Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why not for Draft?

As I'm checking Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to delete articles, I find many that are in draft space and have been tagged automatically by a bot because 6 months have expired. Since I'm not a bot I sometimes see a reason to not immediately delete an article, such as at Draft:Last Names of Telugus. Now, when I replaced {{db-g13}} with {{prod}}, it adds in big red letters "Please use PROD only on articles." - without saying why not, or what to use instead. I searched this project page, its talk archive, the template history edit summaries and the template talk archive for "draft", but all I could find about drafts was /Archive_14#Draft prod, which contains no reason for such a limitation, either. I will therefore remove the red text for now. — Sebastian 09:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending a reply from Sitush, who confirmed my impression, and because I haven't seen the source for the warning text yet, I will not make any changes for now. — Sebastian 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sebastian, you are back after how long? PROD doesn't apply to any draft.If you want the exact verse:-- PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Books may also be proposed for deletion, using a similar process. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace. On a side note, you can decline any G13 per your discretion and that resets the clock by six months.If you are confident that the draft deserves to be main-spaced and will survive an AfD, kindly move it yourself.Winged BladesGodric 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for pointing me to the relevant text, User talk:Winged Blades of Godric. That answers my question: It was added after this discussion, which was triggered by PROD on a talk page. The exclusion of draft articles was never explicitly intended; I would regard it as collateral damage.
    Thank you also for pointing out the workaround of extending it by 6 months; that's much more than I think is needed in such cases, but it's at least better than the other extreme of deleting it right away.
    Even though there is a workaround, I would like to repair the collateral damage and count draft articles as articles for the purposes of this policy, so we're not forced to extend a draft article longer than a mainspace article. What do others think? — Sebastian 12:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
For clarity this is the direct link to the discussion. ~ GB fan 13:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion&oldid=824599163"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA