This is anarchive of past discussions aboutWikipedia:Speedy deletion.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to{{Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with|DOC=auto. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process.Gonnym (talk)08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I've tagged such pages withWP:G6 before, giving a justification like "template uses{{navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance.jlwoodwa (talk)04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests.* Pppery *it has begun...05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines ofTX: documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration:
Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason,any template) or it is not
Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted.
Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them.
Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under.
Can this be made more general? Maybe "a template subpage not used by its parent, or another template"? With the understanding that Template:*/sandbox and Template:*/testcases are "used" despite not being transcluded. —Cryptic23:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy?jlwoodwa (talk)23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Making a new objective criterion, dealing with the misuse of the catchall G6, more “general” seems to miss the point.
You want to make unused template subpages speediable? Does “unused” mean “never used”? How frequently is “unused template subpage” the driving reason for deletion atxfd?SmokeyJoe (talk)01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Support for /doc pages as proposed.Oppose anything else without a much more objective proposal than that suggest in the conversation above.Thryduulf (talk)00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Support. As one of the editors that tend to send them to TfD, I sometimes skip them just because of the extra hassle of combining multiple templates into one nomination to make life easier for everyone. These templatesalways get deleted and usually only one editor even cares to comment, which is expected, since no one cares and the newer doc isalways better.Gonnym (talk)07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Isupport the general concept (ideally as a more general thing, because it is a frequent-ish occurrence), and I want to propose some draft language.
T5. Unused template subpages
This applies to unusedsubpages of templates, such astemplate documentation subpages which are no longer used in favor of centralized documentation, /core subpages which are not called by the template itself, and old subpages of{{POTD protected}}. It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with{{T5-exempt}} [do we need this? It seems like a good way to be careful, but it would make the criterion more complicated]. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free torequest undeletion.
Wording looks good, and I don't think a T5-exemption template overcomplicates things any more than the G8-exemption template does. Worth checking back after a year or so and potentially trimming if it never ends up employed in practice.
Support the general concept, with the wording used by HouseBlaster. As a second choice, the original /doc-only proposal could work. Anything that moves well-defined routine operations outside of G6 is a positive.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pre-RFC finalisation
Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above?Primefac (talk)17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation) would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it.
As for{{T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose.Thryduulf (talk)19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing{{collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc.Primefac (talk)21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simplyThis applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages... (i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of itonly being centralised /docs.Primefac (talk)12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with{{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free torequest undeletion.
Unnecessary subpages of{{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with{{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free torequest undeletion.
Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8?Izno (talk)05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them.Primefac (talk)12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. Seethis TFD. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. –Jonesey95 (talk)20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is?Thryduulf (talk)21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I mean, edit notices are all subpages ofTemplate:Editnotices, so it is notthat much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback tothe proposal above. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. –Jonesey95 (talk)17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine.WP:TCSD, while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 shouldnot apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think addingsubpages ofModule:Sandbox to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts?HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree.Thryduulf (talk)00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
There is strong consensus to enact T5 as a new criterion for speedy deletion. Participants argued that this criterion would reduce the load on G6, and highlighted that deleted pages would be eligible forWP:REFUND. Some editors noted that deleting administrators should take special care in identifying templates and modules orphaned in error, as well as when dealing with taxonomy-related pages.
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.
Unnecessary subpages of{{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, subpages ofModule:Sandbox, as well as anything tagged with{{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free torequest undeletion.
Support as proposer. These are frequently and uncontroversially deleted at TFD. Some of them are also currently being shoved into G6, but reducing the load G6 bears is a feature of this proposal, not a bug. It meets all four NEWCSD criteria:
Y Objective: Either a subpage of a template is being used or it is not
Y Uncontestible: Always get deleted at TFD
Y Frequent:Primefac personallydeclines at least one erroneous G6 nomination per week
Y Nonredundant: They are certainly being tagged as G6 (see above), but G6 isnot a catch-all and we should be decreasing the load it carries
I believe so, yes, because they are currently either deleted under G6 or G8 and the intention was to fold them into this as a template-specific reason.Primefac (talk)11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Support as long as people are careful. CSD nominators and deleting admins will need to be careful about pages orphaned through edits that should be reverted. In monitoring orphaned /doc subpages, I sometimes find templates where the{{documentation}} portion has been deleted, typically in error. –Jonesey95 (talk)05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, anything that reduces the workload on G6 is good to have as a standalone criterion. Although I would be careful with taxonomy templates related to unused taxa, since old taxa can still be documented, or even attempt to make a comeback with varying level of success (likeOrnithoscelida).ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request? Yes, explicitly:editors are free to request undeletion.Thryduulf (talk)11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Support As Jonesey said, nominators and admins need to take care that unnecessary deletions are not made. However, this is overall a good idea. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)21:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
Well, no. Changing it from a single person to "persons" wasthe very first expansion of A7 (linked discussionhere), about half a year after it was first introduced. The last vestige of "groups" was removed inthis edit, which was labeled a revert and a clarification but was neither. —Cryptic01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instanceArshin Mehta Actress today (asArshin Mehta is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close totitle blacklisting, but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title.* Pppery *it has begun...17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There area lot of false positives, but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff.* Pppery *it has begun...17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with).ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD.Crouch, Swale (talk)21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers tosufficiently identical copies, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with{{salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies.Crouch, Swale (talk)20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance[1]. Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instanceSpecial:AbuseLog/39211633. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion ofcreation protection at{{{1}}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted underCSD G4 or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essayWP:NOSALT. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title likeArticles for deletion before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics.Crouch, Swale (talk)21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence atWP:SALT saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruptionthere. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —Cryptic23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that normalWP:RAAA requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name likeJimmie Harris orLuke Barber, to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
To clean up old SALTing,where there’s any doubt you should go toWP:RFUP. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.
Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed byWP:RAAA. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that withWilly on WheelsWilly on Wheels, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active).WP:IAR andWP:NOTBURO might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}} based on your wording (and the design of{{Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category)ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Adding the "possible salt evasion" template
Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point toWP:G4 mentioning its existence?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Not really,{{salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also,{{salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it).ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it atWP:AN? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--Bbb23 (talk)22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:G5 and people who have gamed the extended-confirmed restriction
If someone games the extended-confirmed restriction (and is found to have done so atWP:AE orWP:ANI), are pages they created during the window after they reached 30/500 edits but before they were determined to have gamed the restriction G5-able? This specific case seems to have come uphere; the editor created the now-draftifiedDraft:Hamas–UNRWA_relations. My opinion is that it obviously should be G5able (otherwise we're rewarding gaming the restrictions); if someone is found to have gamed the restrictions then, by definition, all their edits in that topic area were in violation of the relevant general sanction, even if we didn't know it at the time. --Aquillion (talk)14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not.WP:ARBECR has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned).Thryduulf (talk)15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13.Crouch, Swale (talk)18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Subpages of talk pages
I am looking to nominate the unused discussion pageTalk:Wiki/lede for deletion, but I can't find a suitable speedy reason, and{{prod}} warns me I should only use the template on articles.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion →Wikipedia:Speedy deletion – I searched through the archives to see why "Criteria" is part of the title, but couldn't find anything much, other than these comments[2][3] that mentioned it without any follow-up. Previously,Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was an information page listing the criteria andWikipedia:Speedy deletions was the process page where SD candidates were listed. With the introduction of deletion templates in the late 2000s, the latter page was deemed redundant and became a redirect to the former in thisedit. Several editors in the linked discussions suggested support for removing "Criteria" from the title, and in my search I have not found one editor opposing the removal of "criteria" from the title, so it led me to believe this move simply was never proposed. Therefore, I am proposing a move fromWikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion toWikipedia:Speedy deletion for the following reasons:
To increase emphasis on the process itself, rather than the criteria. It is evident at this point that this page isn't only about a set of criteria but also an established process to delete pages based on the criteria.
The page currently contains topics other than just the criteria, such as the step-by-step instructions, the procedure, and information about the process. A rename of this page could make room for expanding/altering the scope if needed in the future.Frost10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Support, even though I don't have high hopes for this RM. This page details the process of speedy deletion, not just the individual criteria. Page titles which do not match their contentare problems. Is it a small problem? I guess. But it is a problem, and (to state the obvious) aWP:CHEAP redirect will be kept after the move, so it is unclear what harm comes from making the move. If you want to keep calling it "Criteria for speedy deletion", nobody is stopping you. ButWP:Speedy deletion is the moreWP:CONCISE andWP:PRECISE name, and that is where this page belongs.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom and HouseBlaster. Conciseness is key (there's a reason we have shortcuts), and I don't see why it shouldn't be applied here.mwwvconverse∫edits14:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Support per HouseBlaster; taking "criteria" out of the title will not de-emphasise them: it's clear that the page includes criteria, but the broader and more concise title will allow the page to include the other, non-criteria things. Currently, the title is confusing because it is mismatched with the actual scope of the page.Cremastra (talk)16:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Support per nom and HouseBlaster. The criteria are, by their nature, part of the speedy deletion process, which this page details as a whole. Moving will not de-emphasise the criteria; it will just better describe the page's contents.UpTheOctave! • 8va?16:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
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.
Non-notable deadname redirects
A few months ago, Idiscussed with my mentor about whether non-notable-deadname redirects for transgender individuals could be speedily deleted as attack pages—and there was confusion about whether these redirects are eligible under the criteria. I felt uncomfortable about drawing attention to the redirect at RfD, and I don't like the idea of RfD being filled with 'deadname → current name' listings. I nominated the redirects underWP:G10 and they were deleted as attack pages. Should it be clarified on the policy page that non-notable deadname redirects are eligible for speedy deletion underWP:G10? Having this clarified on the policy page would help reduce confusion about what to do when these redirects are discovered. There will, of course, be exceptions.Svampesky (talk)21:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't think these are attack pages - I'm quite sure that whoever created them was trying to do so in good faith not to attack the subject. But I can totally see why another admin would see differently.* Pppery *it has begun...22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
To be a speedy delete, it will have to be speedily obvious that it should be deleted. Such a name will need an investigation to see if it is "notable", "undisclosed" or "disclosed but not well known". If it is an attack, or "outing", that would be two different things. And a correct but little known former name is not really an attack as it is already known and verifyable. But outing an undisclosed name would need to be deleted anyway as disclosing private information, and may even need the log entry to be deleted. For outing an undisclosed name, it is better not to tag as a speedy delete, and so draw attention, but rather email an active admin or oversighter to take care of it.Graeme Bartlett (talk)12:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the primary distinction needs to be whether it is anon notable or anunreferenced deadname. If there is no reference, then it absolutely should be deleted as an attack (regardless of whether it is the person's actual deadname). If there is a source for the name, then it's not unreasonable to have it as a redirect, and it should probably be taken to RFD.Primefac (talk)17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
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.
But to argue for it, you would need to comment onWP:A2, and why that is not good enough, then address the four criteria atWP:NEWCSD, and then you should show evidence fromWP:XFD showing the NEWCSD is met.SmokeyJoe (talk)08:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
It is quite clear you haven't read the notice at the top of this talk page tag saysRead this before proposing new or expanded criteria. Also I agree with SmokeyJoe and Kusma. --Whpq (talk)13:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
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.
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 recently uploaded the logo for the Northern Lakes Conference to Wikipedia as part of the article under Fair Use provisions, pending my contact with the creator for permission to use. I heard back from him yesterday, and he gave me permission to use the logo in the article. I would like to delete the current logo and re-upload with the proper permissions. How do I go about doing this?Moserjames79 (talk)15:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
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.
Proposal to narrow CSD G5 to exclude currently used files
At the moment, CSD G5 currently excludes transcluded templates and populated categories. The purpose of this seems to be to avoid collateral damage. I propose that we also add files being legitimately used to these exceptions. I imagine this was never added because people assumed that most images would be kept on Wikimedia Commons, but we have a decent number of fair use images as well as images which are free to use under US law (e.g.,{{FoP-USonly}},{{PD-US-expired-abroad}}) which are uploaded locally. We should not damage articles if they contain useful and free (or fair use) images that just happen to have been uploaded by a banned user. What do people think about this potential change?IronGargoyle (talk)18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@Pppery: WantedCategories/WantedTemplates may be one purpose of the exceptions, but I don't think it's the only purpose. Note that the policy currently says that it matters if the transclusions were placed and the categories were populated by the banned user. This suggests a collateral damage interpretation as well, which means that good-faith usage should be protected. Similarly, we don't delete pages where there have been substantial edits by non-banned users.IronGargoyle (talk)18:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as for fair use files they can be re-uploaded by another user. If there is no source available to reupload, then the file would be a problem, as FU should have a source. For other files they should be checked to see if they need to be replaced or not. G5 is not compulsory, and if deletion causes damage, then the admin should avoid it, or reverse their delete if they find out later on.Graeme Bartlett (talk)23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Salted under different title
We could really do with a speedy criterion for articles created to circumvent a salted title.Dr.Seema Midha has just been salted asSeema Midha and asDr. Seema Midha, yet we don't have a really good criterion for this, unless they are an obvious G4 (which in this case, with the most recent AfD from 2017, is not a good fit probably).Fram (talk)14:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Probably this article creation is done as promotion, or banned user creaton, so the chances are that another speedy delete applies. If G4 does not apply, eg new article differs, then it should be checked to see if the XFD no longer is applicable. So perhaps speedy delete should not happen. However if LLMs are used to rapidly create variations, we should respond rapidly.Graeme Bartlett (talk)23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to rename G1 from 'patent nonsense' to 'incoherent page'
G1 is known for being misused as a catch-all. I think this is partially because it is called 'nonsense', which people may be interpreting as 'does not belong here'. I propose changing its name on the Speedy Deletion page and its template to 'incoherent page', which I think describes its purpose better and may clear up confusion. This proposal does not involve actuall changing what does and does not fall under G1.QwertyForest (talk)18:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that will help, as there still will be a misinterpretation in the same sorts of ways, such as an incoherent rambling essay, or non-English writings, or a template that is not understood or contains an error. However I agree that "patent nonsense" is a strange wording.Graeme Bartlett (talk)21:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I support "unintelligible page" and "gibberish" as good choices. I don't think "random characters" would work because 'patent nonsense' also includes word salads.QwertyForest (talk)17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. I'm quite fond of 'patent nonsense' although it'svery English and slightly grumpy. Perhaps why I'm fond of it. 'Patent' in this context means 'clearly' or 'self-evidently' and that sort of fits the bill to me. BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. People who are going to misinterpret this as "does not belong here" are going to do that no matter what we call it (and G1 isn't even close to the worst in this regard). "Patent nonsense" looks enough like jargon that it encourages reading the the text of the criterion to find out exactly what's meant, in a way that "technical deletion" or "unnecessary disambiguation page" or "obviously invented" or "misuses of Wikipedia as a web host" do not. The plainer-worded summaries get misused much,much more, because it's not the summaries that are important. —Cryptic10:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Propose speedy deletion nomination timeframe
As someone atNew Page Patrol, I followNPPHOUR guidelines regarding nominating articles for deletion. In brief, this recommendation states that articles should be nominated for deletion within one hour of being meaningfully edited unless they have a serious content issue (i.e., copyright, harassment, or pure vandalism). We have a similar recommendation atDRAFTNO, and I figured we would have an explicit statement with deletion. However, the only thing the CSD page says iscontributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. I propose that, in line with other recommendations on Wikipedia, we explicitly state that articles shouldn't be nominated for speedy deletion within an hour of being actively edited unless there are serious content issues.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)05:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we should delay G5 speedies. Those are about serious contributor issues, not so much about content. (Of course, this usually goes hand-in-hand with re-blocking the contributor.) —David Eppstein (talk)06:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
G14 works on pages that have survived deletion discussions
I have added G14 as a criterion that works on pages that have survived deletion discussions, provided that something has changed since the discussion causing G14 to be met, when previously it wasn't. For example, a (disambiguation) dab listing three pages at the time of its AfD lists one extant page because the other two have been deleted. —Alalch E.16:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd oppose such verbiage being added. It's extremely subjective and, as I've learned over the course of hundreds of RfD nominations, there's sometimes a relation that you had no idea about which makes the redirect valid. That's why a discussion can be a very helpful thing. As for your example, that'd be R3 eligible based on the current criteria we have.Hey man im josh (talk)19:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Is 'A7' applicable on notable subjects, without assertion of notability?
Hi, I wonder ifWP:A7 works on subjects which are notable in reality, but lack assertion of being so in the articles. So if an article contains a set of informative claims about the subject but does not assert why it is notable, e.g. "Michael Jackson was an American singer, born in 1958 etc. etc.", would such article be deleted under A7? Even though we all know that the subject is of course notable?
Notability is about the topic. A7 eligibility is about the article as currently exists. So yes, it's possible for an article to be validly A7'd even though the subject is notable. As a patrolling admin I do sometimes Google a subject if I think there's a chance they're notable despite the lack ofCCS, but it's not required. As to undeletion, I guess in theory the correct answer is the deleting admin's talkpage orWP:DRV, but in practice the answer is that an article without a CCS is basically worthless, and someone is usually better off drafting a new article from scratch. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)06:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Ritchie333 and @Tamzin (hope I'm not pinging you incorrectly). So the problem with A7 (and other similar criteria) is that in principle an admincould come and delete a lot of articles without discussion, just to annoy another user, even though the article had notability and significance assertions, and then claim that theythought that the article was eligible for A7. In other words thefair use of the criteria totally rests on an admin's good faith. Now fortunately this circumstance is rare on the English wiki, as there are hundreds of admins, which can quickly review or revive deletions. Therefore don't you confer that this policycan in principle be misused, as either for punishing another user, ortendentious editing? As far as I know, WP has zero deterrence against false deletions. So what is the correct course of action in case this policy gets abused?Xpander (talk)07:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Everything on Wikipedia can be abused. The standard course of action in case of an admin who abuses deletion is discussion with the admin, discussion at therelevant noticeboard, then proceedings that can initiate a desysop, for examplea recall petition oran arbitration request. All of these act as deterrents against false deletions, as it is extremely difficult to re-obtain adminship after it has been removed for cause. —Kusma (talk)08:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
A7 says that CCS is a lower standard than notability. If the reference list is enough to show that a person or thing is notable, CCS is irrelevant as a measure of whether the topic should be included. That being said, any article about a significant person that fails to explain the person's significance should be expanded or rewritten.Glades12 (talk)18:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
I can imagine a common scenario would be subjects only covered in a foreign language with a non-Latin script. There is some point where the author really does have to do the work for you.GMGtalk18:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
The page disambiguates two extant entries. In order to qualify for deletion under G14, it is necessary that the page disambiguates either zero or one extant entries. The page can still be PRODDED or sent to AfD, however.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋05:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
GreenLipstickLesbian. What I meant is, in order to meet the criteria for speedy deletion under G14 for an unnecessary disambiguation page in which one is primary topic and it only has one other article it might refer to, does the other one have to end in(disambiguation) in order to meet the G14 criteria for speedy deletion?Servite et contribuere (talk)05:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) G14 applies in only the following scenarios:
A disambiguation page has zero entries in it.
A disambiguation page ends in (disambiguation) and has one entry in it.
Entries that don't link to an article at all, or where the article in question was deleted, can be discounted. What you described,disambiguation page in which one is primary topic and it only has one other article, has two entries so G14 never applies, regardless of its title.* Pppery *it has begun...05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Pppery Oh. I didn't know you can see deleted content. Others editors likeUser:BusterD thoughtHilary Knight (disambiguation) was an unnecessary disambiguation page. Also, I won't be bothered if they do get undeleted. I honestly don't think having unnecessary pages or information (In this case we exclude vandalism or false information, we are mainly talking about Trivia) is a big problem. And yes I am aware that it is says Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But what I am saying is; there are worse things than Trivia and Unnecessary pages. Thank youServite et contribuere (talk)06:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
If there's two topics, then whether or not title include the phrase "(disambiguation)" doesn't matter. The inclusion of "(disambiguation)" in the title only matters when dealing with redirects to non-disambiguation-like pages, or if the dab page itself only lists one valid entry.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm the one who declined. I'll admit that, every time I interact with G14, I have to go check the wording to see how it applies in this kind of case, and every time, I find the wording a bit tough to parse.On my usertalk, Servite et contribuere identified two previous cases where admins did G14-delete comparable articles that they had tagged, and I'm not surprised to learn that this confusion is common. Perhaps, in the wording ofWP:G14, we should add a footnote after both instances of "extant Wikipedia page(s)" sayingThis includes any boldfaced links at the start of the page. or something like that. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)05:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Nobody should hold my speedy in this case up as a model for perfect behavior. I have entered into the realm of performing lots of speedy deletions this year, and I'm likely to get in a hurry from time to time (and in so doing over-rely on the good faith request). On re-looking at my action, my first reaction is "by what criteria did the hockey player become primary topic?" I know this comment is outside this discussion.BusterD (talk)09:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I did have pause for thought with the one I deleted, but did make sure that there was a disambiguation hatnote on the now primary topic article. I agree that clarifying the wording ofWP:G14 would be helpful. --Canley (talk)12:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
WP:MASSCREATE has, for a long time, stated thatany large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved by the community. However, there is currently no mechanism for enforcement. It is possible to seek a consensus to mass-delete the articles, but because such a deletion requires affirmative consensus to delete (while MASSCREATE require affirmative consensus to mass-create) this leads to aWP:FAIT situation where people are rewarded for ignoring MASSCREATE and mass-creating articles without seeking prior consensus, effectively shifting the burden of consensus by ignoring policy. TheLugnuts incident shows how severe this problem can get. To address this issue, I propose adding a CSD for articles created in egregious violation of MASSCREATE - something likearticles created as part of a large-scale automated or semi-automated process that did not receive prior approval from the community, which created more than fifty articles a day, and which have no substantive edits other than those made by the automated creation process; tagging for this CSD is specifically permitted to be applied automatically, provided it is done with proper caution to ensure that only articles in clear violation ofWP:MASSCREATE are tagged. The exact threshold is of course negotiable; the point is to establish a red linesomewhere to add a direct enforcement mechanism to MASSCREATE and avoidWP:FAIT situations where articles made in violation of MASSCREATE cannot be easily reversed. --Aquillion (talk)19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps with a "recently created" qualifier, sort of like the one R3 has? Some older mass created articles will be referred to on other sites/wikis, and mass deleting them here could potentially cause confusion. But yes, I would like this. Unauthorized/poorly thought out mass created articles can easily have factual/sourcing issues, and it is unreasonable to expect other volunteers to clean those up. And, like other "no fault to the subject" article deletions, I imagine these should be restorable via REFUND should a good-faith editor wish to attempt getting an individual one up to standard.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Unauthorized mass created articles don't typically have problems with factual/sourcing issues. Typically, they're justWP:UGLY little substubs. The problem with mass creation is that you can flood the review queues, and then nobody actually looks at them (or anything else). A thousand FA-quality articles being posted on the same day is just as much (or more) of a problem as a thousand substubs being posted on the same day. We need creations to be spread out a bit, because we can't just hire a bunch of new reviewers.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
I would argue creating X-series criteria as needed would be better than a single G series criterion. That way we can respond to the situation more appropriately (nuke, draftify, cleanup, etc). I was surprised that the Lugnuts situation didn't wind up with an x-series criterion.Tazerdadog (talk)12:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Having looked at a few of them, I think that Lugnuts had a pretty good eye for subjects that were basically notable. During some of the attempts to mass-delete "all 1200WP:UGLY substubs about ____ created by Lugnuts" articles, I've picked a couple, done my usualWP:BEFORE, and for significantly more than half the topics, found enough to convince me that aWP:HEY effort would turn it into a nice little article.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
This claim:However, there is currently no mechanism for enforcement is not true. The enforcement mechanism is aWP:BLOCK.
I think the fundamental disconnect is this: Mass creation is aWP:BEHAVIOR—not an article. But we have a few editors who want to use a content-driven enforcement mechanism (treat thearticle like it's a hoax or copyvio) instead of using the ordinary behavior-focused enforcement mechanisms (treat theeditor like someone who needs someWP:User warnings and maybe a trip to ANI).
I doubt this meets the ordinary criteria for CSD, because auto-deleting 51 high-quality articles on notable subjects would obviously be controversial (and 51 pages ofblatant advertising is easily handled under{{db-spam}}).
On a purely practical matter, I wonder how many editors have created 50+ non-redirect articles more than once within a 24-hour period during the last year (more than once, because the ideal approach is to explain and have them stop. My guess is zero, but there might be a couple).
I also wonder whether @Aquillion would agree to have this idea, if accepted at all, to only apply to future creations. In other words: I know the Lugnuts stubsstick in your craw, but if you can't use this to get rid of those articles, and if nobody is currently engaged in unauthorized mass creation, would you see it as pointless?WhatamIdoing (talk)22:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
CSD G5 establishes that thenormal way we handle articles created outside of process is to delete them; sinceWP:REFUND exists, and CSDs are not generally a bar to re-creation, people who believe they should be recreated can simply do so via the appropriate mechanisms. But as mentioned, if we only block people without undoing such edits, it creates an incentive for people to violate policy in order to achieve some goal byWP:FAIT. And the fact that the fallout from Lugnuts' misbehavior continues to divide the community to this day shows the importance of establishing a mechanism to resolve such situationsin advance. The next time something of that nature happens, the idea is that it can be quickly and cleanly resolved by running a script to apply the necessary CSD; people who believe that the articles are salvageable can thenWP:REFUND them as necessary or seek consensus to create them all properly. In that manner, everyone will be satisfied, policy will be followed, and we'd avoid another lengthy disruption as we argue endlessly over what to do. --Aquillion (talk)00:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree that G5 is a catch-all criteria for out-of-process article creations.
I don't agree that the continued existence of stubs on apparently notable subjects constitutes "an incentive for people to violate policy".
I'm not even sure that "people who believe that the articles are salvageable" could even find out what the articles were, or be able to see whether they're salvageable, since almost no editors are admins.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Has there ever actually been any consensus that any legitimate user (not a G5-eligible block evader or the like) has violated MASSCREATE, since the time that MASSCREATE became policy? Is there any plausible situation where a MASSCREATE violation would legitimately be recognized as a MASSCREATE violation by an individual admin without forming a broader consensus that it is a MASSCREATE violation? CSDs are needed when we have cause to delete things unilaterally rather than with a broader consensus, to avoid bureaucracy, frequently enough that we need a boilerplate reason for it. Is any of that true for MASSCREATE? What problem would this proposal solve? —David Eppstein (talk)01:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
These days, MASSCREATE usually comes up in two ways:
complaints about stubs created by Lugnuts and Carlossuarez46 (a couple of other editors created large numbers of articles back in the day, but their names rarely get mentioned), and
fears that someone will mass-create stubs aboutnotable species, sourced only to one or two databases.
Used to be that a bot would go through and tag drafts unedited for six months for G13. I just noticed that this no longer seems to be the case, and drafts are now deleted without the need for any such tagging. How is this done? --Paul_012 (talk)00:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Paul 012: In the last few years I've been active, there wasn't a bot doing this until a couple months ago. Prior to that, again, for the last few years, it was mostly Liz, Explicit, and myself viewing a report and then deleting the relevant drafts (with me tagging them prior to becoming an admin). The relevant page to look at isUser:SDZeroBot/G13 soon to see what's about to be eligible. So, in short, I think you actually have it backwards. A bot now tags them but before we relied on a bot generated report.Hey man im josh (talk)02:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Indeed I misremembered. Looking back when tagging was more common (2020 and earlier), it was actually done by human editors. I guess I was thrown off by the summary ofthis RfC. Thanks for the correction. --Paul_012 (talk)10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, what prompted me to ask was that the G13 notification system still seriously needs improvement. As things stand, the only notification of potential G13 deletion is delivered at 5 months by FireflyBot to the draft creator's user talk page. These are often new, inexperienced users who may have abandoned their efforts in the intervening six months. Experienced editors who may have an interest in rescuing the draft (but more or less forgot about it in the meantime) are left to be caught by surprise when the deletion shows up on their watchlist or a WikiProject tracking page, and then have a hard time trying to remember if there was enough there that would be worth requesting undeletion for.
When I last raised the issuein 2021, a couple of solutions were suggested. One was to have the bot notification also posted to the draft talk page. I had asked Firefly about this, but he has been busy IRL and has not had time to work on the bot. I also askedat BOTREQ, though no one was interested enough to pick up the task. Another suggestion was to extendWP:Article Alerts to include impending G13s. This has beena requested feature since 2015, but while there was some follow-up discussion in 2021, it hasn't really been a priority.
So I guess the question is, any other suggestions? I just realised while writing this that there isUser:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting, which is quite useful, even if it requires more active monitoring. However, the categories are a bit too broad to be practical (WikiProject-based editors often work on a narrower topic scope). I wonder if a different implementation that sorted based on WikiProject tags rather than ORES machine predictions would find enough use to be worth requesting. (It would of course depend on WikiProject tags being added to the drafts, but quite a few people are doing that nowadays.) --Paul_012 (talk)10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
A7 wording
The A7 wording currently comes up as "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject."
Please provide a link to the quotation. Grammatically,if the quote is correct, it should be changed to "Article about a real person that does not credibly indicate...", removing the commaand changing "which" to "that".--Bbb23 (talk)12:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That wording is used in the deletion logs, eg. "00:29, 6 May 2025 Bbb23 deleted page Chameli Basu (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) "Pawnkingthree (talk)00:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Are there any cases where an editor is obliged to return a draft/sandbox version of a speedy deleted article (e.g. under A7) to its creator, or is it just common courtesy to do so?Xpander (talk)20:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
There are cases when a speedily deleted article shouldnot be restored to a draft/sandbox (e.g. copyright violations and attack pages) but I can't think of any cases where itmust be undeleted without a consensus to do so (e.g. atWikipedia:Deletion review). If someone asks in good faith then it is, as you say, common courtesy to restore unless there is a reason not to - pages that clearly could become a good article about a notable subject or otherwise useful to the project need a much stronger reason than other pages, but in all cases the reason should be articulated to the requester if it is not fulfilled.Thryduulf (talk)20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, so at leastT:MP is covered by the parenthetic statement that you re-instated. However,it was up for discussion in a Redirect for Deletion, and it survived because is was determined that this redirect is a very unique case because theMain Page is not an encyclopedic page, yet it resides in the main namespace allocated for encyclopedic articles.
The introduction to the policy already states "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted" so a specific exception forT:MP is not technically necessary. —Kusma (talk)15:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
A lot of the time atWP:MFD, user pages come up that are copies or forks of content that has been copied from elsewhere on Wikipedia, which the user does not appear to be keeping for any constructive purpose. I would like to propose a new criteria for these, as they're often pretty uncontroversial and it would significantly cut down on volunteer time spent at MfD. The proposed criteria might go as follows:
U6. User page that is duplicative of material which already exists in another namespace with no constructive purpose User page whose content entirely or nearly entirely consists of aforked article or other content that presently exists outside the creator's userspace, where the user shows no intention of merging the content back into the existing page.
This would allow us to speedily delete pages that are obvious and incontrovertible violations of theWP:FAKEARTICLE guideline, while not applying to constructive instances of copying content into userspace where a good-faith editor intends to workshop it before merging it back into the extant mainspace article. This proposed criteria is also written to avoid overlapping with other extant criteria, particularly G4, as it requires that an article or other content exist in another namespace that was copied from. If a case is more complicated than that, it would need to be taken to MfD.
After a bit of thought about the wording, specifically choosing the words "outside the creator's userspace" so that it applies not only to users copying articles but also drafts, project space stuff, the content of the user pages of other users, and so on, and doesn't apply to, like, users copying their barnstars to a subpage in their userspace or something like that.silviaASH(inquire within)23:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Why not just blank and redirect them to the mainspace content then, if they're stale userspace drafts? And if they're not stale, and the editor is still working on them, you'll need to prove that they aren't going to merge their improvements back to the mainspace article, which would require an MfD anyway.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋23:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I guess that's a good question, and the only answer I have for that is that, yeah, that's probably a good idea. I've thought about it a bit more and I'm not certain how useful this would be, so we probably don't need it.silviaASH(inquire within)23:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I think this is overbroad as written. Depending on whether the admin pays attention to the "with no constructive purpose" that's in the title or only the body of the rule, and whether they consider it "constructive", this could incorrectly apply to customized templates and such in userspace (for their userspace or for substing elsewhere). Also, without actually checking with the user it may be difficult to evaluate the "no intention" part. At the very least, I think you need more wordsmithing before this is both Objective and Uncontestable.Anomie⚔23:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
That's all pretty fair, I think. I have some thoughts about how it could be reworded to be more objective, but I'll wait to see if anyone else comments with opinions about its necessity or lack thereof first.silviaASH(inquire within)02:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Looking through the MfD archives, I don't think something this broad is necessary. The pages that seem to be uncontroversially deleted and which are not covered by an existing criteria (particularly U5) were all copies of articles and seem to be very old. Restricting the proposal to copies of mainspace content that have had no non-trivial edits in a long time (at least 2 years, maybe even 5) would significantly narrow the scope without seeming to exclude anything it seeks to delete. It would still need careful wording to make it objective.Thryduulf (talk)10:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I can see no advantage of recommending speedy deletion over blanking of such pages (andWP:FAKEARTICLE explicitly mentions{{Userpage blanked}}). I certainly don't want people going through other people's userspace to determine what the other user's intentions are. So it is ano from me. —Kusma (talk)11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe a specific template (or parameter) for state article drafts (to be applied to anything that both looks like an article and is stale, regardless of apparent intent) would explain why the blanking happened, but it's not vital.Thryduulf (talk)13:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you,User:SilviaASH, for raising this issue. These are not stale article drafts that we are talking about. These arecopies of mainspace articles in user space. That is, the article was already in article space when the copy was created. We atMFD don't know why the copies are created. Sometimes they have been in user space for years before being sent to MFD. Sometimes a user registers an account, creates a userspace copy of an article, and then makes no further use of the account. We at MFD don't know why the copies were originally made. They areredundant forks of the original article. In my opinion, they are Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent (as in frequently sent to MFD), and Non-Redundant. Could they beblanked and redirected to the original article? Yes. Would that imply that they had a purpose? I don't know. These are copies that never had any purpose, and they are more common than one would expect unless one has been reviewingMFD, where they go to be deleted.Robert McClenon (talk)19:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The problem is (and this is why I attempted to flesh the criteria out to something more than that) sometimes the copies are intended for a constructive use. See for exampleWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DecafPotato/drafts/Celeste. So I was trying to write the criteria to allow instances such as these. The notion of having it only apply if the user has not edited the copy within a certain period of time seems to be the most workable proposal for allowing this.
Another potential use case for this criteria would be to deal with copies of content from elsewhere, for example drafts copied from draftspace to avert G13 deletion or otherwise avoid scrutiny. After some thought, though, those cases are probably much less common, and it would be better to deal with cases like those individually.silviaASH(inquire within)16:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the procedure atWP:STALEDRAFT is sufficient. Routinely deleting such pages at best wastes a tiny amount of extra space on the server and at worst drives away good editors returning from inactivity. —Kusma (talk)17:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think I agree with this, so I will not pursue this proposal further. If anyone else feels that this criteria is a good idea, they are welcome to borrow and adapt my proposed U6 wording and revive the discussion.silviaASH(inquire within)20:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the issue is point 4 from the procedure. It is being followed and so we are regularly seeing quite a few copied main space articles that have been abandoned for some time with little to no changes, and no attribution being nominated for deletion atWP:MFD. These are invariably deleted. --Whpq (talk)20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't adding the obvious attribution + blanking be faster (one edit) and more helpful than nominating for deletion (even for speedy)? I can see the attraction of speedy over MfD, as it wastes fewer people's time, but blanking or leaving alone wastes even fewer people's time. —Kusma (talk)20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
After some thought (yeah I changed my mind about not pursuing this further I guess), I came up with a potential U6 wording that would address these issues such that it deals withonly the most unambiguous cases.
U6. User page that is duplicative of a current or previous revision of a mainspace article, where no substantive edits have been made User page whose contententirely consists of a current or previous revision of a currently existing mainspace article, which does not substantially differ from that revision, and which has not been edited by the user in at least six months.
The stipulation that it is only eligible if it is adirect copy of a present or previous revision of an article, without any substantive additions or changes, naturally excludes any copies of mainspace articles that were at one point being worked on in good faith with the intent to merge them into the mainspace article, but abandoned. The "not edited in six months" stipulation offers some leeway to the creator, similar to G13, but is more forgiving since while G13 clears abandoned draftspace articles procedurally, this proposed U6 would have no such process attached to it and would require someone to have found the copied article and then tagged it themselves, but only allow them to do so after six months have elapsed. (The window could be tightened or loosened to like three months or a year or whatever of course, but the same principle would apply.)
To put it simply, this would only apply to userspace drafts where someone simply copy-pasted an article into their userspace without making any substantive changes ("substantive", so U6 would still apply if it was like 99 percent exactly the same but they went finding-and-replacing a specific word as a joke or something) and then never touched it again. I think this would work to avoid any issues with being too broad and deleting the good-faith work of well-meaning editors, since it would only really apply if the creator didn't put any work into it. Anything more than that, and the regular process for dealing with userspace forks would apply.
Also should go without saying, but placing U6 on a userpage would require the tagging user to specify in the template which revision of which article it's a copy of, similar to how one supplies a link to the past deletion discussion when tagging G4 cases.silviaASH(inquire within)00:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
My immediate reaction is that some indication that there is a time component would need to be stated in the bold title otherwise therewill be nominations of pages that are much too recent to qualify (and some admins will delete them). Perhaps something like "U6. Stale, substantively unmodified duplicates of mainspace content"
My next thought was "no substantive edits" and "does not substantially differ" are not quite the same thing - e.g. if substantial edits were made but reverted, need to pick just one. Beyond that I need to think more about whether I support it in principle or not.Thryduulf (talk)03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I would support it being refined to "stale, substantively unmodified". Maybe don't have any exact time window. However it seems from most of the comments here that, outside of the regulars at MfD, the community would probably not support adopting this criteria, so oh well.silviaASH(inquire within)02:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, I have never even understood what the point of all this is. Seems like a time waste for everyone involved if they just keep looking through everyone's userspace to find a copy of an article just to delete it. It's not like you are saving Wikimedia's server space by doing this. All those articles still stay in the servers, just not visible to you, yet visible to admins. Unless someone is abusing the freedom of having userpages by creating a copy of every article they come across, this entire process is a waste.—CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I really have never understood what the purpose of even taking these to MFD is. If there's some sort of problematic attribution issue; blank the page. There are standard CSD criteria for the truly problematic stuff; if it needs to go away but doesn't meet the CSD that's what blanking is for, or MFD in an extreme case. Going around ragpicking old userspace stuff seems like a very unproductive use of anyone's time to me.Hog FarmTalk13:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Rejected drafts?
Should there be a criterion for rejected drafts? There's one for abandoned drafts, but we need a better way to get rid of rejected ones. Sumanuil.(talk to me)07:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd say not forall rejected drafts, but specifically one for rejected drafts that are resubmitted without any substantive change. Some drafts are rejected after being repeatedly submitted by a new user, and then an experienced editor comes along later to fix it with sources that were previously overlooked. That should be permissible.
Generally once a user continues to submit a draft after it's been rejected without any changes or discussion with reviewers about the issues, it's considered disruptive and is then uncontroversially deleted at MfD. A speedy criterion for that specific situation would probably be good. Otherwise, I'd say they should be left alone.silviaASH(inquire within)07:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Don’t confuse “uncontroversial” with SNOW. Note that the situation is a dispute. Disruption is someone’s POV on a dispute.SmokeyJoe (talk)09:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Striking. SmokeyJoe made good points and I think I agree. Tendentiously resubmitted rejected drafts don't seem frequent enough that CSD is warranted anyway.silviaASH(inquire within)12:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
No. Rejected drafts should get their six months. Either, the rejection was right, or it was not. If it was right, then its author gets the six months to read and reflect on the reasons for rejection.
If the rejection was not right, then the author gets six months to consider options. They may want to appeal, or they may want to make major changes. In either case, it is best not to rush them.
In all cases, if nothing much happens, there is no harm in leaving it in draftspace.
If a rejected draft is resubmitted, and should be rejected again, then the appropriate escalation is to take it to MfD for community review. Rejection is someone’s unilateral judgement, and sometimes it is wrong. An AfC rejection should not authorise a procedural speedy deletion.SmokeyJoe (talk)09:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
No, for exactly the reasons SmokeyJoe gives. MfD generally only sees those rejected drafts where there is actually disruption being caused, it doesn't see the many other harmless rejected drafts.Thryduulf (talk)11:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
No, over the years I have ignore rejection on several rejected drafts and moved them to mainspace. So speedy deleting would be removing potential valuable content.Graeme Bartlett (talk)11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, butUser:Jéské Couriano said that there wasno benefit to deleting this page simply because it is a placeholder after this had been pointed out to them. I don't know if the subsequent commenters understood the existence of this G13 clause from the previous comments. Even if not, their arguments could still be valid.Janhrach (talk)20:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I would argue that it should be obsoleted, yes. Either we leave useless and abandoned userspace drafts alone unless they're harmful or disruptive, or we purge them. The MfD regulars generally agree that the former is more appropriate (often citingWP:RAGS andWP:LUDA), and it seems that at least some reviewing admins do too. Policy should reflect this.
I do not see a benefit in indiscriminately throwing out userspace pages that have no content except for the article wizard placeholder text. Quite often, they represent the first content creation efforts of a new user who didn't know what they were doing at the time. They could very well come back to add meaningful content to it later. Going through and deleting them is at best a waste of time, and at worst risksWP:BITING. Unless they were created by an editor who is indeffed or banned and there is no realistic possibility of the creator returning to work on it, they should be left alone.silviaASH(inquire within)20:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with silviaASH. There are, at best, minimal benefits to deleting these pages but significant potential harm from doing so. Leaving them alone is almost always harmless at worst and helpful (e.g. for editor retention) at best. Any that are actually harmful but which don't meet an existing speedy deletion criterion can be deleted at MfD after someone articulates the what, how and why of that harm. I support deprecation.Thryduulf (talk)22:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Neither obsoleted nor deprecated mean what you think they mean. It's alreadyobsolescent, as shown by that mfd and drv, and perhaps alreadyobsolete; anddeprecating it would leave it valid but discouraged. (A recurring peeve here that I can't keep myself from challenging. Sorry.)Yes, I'm fine with formally repealing this, or simply removing it, either one. Pages meeting this subcriterion are entirely harmless, to an extent even untouched drafts don't match. —Cryptic22:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Agree. A page with no creative content is entirely harmless, and removing it doesn’t outweigh the harm of hiding a users’ edit history from them.SmokeyJoe (talk)00:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
It seems like removing this is generally supported here, although only four editors have contributed to the consensus so far. Should we go ahead and remove that text from the policy, or should we maybe start an RfC for the issue to get more eyes on it and form a stronger consensus?silviaASH(inquire within)20:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I've tried to quantify how often this is used. Best guess for the past 365 days - based on manually looking at every deletion logged "G13" of userpages that were then 500 bytes long or less - is 16, out of 2961 total G13s in that period. (11 of them were tagged by a single user, on either October 15 or October 19; no repeat tagging users among the other five.) So this is correctly used about one and a third times per month, for about half a percent of all G13s. Raw datahere, or at least it will be onceT396904 is fixed. —Cryptic22:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I have been trying to think why the text was included. Perhaps there are users that like to check other users' sandboxes for good content to turn into articles, that don't want to waste their time looking at totally useless pages. However I suspect that most of those taggers are actually just looking for something to tag for deletion. So this means that point 3 is just generating more work for no benefit. So I would be happy to not have it. If someone requests to restore such a page, then it has been a waste of everybody's time.Graeme Bartlett (talk)22:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Removed as a criterion. I don't think this belongs inWP:OCSD, as it is not really a sub-criterion, more a circumstance in which the six month rule applies. But anyone is welcome to add it there. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Discussion potentially impacting criterion F5 (orphaned non-free use files)
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.
TheG13 criterion, at present, applies to articles in the draftspace that have not been edited for 6 months by a human.
I propose an additional clause that allows draft AfC's that have beenrejected anddo not fit the criteria forinclusion orcreation, to be removed from the draftspace, irrespective of how long they have been left unedited.
Why? Well, because a draft for the chess moveNxe3 can be created, be rejected for not being noteworthy, and hog server space and resources for six months until someone can contest for speedy deletion — which usually goes under the radar.
This proposition would reduce usage of server storage, and would be critical in cleaning up the AfC categories. fromPiperium (chit-chat,i did that) at 07:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC—edited)
Someone brings this up about every three weeks. The last timehasn't even been archived yet. See that, and the big honkin' "Search archives" box at the top of the page.Also, deleting things increases, not reduces, data usage. (And even if it just dropped the data and all the associated logs and revisions and so on it wouldn't be enough to matter - we'd be talking maybe billionths of the total data usage per page deleted.) —Cryptic07:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I am actually so blind — literally the second discussion on the page 😭
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.
G8 on modifications of redirects
G8, as applied to redirects, is basically limited to a redirect with a nonexistent target, either because the target never existed or because it's been deleted. Wondering about expanding it to cover "related" redirects.
Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Act 1895 redirects toNorth Warwickshire Line, as doesBirmingham, North Warwickshire and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Act 1895 (withoutserial comma). Imagine that someone took the with-comma variant to RFD, arguing that we shouldn't redirect laws to railway articles, and the RFD was successful. We shouldn't delete the without-comma variant based on the RFD, since it wasn't nominated, and it's not G8-eligible because its target is alive and well. However, it only exists because I created it a few minutes ago as a variant of the with-comma title, and if the with-comma title were a freestanding article, without-comma would redirect to it. (If double redirects weren't a problem, I would have created without-comma as a redirect to with-comma.) So, if one of them is deleted for reasons unrelated to punctuation, it seems reasonable to delete the other, even if there's no discussion, but no existing criterion covers it. It's likely frequent, since people are quite likely to encounter and nominate a redirect without being aware of the existence of a parallel redirect. But is there an objective and uncontestable way to do this?
A clear but complicated process would be a template — redirect A is marked with a template saying "if redirect B is deleted, this can be deleted under G8". However, that would require an additional edit to every existing page, and the creation of new redirects would take more work, because you'd have to mark it with the G8 template as well as including the normal redirect code and any normal redirect tagging. But if we declared that variations of existing redirects were automatically deleteable, I can see plenty of wiggle room: for example, we wouldn't want to delete A if B were deleted strictly for punctuation reasons or to encourage the creation of an article, and either we'd need long and careful criteria to ascertain what was a variation, or we'd end up with arguments over the same question. In the perfect situation, we wouldn't limit it to tiny variations; for example, if we deletedBroken Hill Proprietary (just an example; I can't imagine anyone wanting to delete it), we'd probably want to deleteBroken Hill Proprietary Company too.
Any ideas? Can this be done in a practical way? Or is it just too complicated to make it objective and uncontestable?Nyttend (talk)06:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
So, we do kind of have a template,{{avoided double redirect}}, but it includes ADRs from distinct topics, which wouldn't be suitable here (e.g.character → book → series might be appropriate to change tocharacter → series ifbook is deleted). But I would argue that when the variation is purely typographic, the plain wording of G8 (dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) does apply. The undotted-v version of theWood redirect absolutely was dependent on the dotted-v version. There's no world where it would make sense for the former to exist while the latter doesn't, just like there's no world where it makes sense forTalk:Foo to exist whileFoo doesn't. Noting that the list of G8 examples is non-exhaustive, and in my view already covers this use case, I would support adding a bullet of
I don't think this would need to apply only to redirects tagged with{{avoided double redirect}};Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and in a case like theWood redirects it's common sense that one is an ADR of the other. But the template would certainly help make G8's applicability clear.
There might be some cases where the solution to this situation would be to designate a new redirect as the primary one in the ADR family, rather than delete the ADRs; this could be noted in a footnote if desires. There might be some other very rare exceptions, but G8 already notes that{{G8-exempt}} exists, so it could be used in those cases. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)06:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Far simpler than working out which ones should and should not be under G8 (because unless it's all of them then it's not suitable for speedy deletion) there is currently a bot being programmed that will check for avoided double redirects and typographical variants of redirects nominated at RfD and alert the discussion to their existence. Humans can then add those that should be discussed together to the nomination and consensus applied to all of them at once, while those that don't have that consensus (or have a different consensus) won't be incorrectly deleted. Another bonus is that this will also work for things other than deletion.
It's all of them that are "dependent" on the deleted page, i.e. only exist as variants of it. This is consistent with our practice of G8-deleting redirects to articles that get deleted. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
See theWP:NEWCSD criteria. The issue is that there needs to be an objective definition of what is "dependent" that includes only pages that shouldalways be deleted.{{R from avoided double redirect}} is not that as you noted in your first comment, and it absolutely is not any redirect that someonethinks is dependent on a deleted redirect, again the book/character/series redirects are examples of this.Thryduulf (talk)09:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I'n not proposing a new CSD (not that I think WP:NEWCSD is or ever has been a good summary of the community's expectations for a new CSD). G8 is already a broadly-worded criterion, and I'm saying this scenario falls under it. If you want to make the list of examples under G8 exhaustive, rather than explicitly non-exhaustive as it currently is, you should propose that. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)09:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
NEWCSD explicitly applies to modifications of existing criteria as well as brand new ones, and your comment is the first time I've heard someone suggest it doesn't represent community consensus. The question is whether avoided double redirects are both "dependent on a deleted page" and "should always be deleted" and because we both agree that the answer to the second question is "no, some of them should not be deleted" then we need to either agree that none of them can be speedily deleted (which is the current consensus) or come up with some criteria that distinguishes those which should be deleted from those that cannot.
My point is that determining this criteria is pointless as the bot currently in active development will avoid the need to speedy delete any of them because avoided double redirects will be discussed at RfD the same time as the redirect they are avoiding. It isn't going to catch all untagged avoided double redirects, but enough of them that the frequency requirement of NEWCSD will not be met.Thryduulf (talk)10:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
NEWCSD applies toexpansions of existing criteria, which this would not be, because we are talking about whether to include an example in a non-exhaustive list to make explicit something that's already allowed by the plain wording of the criterion. But we've both made our opinions clear. Let's hear from others. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)10:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
This would be an expansion because the consensus currently is that G8 only applies to redirects that target deleted or non-existent pages.Thryduulf (talk)10:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but please don't assert "consensus" and then link me to one discussion (archive 74) that isn't about this and two (89 and what I assume was meant to be79) where there is no consensus on this point, and where most of the opposition is coming from you (as is often the case on this page). I will quoteAnomie from the Archive 89 discussion:You're applying your own idiosyncratic definition of 'dependent on' and asserting it's the only possible 'literal meaning'. I don't see anything at your lightly-attended RFC [Archive 74] that's relevant here either. If you want consensus, hold an RfC. But please don't say I'm acting against a consensus that is 90% you. You do not have a veto over changes to WP:CSD. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)11:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
My point was "there has been no consensus to expand G8 to cover redirects to pages that exist." and linked you to examples of discussions where there was no consensus to expand G8 to cover redirects to pages that exist (and the discussions are about expanding the consensus, not confirming what it already is). I might be the most vocal person opposing a change to the consensus but that does not indicate that the consensus doesn't exist - if you think there is a current consensus for the words in the policy (as gained consensus in archive 74) to mean something other than the literal meaning of the words in the policy then please show me that consensus.Thryduulf (talk)11:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we should just have a bot that adds all ADRs to the RFD nomination page so it can be decided at the RFD whether the ADR is one that should obviously be deleted (like your example of serial comma; that one would fall underWP:NOTBURO) or one where something else should be done, like Tamzin's "book" example. The default could be that all ADRs that nobody speaks up for during the RFD are deleted when the main redirect is deleted. Basically if the ADRs should be deleted after a different redirect is deleted after discussion, just include the ADRs in the discussion. —Kusma (talk)09:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Meh... I think the other redirect is covered under{{db-xfd}}. IfDewey, Cheatham, and Howe is deleted via RFD andDewey, Cheatham and Howe exists, the latter shouldalso be deleted unless the rationale was specifically "this isn't a valid use of a comma", since thesubstance of the RFD holds for both pages. This is true whether the second redirect is discovered the same day or a year later.Primefac (talk)11:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think these make good speedies; they're too broad and ill-defined a class of a redirects, and there's too much judgment involved to let it become precedent. For the really obvious ones, like Nyttend's missing period and comma examples, you could probably get away with IARing them. Putting the previous RFD (or whatever reason the first one was deleted for) in your deletion log with an explanation that it applies exactly as much to this redirect too is way more honest than picking the not-really-applicable G8 - or, worse, G6 - from the drop-down. —Cryptic11:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
redirect A is marked with a template saying "if redirect B is deleted, this can be deleted under G8" When AnomieBOT creates redirects for en-dashed titles, it appliesa custom bot-specific template that does exactly that. 😀 Although the template also mentions G7 and G6 since, as we see above, some people don't like to use G8 for anything other than "redirect target is currently a redlink" and don't accept "redirectwould be a redlink if the double redirect wasn't bypassed". But if we want something not specific to bot creations, we should probably add a|dependent=yes parameter to{{R avoided double redirect}} instead.Anomie⚔13:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Largely echoing what Tamzin has already said, my position is that{{R avoided double redirect}}s that rely on a redirect that has been deleted already qualify for G8. If not for a software limitation regarding double redirects, it would literally match theRedirects to target pages that never existed or were deleted wording. I would be in favor of making that explicit, and think that a parenthetical or footnote after 'target pages' stating(includingavoided double redirects) would be the most efficient way to do it. I also want to emphasize that G8 already has the wordingthis criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia which would cover any exceptions that shouldn't be deleted. --Tavix(talk)19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Adding myself to the list of people who agree that these qualify for G8. The intro text saysexamples include, but are not limited to, implying there are other reasons—including, but not limited ot,{{R avoided double redirect}}s. If someone has a reason why a particular redirect should persist, they can remove the rcat.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Rethinking G8 entirely
This discussion, in which multiple admins are interpreting the same criterion and coming to diametrically opposite conclusions, is proving that the current wording of G8 is unworkable and we should consider breaking up the criterion entirely.
Restore the originalWP:R1 criterion for broken redirects.
MoveTimed Text pages without a corresponding file (or when the file has been moved to Commons) to F2.
Editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages is within the scope of T5 as well.
Leave G8 just for "subpages or talk pages of a nonexistent page".
If there's want for a new criterion for "avoided double redirects" as proposed here then just make that R5. That would allow us to explain what is and isn't covered in more than a single sentence and not have to rely on vague penumbras.
I agree regarding the R1 and T5 proposals and am completely neutral regarding F2. If people genuinely think that all or some avoided double redirects should be speediable they can get consensus for a new criterion that meets all the NEWCSD criteria.Thryduulf (talk)19:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
"Diametrically opposite" is a bit of an exaggeration, and the conclusion that the current wording of G8 is unworkable is even more so. If anything, all that's needed in G8 is a parenthetical one way or the other for clarity. --Tavix(talk)20:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Order of (obsolete) criteria
Ireorganised the list of obsolete criteria to be in alphabetical order, for ease of reference - twice in the past ~week I've failed to easily find what I was looking for (I had to search) because it wasn't in alphabetical order despite appearing like it ought to be so. This wasreverted byTavix with an edit summary saying it should be "listed in the same order as the criteria above".
I can see the logic in the main criteria starting with general and ending with exceptional circumstances, but I don't really see much benefit to not having the rest in alphabetical order (articles would be in second place either way) although I'm not opposed to leaving them how they are if there is logic I'm not seeing. What I really don't understand though is what benefit comes from having a single list of obsolete criteria in what is little more than semi-random order?Thryduulf (talk)20:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
If you don't want to answer that question, perhaps "What benefits does consistency bring here?" would be easier?Thryduulf (talk)03:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Support alphabetical. Alphabetical is much easier to browse and search. “Consistency” here is unclear as to with what, with the order of the level two headings, which I guess are conceptual, in order of importance? Consistency in general is a good reason, but is a weak good reason that should defer to any other good reason.SmokeyJoe (talk)13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else, it clearly isn't an uncontroversial deletion since the candidate is edit warring to remove the speedy tag. So give them their wish.* Pppery *it has begun...16:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
If something does notclearly fall under any speedy deletion criterion it is not speedily deletable. Speedy deletion is only for "the most obvious cases" which means that if there is doubt about whether it meets a criterion is does not. Additionally, if someone (excluding the creator in some cases) expresses good-faith opposition to deletion then it would be controversial and so again it is not eligible for speedy deletion.Thryduulf (talk)16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
G6 in particular is defined by the deletion being uncontroversial. If anyone is able to contest it, even after the fact, then it's not only not a good speedy, it was never a valid speedy to begin with.This doesn't mean you can't go ahead and delete it anyway if you're certain that'll improve the encyclopedia and that an MFD would be a net detriment.WP:Ignore all rules is policy too. But don't label it with a speedy code, and be ready to back up your reasoning. —Cryptic17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Off-topic
(ec)Sorry, Fortuna, I assumed the ping above would be sufficient. And I voted delete on that discussion, and it was SNOW deleted, not speedied, so I'm not sure what your point is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Pings are clearly insufficient; Usder:Materialscientist has his completely turned off, so don't ever ping him to a discussion. My point is that G6 has been customary and practised for some time. If that changes, fine; but it is done so through consensus, not you sounding off on me on my talk.—Fortuna,imperatrix17:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The thing is, it's not customary to use speedy for anything that could be legitimately objected to. If someone creates an RFA framework, doesn't fill it in, and disappears for two weeks, that might be G6-worthy. A legitimate-but-misguided attempt isn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Separate from the topic at hand: Fortuna, this is a rather astonishing show of bad faith from a long-tenured editor. A ping is absolutely sufficient for just about anything short of Arbcom or ANI. Sarek made a good-faith attempt to notify you. If you're one of the few people who have chosen to turn off a feature that's been part of Wikipedia forover 12 years, that's your choice.Ed[talk][OMT]17:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry. But. Then file a neutral post requesting clarification; not naming someone in the OP is a guaranteed path to good faith. I mean, hey―it might result in an unprejudiced discussion as to the pros and cons, rather than... this.—Fortuna,imperatrix17:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
FWIW admins are explicitly not required to have pings turned on (although it is regarded as best practice), but if they do disable them they are strongly encouraged to note this on their user page. I know you (Fortuna) are not an admin, but it still wouldn't harm to follow that advice.Thryduulf (talk)19:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is never a reason to speedy deletion something. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for things that uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia. Speedy deletion of anything that does not meet one or more of the criteria is always controversial.Thryduulf (talk)17:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
IAR deletions of clearly misguided RfAs have had precedent for years now—see e.g.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Antny08 (deleted per G6),Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davelo15 (deleted per G7 despite 1 oppose vote),Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.Turner99 (deleted per IAR). Because of this, I do not fault Fortuna imperatrix mundi for attempting to apply a speedy deletion tag on this RfA. However, it is also true that these deletions are technically out-of-policy. Maybe a compromise solution could be to move these RfAs to userspace without leaving a redirect behind. Deleting/moving these RfAs has the benefit of keeping the RfA page a redlink for the user—in the event that these editors want to run RfA for real at some point in the future, they don't need to have their run colored by a clearly ill-advised attempt when the editors were still brand-new here.Mz7 (talk)22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
F3 said in relevant partFiles uploaded after 1 August 2021 licensed under versions of the GFDL earlier than 1.3, without allowing for later versions or other licenses, may be deleted. This is obviously intended as the enforcement mechanism forWP:NOMOREGFDL, but this wording gets a lot wrong about that policy:
NOMOREGFDL applies regardless of the GFDL version(s)
Thelicensing date is what counts, not the upload date (or creation date)
The policy has an exception for content extracted from a real GFDL software manual
The policy only applies tocontent [which] is primarily a photograph, painting, drawing, audio or video
That wording both prohibits deletion of unacceptable media (e.g. a GFDL v1.3-only licensed photograph) and permits deletion of acceptable media (e.g. there are no exceptions for PDFs or extracted images).
I don't think this is a controversial change, so I haveWP:PGBOLDly changed this toFiles which do not meet thecriteria for using the GNU Free Documentation License may be deleted under this criterion., which is both more clear and future-proofs the wording in case NOMOREGFDL is amended in the future. Feel free to revert if you object to the change, but remember that PGBOLD saysyou should not remove any changesolely because there was no discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, give a substantive reason for challenging it either in youredit summary or on the talk page.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)16:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
The purpose of F3 is not to enforce the image use policy, but to speedily delete improperly licenced content. The CSD should not be based on licence dates, as these dates are not always obvious to the tagger or the reviewing admin. Using the upload date is much simpler, as every file has an upload date, and a file uploaded with a GFDL only license before the cutoff date must have been licensed on or before the cutoff date (if someone tried to revoke a validly placed license on a post-cutoff file to make the content GFDL only, that revocation has no effect and can simply be reverted). Any dispute about licence date vs upload date that is material can be handled at xFD.Iffy★Chat --19:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you wrote. My main objection would be that prohibited GFDL content is improperly-licensed content—even though that prohibition lives inside the image use policy. I also agree that anything uploaded before the cutoff date is obviously acceptable. And I agree that the licensing date is notalways obvious. But I think it isalmost always obvious: most uploads have an{{information}} with a date,{{self}} can use the upload date, if an external source is specified that probably has a date, etc. And like you said, anything where there is a dispute or it is uncertain goes to FFD by the normal rule of CSD being used only for obvious cases.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)20:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You appear to have successfully nominatedUser:TrainDows for deletion via the talk page, and it has been declined. I don't see any abuse filter preventing you from editing another person's userpage.Special:AbuseLog/41685962 is relevant to others reviewing this request. What message did you get when you tried to edit the userpage?Stifle (talk)09:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
This is an interesting case.User:TrainDows has made one edit in en.wiki, which was creation of their user page two years ago, meaning 100% of edits could fall weakly on that self-promotion/webhost scale. Should this go to MFD, or is this too harmless?--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring)13:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Loriendrew, that's the sort of page that should probably just be blanked (or even left alone, seeing as it's not particularly harmful – and also not indexed, but I'm not sure of this); unless the other editor objects and reverts the blanking, it's probably not worth sending toWP:MFD... — Salviogiuliano14:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
The page info shows that this user page is not indexed. But I would say: leave it alone as it is not harmful. Wikipedia is en encyclopedia, so it is best for people here to help with articles, rather than making life miserable for other people by over-policing material outside of article space. However if you spot attacks, spam, hoaxes or offensive material on userpages, that would be worth eliminating.Graeme Bartlett (talk)10:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Y Objective: Either a subpage of a template is being used or it is not
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § NPPHOUR, A1, and A3.JJPMaster (she/they)05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Removed as a criterion. I don't think this belongs inWP:OCSD, as it is not really a sub-criterion, more a circumstance in which the six month rule applies. But anyone is welcome to add it there. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)23:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)