Depends, do we see a lot of fixable articles getting deleted due to quality issues? That would be a reasonable resolution. On the other hand if they aren't really fixable or they're not encyclopedic, if they haven't much chance of surviving AFD even if edited a bit more, then it wouldn't do much.
What isn't wanted is to keep myriad articles (by definition of unchecked quality, missing cites to be added, etc) in draft space forever, even if it isn't spidered. It would be a working space for articles actively being worked on and made ready for the 'pedia, or actively being fixed up for issues, or where newcomers could work on an article so's not to get it deleted by the next passing admin. So one criteria I'd expect would be a communal limit or criteria for articles in draftspace. (In the worst scenario, they're works in progress, not parking space for BLP nightmares to be dumped indefinitely in case someone else randomly fixes them.) I'd construct draftspace something like this: - Draftspace is for articles under construction. It is especially encouraged for newcomers and users unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing, as more leeway is given to articles being developed as "drafts" here. It's also useful for major or lengthy articles where a lot of work is involved before the article will be ready for mainspace, and for collaborative drafting. - Draftspace is for articles that have a reasonable chance of becoming viable content. Extra flexibility is given within reason for [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. - Draftspace is not a license for negative, defamatory or attack pieces, and good quality citations for any negative or highly contentious statements must be added in a timely manner upon request (48 hours of request). - Articles that are deemed too poor in quality for an article, though on a possibly-credible topic, may optionally be moved to draftspace (without redirect) as an alternative at CSD, PROD, or AFD. The article's main editor should be notified. - Draft articles that have not been worked on for some time, and appear abandoned, may be PRODed for deletion. However an article draft that appears harmless and non-contentious, and may form a basis of a credible future article, then it may be left long term in draftspace, or (if suitable) moved to mainspace as a stub. - There is no formal requirement for a draft article to be moved to mainspace. Draftspace is a working space, intended to help new editors to develop an article and get feedback, aside from the main encyclopedia. Articles may be moved between draftspace and mainspace as editors see fit. FT2 On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Surreptitiousness < [email protected]> wrote: > I think if we "abolished" deletion and rather moved articles to draft > space, you'd see it used a lot. Obviously, really bad articles would be > deleted, but most of those are caught by csd. It could liberate the > wikipedia, when you think about it. Mergers may become much more likely > to happen, since there would actually be a tangible result in merging a > draft space article into a main space article. I think it has potential > if we do reframe afd along the lines of keeping as a main space article > and sending to draft space. Cleanup might happen more often. I'd > imagine DRV would become drafts for review. We might have to loosen the > grip WP:N has though, or this could become a tool used to keep > "relatively" good articles from main space because of "I don't like it". > The idea has potential, it just needs a good salesman and a good grip on > pitfalls. > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
