Category talk:AfC postponed G13

Why bother?

Why not just bin this tosh after six months? If the original perpetrator has no interest in continuing, why should anyone else? -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 16:42, wikitime= 08:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Collaborative projects continue to be successful in spite of (or perhaps, in some cases, due to) participant attrition. Kvng (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, my point is there is no participation. For the most part these were one-offs, and the originators never came back to try to propel their pet nonentites and hobby-horses into notability. Rather than having a bot or whatever which ages the contributions and wait for manual deletion, they should all be deleted after six months of inattention. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 06:26, wikitime= 22:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Every article in this category was manually put here by an AfC reviewer. Many more that were deemed nonentities have been deleted. Kvng (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 3400+ articles in this category. I don't think there should be any. The fact that no-one, not even the original perpetrator, has cared enough to improve the article in the six months since it was last edited is proof enough of the articles nonentity and lack of notability. This category should not exist, manual or not. Likewise all 2500+ articles in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions should be deleted by bot – no further review, no manual redemption, no sentimentality. No need for the category, just put them straight into the bin. Less subjectivity, more objectivity – they're all crap by definition. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 13:52, wikitime= 05:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In my capacity as an AfC reviewer, I've moved quite a few from this category to mainspace. Your assertion that they are all crap is clearly untrue. Kvng (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Unbuttered Parsnip For someone who isn't involved in AfC or understanding the purpose of CSD:G13 you seem to have some very interesting opinions on how it's supposed to work. CSD:G13 reads Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). This criterion applies to all WikiProject Articles for creation drafts in project space and project talk space, as well as any userspace drafts and drafts in the Draft: namespace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template.. The articles that do show up in the eligible AfC submissions are eligible right then and there for CSD:G13, however a bot process is already in place that when a page becomes eligible notices go out to the page creator and a few other users that the page is eligble right now for CSD:G13 and that if they want to save it, they need to make some effort to save the page. 30 days after the notice goes out about the page being eligible for G13, if the page still hasn't been edited, the bot performs the nomination for CSD:G13 (including notifying the creator that the page has been nominated). This process has been established by consensus of several users and volunteers in both the AfC community and in the encyclopedia at large.

Now as to your argument that anything that is in the G13 eligible AfC submissions is "crap by definition" I assert that you've overlooked the "I forgot about this page and will continue working on it" use case. Granted it's very small, but in the grand scheme of things if saving and potentially promoting a single submission to mainspace results from this then we've wildly exceeded expectations.

Finally, as Kvng indicated, membership in the postponed G13 category indicates that a volunteer saw potential in the potential article and requested a 6 month extension to try and improve the submission so it could be improved. The category is sorted so that we can see if a submission is getting multiple extensions and then challange individually "If the submission has such potential, why are you not improving it yourself" in the vein of WP:SOFIXIT.

TLDR: Your fundamental misconception and lack of knowledge regarding CSD:G13 and it's establishment shows that your position is valacious at best. Hasteur (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)