:V and WP:BLP. It's a total non-starter.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is only talking about deletion at scale of course, not general deletion. I take your point, and, as above, perhaps this needs to be a strong suggestion where possible, particularly at the start of a process, but the general idea isn't unreasonable Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It is completely unreasonable. A huge part of the problem with mass-article creations is that they are WP:FAIT situations where it is easier for someone to create a thousand articles than it is to delete them; adding additional hurdles to mass-deletions without adding corresponding restrictions on mass-creation is a hard no. I would strenuously oppose this even as a "suggestion", since we've seen how that went with WP:BURDEN. --Aquillion (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Absolutely no, not in any form. The problem here is that we need to avoid WP:FAIT situations, which means mass-deletions should never be more difficult than mass-creations; if we are going to encourage consensus-building and discussion, then it should never be more difficult to reverse something than it was to do it. That means that if someone can create a thousand articles in a day without talking to anyone first, it is vital that another person be able to delete those thousand of articles with roughly the same level of effort. I think anything that places a restriction on mass-deletion that does not have a corresponding restriction on mass-creation is therefore a hard stop because it encourages people to push forwards with controversial mass-creations without seeking consensus, knowing that it will be difficult to reverse them. If you wanted to add more process to the mass creation, deletion, and curation of articles, you should have proposed comparable restrictions during the mass-article-creation RFC; but adding restrictions only to deletion is a recipe for disaster. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  WP:FAIT applies just as well to article deletion. Deleting articles en masse is, by definition, making "large numbers of similar edits," and clearly -- as evidenced by the sub-encyclopedia's worth of discussion here -- those edits are "controversial or disputed." The sheer number of nominations will, and already has, "exhaust [people's] ability to contest the change." If we need to avoid such situations, we need to avoid them everywhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• This seems to go against the purpose of Wikipedia being that anyone can edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 15

One of the issues with AfD is low attendance, and one of the reasons repeatedly given for that is the acrimonious atmosphere during AfD discussions. This is a long term issue, and some level of personal arguments now appear to be just an accepted feature. As no other method of moderation has seemed to work (this is an RFC that comes from an Arbcom case, that was the results of multiple ANI cases) a stricter set of behaviour messures than WP:CIVIL may be required. So for one year following the closer of the RFC, revocable or renewable by the community, no personal comments will be allowed during AfDs. Any editor in breach of this restriction would be subject to blocks of increasing duration. Note this is any comment that isn't about the article at AfD. Any concerns about behaviour, intentions, capabilities, prior actions, etc of another editor should be addressed only at the appropriate noticeboards.

This suggestion is meant to be otherly harsh, as the community doesn't appear able to reign in negative behaviour at AfD. So this is a hammer to try and make them stop. Obviously there would need to be some leeway given to new users, as with other areas of enforcememt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Brilliant. I wholeheartedly support this. Let's make attacking AFD nominators by impugning their motives, competence, subject matter knowledge or policy compliance into grounds for a tban from AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  And the opposite side as well, there's far to many personal comments that border but don't (deliberately) quite cross WP:CIVIL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• As much as I might agree with the sentiment here, this isn't really in scope at all is it? It might also be a bit too far - what if there are concerns about sockpupptery and an SPI has been opened? Am I not allowed to mention that SPI in my comments? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SPI, WP:ANI, and WP:AIV exist. For anything else maybe dropping a note on an uninvolved admin should be allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• This is a great idea and seems likely to succeed since it directly addresses community concerns about civility without restricting desirable deletion-related activity. AfD participants should refrain from discussing anything except the notability of the article in question, regardless of how or why it was nominated, and discuss procedural concerns elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Notability isn't the only reason articles get nominated at AfD - verifiability being probably the largest other reason. The idea is good, but it needs to have exceptions - e.g. where an SPI or ANI is open it should be permissible to link to that so that participants are aware they exist. It needs to be permissible to examine comments - e.g. if there are arguments made for merging and someone leaves a comment for keep or delete that doesn't address those arguments at all, it should be allowed to note this and ask that commenter to address them. It needs to be allowed to discuss assertions made regarding the article or sources.

  Most importantly, it needs to apply and be enforced equally regarding all participants and their comments whether they be made by or directed at nominators or !voters and regardless of what opinions regarding the article are being expressed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is a good idea, but the proposal should make it clear where violations should be reported. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not clear on why there should be a sunset clause to require revisiting this direction, or why there is more difficulty in managing personal attacks during deletion discussions versus other discussions. If a stronger focus on enforcing rules against personal attacks has consensus support, I would prefer it be applicable to a broader set of contentious discussions, and without a preset time to revisit the enacted procedure. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• If there is an acrimonious atmosphere on AfD, it's not usually due to personal attacks themselves, which aren't very common, are already disallowed, and are already usually disregarded by closers anyway. Perennial disagreements on how much SIGCOV is enough or how to apply notability guidelines can cause enough indignation and dissatisfaction on their own even without explicit PAs. See, most recently, this controversy on mass redirections and enforcement of NSPORT. Cracking down on PAs merely scratches the surface; despite there being policies and guidelines the current system still encourages enough disagreement that two hostile blocks will always exist. Avilich (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, most of the friction I encounter arises in confrontations with users who try to WP:GAME notability requirements. If this proposal applies to (civilly) calling out someone who persistently claims ROUTINE transaction news, or articles by the governing body of a sport, or Q&A interviews are "SIGCOV" then it's a no-go for me. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to make that comment sound neutral, but yeah, I definitely have my own opinion too on where the problem really lies (that AfD where Facebook posts and Google docs poll results were accepted as indicators of notability comes to mind). If we're down to discussing banning personal criticisms, we might as well straightaway ban editors from making non-policy arguments and posting spurious sources. Avilich (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding, however, is that this wouldn't prevent you from pointing out policy misinterpretations or bad sources, just from criticizing the person doing it, and that the offending editor should instead be talked to in his own talk page or some appropriate noticeboard. Avilich (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• I cheer the sentiment, but this is too broad, as written. Civilly asking about WP:BEFORE, would be a "behaviour" question, for example. - jc37 20:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  An editor asking if the nominator has done a WP:BEFORE search doesn't add anything to a discussion, and is instead usually used to attack to attack the nominator. BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion, this is not meant as stronger enforcement of WP:CIVIL or as a way to deal with explicit PAs. The point is to ban any mentioning of other editors. Yes that means no saying someone obviously hasn't done WP:BEFORE as well as any mention of the articles creators inability to understand notability guidelines.
The point is that behaviour at AfD as it stands is incredibly intimidating to new users, and not so new users, and the community has obviously failed to deal with this. A large part of that appears to be personal comments, which lead to bickering and editors being driven away from the process.

The wording is meant to be overtly restrictive, which is also why I believe it should have a sunset clause. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 16

a.) mass creation of stubs (more than X, in Z timeframe) should require something similar to a WP:BRFA, similar to any other mass edits. The X and Z values to be determined in an RfC.

b.) AfDs for mass deletion of articles (more than X in a single nom) should have a 30 day time frame, similar to an RfC. - This is important because deletion of a certain "type" of article may be being discussed (for example, the lack of notability of the works of a certain artist), and so, using the RfC format then allows that to be discussed as well. This is done to help not continue wasting the community's time, while at the same time attempting to prevent people from trying to abuse the expedient AfD process.

c.) Group nom AfDs should be for no more than 4 very connected articles. A broad topic, like "math", or "climate change", or even "the Harry Potter franchise", is not considered "very connected" in this case.

d.) regular AfD discussions should be 10 days - there is no deadline. (BLP/privacy situations could be an exception to this.) This gives more time for possible discussion of/implementation of, potential expansion/development of an article.

These all work together. The goal overall should be encyclopedia building. To build or cull as necessary. Not because of a battleground mentality. I hope this helps. - jc37 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Start date for AFD at scale

Do we know the approximate start date for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale? The first question above was asked on November 6, 2022. Thanks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't. We think we'll need to RfC a definition of 'at scale' first, for one thing. And we probably don't want to start that until after the holidays. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - @Valereee:, are we thinking some time in calendar year 2023? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Jeez, I certainly hope so! :D Valereee (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale definition

Welp, I guess we should gear up again now that ArbCom elections and the holidays are over and we have no further excuse. There was a discussion at idea lab, archived at [1].

@Xeno, what are your thoughts from that discussion?

I'm going to go through it again, but of course anyone interested should please join this discussion. Valereee (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm thinking it looks like our best bet might be at this RfC to define only the typical characteristics of articles that are mass created, and let the AfD RfC decide the numbers/rates at which a given solution would be helpful rather than having some one-size-fits-all rate or number that then limits the possible solutions.

So we might decide in this RfC that groups of articles that share three or more of the following characteristics (or that share characteristic X plus two additional, or share all these characteristics, or whatever):

1. Fewer than 1500 characters
2. Highly similar articles created (or which could have been created) using a boilerplate or template
3. Articles created using a single source or same small group of sources
4. By the same editor

...could reasonably be considered articles that now we can address as being qualified to be considered for some solution at the AfD RfC. We don't have to specify here what the rate or number is. The ideal rate/number for a given solution is likely idiosyncratic to that solution. We can just define the typical characteristics of articles we're talking about that tend to cause issues at NPP and AfD.

Thoughts? Valereee (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest refining that a bit to three, four or five of:-

1. Fewer than 1,500 characters of prose (if in doubt, check using a DYK checker)
2. Similar structure and design that could be a boilerplate or template.
3. Using the same source or small group of sources.
4. Using a database as a sole source for key facts.
5. By the same editor or group of editors, or by editors whose prose styles are similar.

The refinement in that last point is to remove a possible incentive to socking.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'm wondering if the best option could be to boldly start an RFC with minimal options, and allow editors to put any further thoughts in their comments. The thread at ideas lab ended up moribund on issues that could have been discussed as part of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I've got so far:

User:Valereee/ACAS definition RfC

Input welcome. Valereee (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the previous attempts to define ACAS don't seem to have produced a helpful consensus. But it may help to remember that any ACAS definition used in this RfC is primarily for the AfD At Scale process, not any other process.

If the AfC At Scale RfC had produced more, we might have been able to reference already-established definitions of "Authorized ACAS" and "Unauthorized ACAS". But we don't have those yet.

Right now we have a process to nominate a single page for deletion, and a process to nominate "multiple related pages" for deletion. Other than the mechanics of creating one AfD entry that all the articles are linked to, there's not a lot of difference between the two processes. The list of suitable examples is pretty short, and does not include the list of articles that lead to the Arbcom proceeding:

• "A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.
• "A group of hoax articles by the same editor.
• "A group of spam articles by the same editor.
• "A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products."

Maybe a useful output of this RfC would be a third process, for nomination of a "large bundle of meta-related pages". But it has to contains safeguards against hasty deletion of huge numers of pages, as well as advantages to make everyone want to use it where applicable.

If people think that's a reasonable goal, the RfC could be broken down into the choices for each part of that process, and then an overall assessment of the process as a whole.

The existing processes both start with "nominate the first article", so maybe this should really be a process for flagging proposals as AfD At Scale; but maybe it's better to encourage people to get the article-set right the first time.

For "at scale", I would say there should be thresholds where the AfD process *must* be followed rather than merely the bundled process; for instance:

• more that 999 articles
• articles created across more than two years (start to end 25 months)
• more than 9 editors involved

The AfD At Scale should be worded with a clear description of what connects the to-be-deleted articles. Unlike the current, we'll say "small", bundle, the connection between the articles can be broader; but in exchange, the description of what that connection is must be clearly worded and clearly cite policy in a way that the gereral population of editors can easlily understand, not just AfD frequent participants. The AfD At Scale might have longer time-limits to close, and need to be announced on relevant project pages soon after opening.

Also, we could say that the clock for closure doesn't start ticking until a certain number of completely uninvolved editors review the proposal and agree that it describes a logical set of articles and that the appropriate projects and interested editors have been notified. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

While length is probably useful in selecting which mass-created articles are low-quality, I don't think its useful in determining if an article is mass created. It's length isn't really determinative for that. I'd suggest something like articles about A) related subjects that B) share a common theory/assertion of notability and C) share a main source(s), that D) source largely amounts to a database or list and were E) created by one editor or a group of editors engaged in the task. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think articles created by the filing out of a template using substantially the same sources is the key element here. Length really isn't important - we're just encouraging the use of filler-text if we put in a length requirement.

Remember this isn't a good/bad definition. There may be "good" (or more accurately "not deletion-worthy") articles made by this technique where the sources do actually provide SIGCOV coverage of the subject matter. This is just criteria whereby the entire group of mass-created articles can be considered to be essentially a single work for the purposes of AFD. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding length, I think similar length to other articles in the set, regardless of what that length is, is the relevant factor. Length is never going to be identical, either in terms of bytes or words (e.g. you might have a set of articles about sports teams including "Ely" and "Rodney Stoke and Westbury-sub-Mendip United") so it will always involve a range and some judgement and should never be a sole criterion but if you have a dozen between 3,000 and 5,000 bytes and one at 14k then its an indication that the latter might not be part of the same set. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a length requirement is what we're looking at so much as here's one of the flags we typically see? Valereee (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a "length requirement", though, is it. We're saying that prose length is one of several indicators. The use of filler text as an end-run around this criterion would be easily detectable and I think the community is likely to take a dim view of it.—S Marshall T/C 12:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thryduulf - Similar length is just another aspect (and maybe not the most important?) of similar content. Two articles can be of the same length but totally different in content.

S Marshall - I don't know. Many of the bot-created (or bot-like) articles that remain include large amounts of what amounts to filler-text. See, for example, the algorithmically-created information about geography and transport links in Litva, Kursk Oblast - none of this is actually about the topic, it's just distances to various other things. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fewer than 1,500 characters of prose.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but all you would need to do is eg increase the number of airports that you are describing the distance to, or the roads that the place is near to, and you would be there. Whether or not you think this article should be deleted or not, algorithmic text that is just about how far it is from other points on the maps is clearly just filler-text. FOARP (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you would technically be there. I think the community would find such a method easy to detect and deal with.—S Marshall T/C 21:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• A length requirement makes no sense at all. Edits for brevity are encouraged in articles, not discouraged. Please drop anything related to word count from any question, although this thing should be dropped altogther in my opinion. And no question with sections and sub-sections please, one simply worded question can do if people still intend to go through with this deletionists dream. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please launch this RfC

See the latest AN/I thread about disruption at AfD - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs. This RfC is supposed to solve endless time wasting noticeboard threads like these. There has been enough workshopping, dragging this forever ain't doing any good. Can the moderators please launch this finally? 2405:204:5300:FCFA:0:0:C85:C0A0 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Frankly based on the communications I'm getting in private, I don't think I'm the one to continue with this. I'm going to let someone else step up. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully there is nothing to launch. And if there is, please limit it to one basic uncomplicated question unburdened by multiple choices and sub-section and sub-sub-sections. One question, in as few words as possible. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I think even a casual examination of the above shows it's been a complete train-wreck of a discussion continually de-railed by academic and bureaucratic discourse. Though Randy Kryn and I probably disagree about mass-created articles, I broadly agree with his analysis about the discussion and what it should output: few, simple options. If we can't do that let's find something better to do. As it stand this discussion is actual a reason not to make changes because this RFC is still expected to launch at some point. FOARP (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mark historical?

ArbCom has rescinded the remedy that provided for this RfC by motion. My understanding of that motion is that while the community is free to build on what has been built here for future discussions, the RfC process as described on this page will not be moving forward. Therefore I propose that this page or the status page be marked historical to reflect this. Alternatively, if people want to continue building the RfC right off of this page, it should probably be moved so it is no longer an ArbCom subpage. Pinguinn 🐧 10:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think marking it as historical is a good idea. Anyone who wishes to take things forward would probably be best served by reading the proposals, understanding the reasons why they were and/or weren't supported and taking on board the other feedback on them/the process (including on this talk page) and then starting a new page.

I'd strongly suggest that anyone setting up a new page be explicit and detailed about:

• What problem(s) the/each proposal is/are intended to solve
• How the proposal(s) will solve those problems
• What issues/side effects/problems will/might result from their implementation
  • For each of those problems, etc. identified, at least one of:
    • Why they aren't a problem
    • Why they are a problem, but signficantly less of one than the problem being solved
    • How the problem is being/will be mitigated or avoided

The overarching goal should be to allow the removal of content there is consensus should not be included in Wikipedia without removing content there is a consensus should not be removed, and allowing the forming of a consensus about content that doesn't currently have any. This includes allowing a reasonable opportunity for those who think a given subject might be notable to identify sources that demonstrate this. Care should be taken to avoid a fait accomplis (of any sort) and avoid allowing one wrong to justify a second. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think someting useful could still come out of this RfC. That's fine that ArbCom has moved on, and won't be breathing down participants' necks; perhaps that can allow for a freer discussion and an actual new framework, not just a pileup of kneejerk reactions. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm surprised. Someone needs to update WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale - I've been watching it, waiting for it to begin - but there hasn't been an edit there for 6 months! It still says is not open YET. Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Wild. Merko (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think the community is establishing a method for AfD at scale now. See WP:LUGSTUBS.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)