Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia/Draftifying

This draftifying proposal suggests a considerable reduction in the use of deletion by means of "draftifying" (e.g., moving to draftspace) some relatively benign types of articles that we would rapidly delete under the current system. If implemented, this proposal would remedy the widespread biting of new, predominantly good-faith users by giving them an opportunity to work on and improve their articles, rather than being almost instantly warned and made to suffer swift deletion. As a result, perceived hostility would be reduced, and editor retention would hopefully be improved. In addition, this proposal is also a compromise that could largely resolve the fierce inclusionist-deletionist debate.

Implementation details

Currently, an article is speedily deleted by an administrator if it meets at least one of the CSD criteria, and it is typically sent to AfD if it meets any of the other deletion criteria. This section describes the changes to be implemented if this proposal succeeds.

What would be draftified?

• Speedy deletion criteria: Basically, all general CSD criteria would still be valid reasons for immediate deletion. We would draftify articles that meet current CSD criteria A1, A3, A7, and A9. These "criteria for speedy deletion" would become "criteria for speedy draftification." However, any article that meets criteria A2, A5, A10, and A11 would be speedily deleted as usual. To encapsulate, all general CSD criteria, as well as the A2, A5, A10, and A11 criteria, would remain valid reasons for speedy deletion. A1, A3, A7, and A9 would no longer be valid reasons for speedy deletion, but they would become valid reasons to immediately draftify an article.

• The reasoning behind these changes is that A1 and A3 are often misused and applied far too quickly. It is likely that many potentially good topics have been hastily eliminated due to overzealous new article patrolling. It is possible that the user is simply taking their time to work on the article—for this reason, it would be much better to simply make the article a draft and let the user work on it at their pace, rather than deleting it immediately and discouraging the user.

In addition, the A7/A9 "no claim of notability" criteria fail to take into account that the topic may very well be a notable one, but the author simply did not make an obvious declaration of the topic's notability. Application of these tags is often done within a few minutes of creation, without any actual research. However, experienced editors who decide to perform research sometimes find that the topic is actually notable. Several experienced editors dedicate considerable time to rescuing articles tagged for speedy deletion, and they are often successful. (Consider the fact that the Twitter article was initially tagged for speedy deletion per A7. It is now a good article.) This demonstrates that it is not always best to immediately delete articles with notability issues—it would be better to draftify them, so as to give editors time to produce reliable sources and make the article of suitable quality.

• Other deletion criteria:

Why is this needed?

A new user creates an article, honestly believing that they are improving Wikipedia by doing so. A few minutes later, the user's notification icon lights up. They click the icon, and they are informed of a new message on something called their "talk page." They follow the link, and upon arriving at their page they discover a redexclamation point sign attached to a message declaring that their article is in imminent danger of being deleted. On their article, they see yet another red sign filled with jargon and several links to lengthy "policies." Within a few minutes, before having time to do anything, the article is gone—what used to be their article is now an empty page containing only another red sign which announces that the article has been deleted. Angered and discouraged by the unceremonious destruction of their article, even though they were only trying to help, they simply log off and never come back.

This actually happens dozens of times per day on Wikipedia, as articles are continuously tagged and deleted. It is well-known that Wikipedia has a problem retaining long-term editors—statistics show that of all users who have edited Wikipedia, less than 3% have stayed to make even 100 edits, and only half of one percent stayed to make 1,000 edits. It may be difficult to fully understand this problem, because there seems to be enough activity now. But in reality, Wikipedia is mostly managed by relatively small group of editors who, inevitably, will gradually retire. Wikipedia cannot survive in the long-term without increasing its currently dismal editor retention. When our processes are truly viewed from a new user's perspective, it becomes clear why this problem exists. We can begin increasing editor retention by reducing the use of the deletion process, which can seem very hostile to a new user—instead, we can simply move articles to draft space as proposed, inform the user of our policies in a friendly, simple manner, and then let them improve it at their leisure.

In addition, there has been a fundamental dispute between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" for as long as Wikipedia itself has existed. As described by the relevant pages, inclusionists believe that "[s]ince Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does." However, deletionists reason that retaining articles of poor quality simply causes confusion, clutter, and quality degeneration. These two groups often become engaged in disputes at AfD. This proposed system is a compromise that should please both sides: Unsatisfactory articles are not retained in the mainspace for all to see, but they are kept for a time in a state of incubation where they can be improved and made into articles worthy of mainspace inclusion.

Therefore, implementing this proposal would result in two potential benefits: a much-needed increase in the retention of good-faith editors, and a new system that would balance inclusionism and "deletionist" quality concerns.