Bharatpedia:Village pump (policy)

📜 Policy

⚙️ Technical

💡 Proposals

🧪 Idea Lab

💬 Misc

Policy

   Shortcuts: BP:VPP  • BP:VP/P 

Click Expand to read policy guidelines:

The policy section of the Village Pump is used to discuss existing policies, proposed policy changes, guidelines, and community standards on Bharatpedia. Before posting, please ensure: • Your proposal relates to an existing policy or suggests a new one. • You have checked whether a similar discussion is already underway. • You provide clear reasoning and examples to support your point. • You remain civil and assume good faith from other editors. • You sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).

   ➕ Start policy discussion

   « Archives

Bharatpedia:Artificial intelligence

RESOLVED

The AI policy has been finalized at Bharatpedia:Artificial intelligence.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have working on this policy page, please provide suggestions for further improvement or changes. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 18:40, 28 September 2026 (IST)

Notifying few editors: @Dokania, @WikiDwarf, @Ajay Kumar, @Editorial Oversight, @Predator.Maratha, @BellaCH, @Adarshatva 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 18:43, 28 September 2026 (IST)

I would also like to suggest adding a section on BP:AITALK, as some users may use AI chatbots to generate replies on talk pages and in discussions. It would be helpful to establish clear guidelines on the use of AI-generated responses and encourage transparency where appropriate. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 18:44, 28 September 2026 (IST)

I think AI Integration in Bharatpedia is needed. AI translations and suggestions of most important new articles by AI and other such uses are there. We must use the capable model of AI for each task which is suitable. Dokania (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2026 (IST)

I don't think using AI is an issue. It can be very helpful for tasks such as generating Wikitext..translating articles..nd improving content. However, relying entirely on AI is not a good approach either. Editors should develop their own skills and understanding rather than depending on AI for everything. Otherwise they may struggle to work independently without it. AI should be used as a tool to assist editors, not as a replacement for their own knowledge and judgment. Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 18:54, 28 September 2026 (IST)

Exactly but people are too hostile on wikipedia Dokania (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2026 (IST)

• As discussed above with @Dokania and @Editorial Oversight, I have added content regarding AI-generated replies. Please see Bharatpedia:Artificial intelligence#AI in discussions. If you have any suggestions or would like to propose changes to this section or any other part of the article, please let me know. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 19:28, 28 September 2026 (IST)

  SURE(: Editorial Oversight^{(Talk with me)} 19:41, 28 September 2026 (IST)

  Thank you, Bharatwiki Socrates, for the time and effort you have put into creating and developing this policy. I appreciate that the suggestions from the discussion are already being incorporated. I also think we should look beyond simply regulating AI use and consider how we can make AI genuinely useful for editors on Bharatpedia.

  For creating new pages, we already have an AI helper at Special:ArticleWizard, but its current capabilities are fairly limited. It may be worth exploring a few options here, such as allowing users to add their own API key and use the LLM of their choice, along with a credit-based system for users who want to use Bharatpedia's resources. The tool could potentially be developed beyond smaller assistance tasks to support deeper research, source analysis, and the preparation of detailed article drafts, while still requiring the editor to review and take responsibility for the final content.

  The same approach could be applied to improving and expanding existing pages. AI could assist with identifying gaps, suggesting additional content, improving structure and readability, and potentially helping editors research and expand articles while keeping editorial judgment with the human editor.

  However, I think we need to be very careful about the potential impact of AI-assisted or AI-generated content on search-engine visibility. We should avoid building a system that simply produces large amounts of machine-generated content without sufficient human review, fact-checking, sourcing, and editorial oversight. Search engines have their own policies and quality systems, so we should consider those risks carefully before deciding how extensively AI-generated content should be used or automated.

  For edit summaries and AI-generated replies in discussions, I'll look into what is technically possible and what options we have. Once we reach some agreement here on the policy and the appropriate approach, we can propose the corresponding technical changes and implementation work.

  Overall, I think the goal should be to make AI a useful editorial tool rather than simply treating it as something that needs to be restricted. At the same time, accuracy, neutrality, source verification, transparency where appropriate, editor responsibility, and the long-term quality and search visibility of Bharatpedia should remain central. Once again, I thank you for your valuable time and efforts on creating this page. WikiDwarf (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2026 (IST)

  Thank you @WikiDwarf, I completely agree with your points. I think the purpose of the policy should not be to discourage or unnecessarily restrict the use of AI thats why I've not restricted the use of AI in BP:AI, but to establish a responsible framework where AI can genuinely assist editors while keeping human editorial judgment at the centre.I especially agree that AI could be useful beyond basic tasks such as translation or Wikitext generation, including identifying gaps, improving existing articles, assisting with research and source analysis, and helping editors prepare drafts. but, the final responsibility for accuracy, sourcing, neutrality and compliance with Bharatpedia policies should always remain with the editor.

  I also think we should explore the use of more advanced AI bots powered by capable to assist with maintaining and improving articles. Such systems could monitor articles, identify possible issues, suggest improvements, detect missing sources or inconsistencies, and assist editors with research and updates.....one thing more important, these tools should operate strictly under human supervision.

  
  

  Since we have consensus here, I’d like to know @Dokania @Editorial Oversight @WikiDwarf which points should be changed to other terms and what further deletions or additions of content are desired in BP:AI. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 12:15, 29 September 2026 (IST)

  I think we should close this discussion. I am satisfied with the drafted policy. If any changes is needed we can raise a separate discussion. Dokania😎(📩) 20:27, 8 October 2026 (IST)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Import articles

I think an import articles from Wikipedia policy is needed to bring some clarity upon this especially while the question is of using automated tools to do so. Dokania😎(📩) 20:25, 8 October 2026 (IST)

No policy on this is needed. First, we do not encourage making Bharatpedia a replica of Wikipedia. Our aim is to edit and ensure high-quality content. If content is copied from Wikipedia, it must be properly checked as it may contain hoaxes, unverified claims, or bias. Therefore, creating articles specifically on Bharatpedia is highly appreciated. Article imported from other encyclopedia must be checked and user must ensure that website copyright policy must not violate, for this copy editing of copied content is highly required. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 20:46, 8 October 2026 (IST)

Even a negative policy is a policy. Lack of policy is just lack of clearance and confusing.

It's correct that it shouldn't be made a replica of Wikipedia but imporing some articles like list articles are useful for building web of links. Dokania😎(📩) 20:50, 8 October 2026 (IST)

Bot Policy

I think we need a bot policy and a list of bots for ease of editing. Dokania😎(📩) 08:01, 9 October 2026 (IST)

Indeed. It will be done with requirement. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 20:48, 11 October 2026 (IST)

A List of bots is now available at Bharatpedia:List of bots Dokania😎(📩) 10:56, 16 October 2026 (IST)

Blanked page

RESOLVED

G7 applies when intention of author is appearing to be clear to get the page deleted.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does G7 not apply when author has blanked the page but only infobox remains? Infobox can't be said to be part of the content, right? @Ajay Kumar says it doesn't apply and reverted my CSD on several pages. I think we should delete pages without any meaningful content instead of taking these things literally. Dokania😎(📩) 19:55, 18 October 2026 (IST)

G7 applies when the author explicitly requests deletion using the relevant CSD tag or blanks the page entirely. For meaningless pages, we already have other CSD criteria, such as G1 for patent nonsense and G2 for test pages. If none of the existing criteria apply, the page can be nominated for deletion using the custom rationale under "Other reason" in the deletion template. Ajay Kumar (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2026 (IST)

Exactly. You can delete those pages under other criteria, or place the relevant tags on them, instead of simply reverting my tags. Dokania😎(📩) 20:14, 18 October 2026 (IST)

No, that's not how it works. We need to preserve the page history. As an admin, I can't simply override the existing tagging. I first need to revert the incorrect tagging and then assess whether the page qualifies for deletion under another criterion. That's exactly what I did after reverting your edits on those drafts. Ajay Kumar (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2026 (IST)

My question is still the same. Should we take blanking as literally 0 character? Can infobox be counted as content? What if there's a dot or two letters? Dokania😎(📩) 20:39, 18 October 2026 (IST)

I don't think we should interpret blanking purely by character count. The key question is whether the author is clearly requesting deletion in good faith. If they leave an infobox or sources behind, they might intend to rewrite the article rather than delete it. Similarly, a dot or a couple of stray letters may simply be remnants of the blanking. We should consider the context and the author's intent rather than apply G7 mechanically. If the intent to request deletion is unclear, other applicable CSD criteria or a nomination under "Other reasons" should be considered IMO. Ajay Kumar (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2026 (IST)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting drafts who has no notability

In most of the drafts the case if that it is clear that the subject isn't notbale. Should we bot delete the page in this case rather than waiting 6 months and giving them time? I mean the unnotability issue can't really be solved right? Mostly they are young small musicians or person posting their own biographies. Dokania😎(📩) 20:50, 18 October 2026 (IST)

I understand the concern, but lack of notability alone isn't a speedy deletion criterion, and A7 doesn't apply to drafts. If a draft is clearly unsuitable, it can be nominated at MfD rather than automatically waiting six months. If it is repeatedly rejected and the issues remain unresolved, deletion can be considered, with any subsequent recreation assessed under G4 if its requirements are met. We shouldn't automatically delete every draft about a young musician or someone submitting an autobiography, but we also don't need to retain unsuitable drafts indefinitely. Ajay Kumar (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2026 (IST)

Can't we create a separate policy for speedy drafts of such articles instead of simply going to Mfd? When the issue is clear it requires a policy to tackle it. Dokania😎(📩) 21:10, 18 October 2026 (IST)

Some good examples are Draft:4K Edits, Draft:Aaqib Music and Draft:Adhrajiya. It is also possible for them to avoid deletion under g13 by making some unnecessary edits every few months. So, how to delete them? Dokania😎(📩) 09:00, 19 October 2026 (IST)

• If anyone is really considering new policy on it which stricken draft article policies, then consider my position as oppose. Our co-founder says:

“...whereas, with Bharatpedia, anyone can create articles with minimum requirements, even using a smartphone”

— Garry Sahota, December 2021

Regards. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 09:39, 19 October 2026 (IST)

I don't know, how's it relevant here. If no policy is made it would be harder to delete those articles that are never to be accepted like unsourced auto-biographies. Dokania😎(📩) 09:49, 19 October 2026 (IST)

Draft namespace is open to anyone who wants to create an article, even if it initially lacks sources or does not establish notability. The purpose is to allow drafts to be developed and improved over time. Since drafts are noindexed, there should not be any issue with keeping them for these reasons alone. Drafts should be considered for deletion only if they are promotional, hoaxes, copyright violations, attack pages, or otherwise meet an established deletion criterion—not simply because they are unsourced or the subject does not appear notable.

Draft namespace is meant to provide users with an opportunity to develop pages at their own pace and give them sufficient time to improve their drafts peacefully, without unnecessary pressure for deletion. MfD should be the last resort, considered mainly for drafts that have been repeatedly declined or rejected and whose issues remain unresolved. In such cases, the drafts can be nominated for deletion at MfD, as Ajay suggested above. Once deleted through the deletion process, G4 can take care of future recreation, provided its criteria are met. WikiDwarf (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2026 (IST)

I still think it's like giving someone false hope that article will get accepted but as you all deem fit. Dokania😎(📩) 11:41, 19 October 2026 (IST)

It is not like that. When a draft is rejected, the reason for rejection is visible to the user. This helps them understand the issues, improve the article, and submit it again. If they feel they cannot meet the criteria or do not wish to continue working on the draft, they can choose not to resubmit it. However, if the draft keeps getting rejected, we can nominate it for deletion and proceed based on community consensus. WikiDwarf (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2026 (IST)

I simply propose that there should be a category for deleting unsourced or clearly unnotable autobiography drafts and such institutions. Let's see the consensus. Dokania😎(📩) 12:01, 19 October 2026 (IST)

References

Consenus for CSD category for unsourced/unnotable drafts of individuals and institutions

• Support, It will help remove the clutter and don't require unnecessary timeline for their deletion and not give false hopes to authors.Dokania😎(📩) 12:05, 19 October 2026 (IST)
• Oppose: A draft is a work in progress, and its current state should not automatically be grounds for speedy deletion. The absence of sources or demonstrated notability does not necessarily mean that a draft cannot be improved. Editors should be given a reasonable opportunity to develop their drafts. Speedy deletion should be limited to cases that clearly meet the established criteria, while other drafts should be assessed through the normal review process. Introducing a separate CSD criterion for unsourced or apparently unnotable drafts could lead to the premature deletion of potentially useful content. 🍁Bharatwiki Socrates🍁(📩) 12:32, 19 October 2026 (IST)