 | This is anessay on thedeletion policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Speedy deletion is one of the more useful, necessary, and controversial policies available on Wikipedia. While our article creation rate is in the thousands daily, many articles, uploaded images, and other forms of content are simply not appropriate enough to stick around for a typical hearing. These articles fall under our speedy deletion criteria, which were reached by various levels of consensus, and are intended to be followed rather rigidly. Improper tagging of an article as a speedy candidate leaves more work for users patrolling thespeedy deletion category, and improper deletion by administrators causes poor relations with other users and often prolongs the situation by forcing adeletion review.
This page is intended to be a quick guide to understanding the speedy deletion criteria, and how to apply itproperly, with some examples of dos and don'ts.
The policy is quite clear in usage – it is meant to be used in "limited circumstances," and is not the only option when approached. If the guitarist for a somewhat-well-known band is tagged for speedy deletion, considermerging the information to the band's article. If an article reads like an advertisement for a major company, consider cutting the article down to astub-sized article instead of allowing a redlink to be created. Having second thoughts as you see an article? You can always bump it to a different criterion – Articles for deletion if you feel it might be able to use more discussion, orproposed deletion if you don't think anyone will miss the content.
If you still feel that speedy deletion is right for you, here's a quick explanation of how the policy is structured:
That's it! Thus, it allows for easy abbreviation when referring to them with experienced editors off-hand: "A7" refers toArticles – section7. "G11" refers toGeneral11. Some editors are bothered by the use of abbreviations like that, so consider not using them, or, in a best-case scenario, using both the abbreviation and the specific rationalization so that everyone understands what criteria you're using.
A number of templates have also been created for some of the more typical occurrences. For instance,{{db-spam}} is typically used for spam articles. A full listing can be found atCategory:Speedy deletion templates.
It is also strongly recommended that you leave a message with the article creator when nominating an article for speedy deletion. While the author is not to remove the tag, they may be able to solve the problem or explain why the deletion would be improper by explaining on the talk page. Please be courteous – speedy deletion can be a tough process for some to swallow.
Perhaps the most important thing to note about speedy deletion is that there isno catch-all; if a page doesn't fit any of the strict criteria, youmust use another deletion process, no matter how inappropriate you think the page is.
The first general criterion seems simple on its face, but has historically been more confusing than it seems. The criterion statesPatent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Unfortunately, many users ignore the part beyond "no meaningful content."
Thus, an example of "patent nonsense" would include:
The second part of this is where many users get confused. Often, new users will have poorly-formatted sections added to the end of an otherwise legitimate article, or may use much more flowerly and unnecessary language to get the point being made across.This is not patent nonsense. It may be inappropriate, it may be deleted anyway, but it doesn't fit this criterion, and calling a user's contributions "patent nonsense" when it clearly isn't is not a good way to forge a working relationship.
So, in short, a good rule of thumb is this:If you can't figure the text out because it's not in any language or is completely incomprehensible for reasons not involving education or knowledge ability,it is patent nonsense. If you have to think, even for a second, about whether it's patent nonsense,it probably isn't. Common examples of text that doesnot fall under the definition of patent nonsense includes the following:
Another frequent mistake is to use G1 as acarte blanche. G1 is not a replacement to delete material that falls underWhat Wikipedia is not or is otherwise unsuitable for inclusion but which is not covered by another criterion. It does not cover dictionary entries, made-up things or anything else listed asnon-criteria.
As stated, this criterion is not intended for hoaxes or other vandalism; it means nonsense as in gibberish/unintelligible. Nonsense as in absurd falls under G3, assuming the content was created in bad faith.
Often, some articles thataren't patent nonsenseare test pages. Often, many of the people who create these pages then ask for the deletion themselves. Sometimes they even do it in the text of the article ("I didn't mean to do this, please delete it"). A test page will actively look like a test – it won't have any content that is actually an article, and will likely even give some indications that it was a test.
G2 is sometimes considered something of agood-faith counterpart to G3. However, this doesnot mean it is a catch-all for stuff that isn't speediable under other criteria.
This isusually clear cut. Articles that simply have a photo of a penis transcluded on it, a page consisting entirely of "I LIKE POTATOES", and the like – that's "pure vandalism." What many people make the mistake of is not checking thepage history to see if there is a non-vandalized version available. Complex vandalism often takes place on low-profile articles, so assuming that an article you may not have heard of is simply created due to vandalism may be improper. For an example, seethis page change on Jeremy Barnes. This page was seen as vandalism and speedy deleted as such, although a proper version existed in the history. If you're doing vandalism patrols, keep up the good work, but be careful of coherent content in the page histories.
The criterion also applies from redirects created during a cleanup of page-move vandalism.
Obvious hoaxes also go under this criterion, as deception becomes clear so that it constitutes vandalism.
A previously deleted page can be deleted again under G4only ifall of the following conditions are met:
Therefore, if an article that was deleted via AfD due to a lack of sources indicating notability is recreated, and the recreated version includes sources that credibly attempt to demonstrate notability, that article does not fall under G4 and must go through the AfD process again. But if the article was deleted as arefbombed promotional piece and the recreated article only includes more promotional sources, that would obviously not be a step in the right direction.The standard of reasonableness in determining that something which is not strictly identical is still a copy has been open-ended, but the most traditional (conservative, safe, ...) interpretation is that "significantly identical" means practically identical, nearly identical, or very similar in a literal, byte-by-byte sense. Sometimes what is recreated is not at all identical but is in all respects and by anyone's standard an even worse version of what was deleted. For example, an article on a non-notable film is deleted even though its prose was readable and well-referenced. Some time later, someone creates a new article about the same film containing their original, completely different prose of much lower quality and without references. This does not meet G4, but when an administrator applies G4 to this situation, it is rare to find willingness to challenge or overturn such a decision.
When deciding what may qualify as a copy in light of Wikipedia having different namespaces and types of pages, the following should be noted: As ageneral criterion, G4 is relevant in all namespaces, but this should not be understood to mean that itgeneralizes content in a namespace-insensitive way. Deletion reasons differ across namespaces, and consensuses from different deletion venues are only partially interchangeable. G4 mainly operates within the same namespace as that of the page for which a consensus to delete was reached, using a process that corresponds to that namespace. (Note that redirects have RfD as a dedicated venue, and although redirects are not a namespace, the same logic applies.) More precisely, G4 does not apply when material is recreated in a namespace where the reason to delete identified by the consensus-based process is not also a reason to delete under the policy for that namespace. For instance:
That said, some reasons to delete extend across namespaces. If an article was deleted as a page that existed primarily to disparage its subject (but was maybe not quite a G10 case), and a significantly identical copy is created in draftspace, that draft would be subject to G4. Unlike notability, which is article-specific, the latter type of lack of appropriateness is not namespace-specific.
But with all of the above in mind, if an administrator believes the recreation is anattempt to circumvent the deletion consensus, which is a case-by-case judgment and not a general assumption, G4 does, in fact, become namespace-insensitive.
The idea behind banning a user is thatnone of their contributions are welcome at Wikipedia, regardless of the quality. As a principle, banned users are not allowed to contribute to the project. This principle is enforced through speedy deletion based on this criterion, but not as a firm rule, as there is nothing stopping a user in good standing from reinstating good edits and articles to stand behind them.
It is important to note that this only applies to creationsafter their ban. If a user has 10,000 edits and then gets banned, the first 10,000 edits that user makes do not fall under this criterion, but anything done by ban avoidance beyond that are. If a blocked user createdGeorge Washington before their ban, we wouldn't delete that article.
Regular users can't move pages over other pages with page histories. This simply allows administrators to do so. Most users never encounter situations like this. Likewise, this criterion is also used for temporary deletions by administrators to sort out confused page histories. This criterion also allows pages to be deleted if they were unambiguously created in error; the common ground between deletions under this criterion is that they're all noncontroversial maintenance tasks that don't actually remove information.
Note: This is not a catch-all for stuff that doesn't fit any other criterion; it is only for pages that need to be deleted for technical reasons.
So you're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content (though a redirect should often be used in this case, not deletion). Or you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with. Or you just screwed up and created a page with a title likeUser:User:Example. As long as no one else has made any substantial changes to your text, you can request a deletion through this criterion.
Users making a request for a page to be deleted do nothave to do so by posting a speedy deletion tag themselves: affirming the desire to have the page deleted, or blanking the page can be considered an implicit request. Checking the page history is essential for this criterion (so you can be sure the right person made the request).
There are several such examples - Talk pages of deleted pages, file descriptions with no file and categories that were populated by a deleted template are some examples. This should never apply to a page that is useful to the project, such as any kind of deletion discussion.
As long as the article's talk page doesn't predate Articles for deletion (when deletion discussions took place on article talk pages as opposed to a centralized location), talk pages of deleted articles generally get deleted. This only generally concerns article space and Wikipedia:-space pages, and not user pages, nor talk archives. If there's discussion about how to recreate an article properly on the page, consider suggesting to the users on that page to head todeletion review, where such discussions are generally expected.
A redirect to a page that doesn't exist can be speedy deleted. First, check that it hasn't been vandalised or accidentally broken.
Sometimes a category is populated by placing templates on pages. If this template gets deleted, the category can then be speedy deleted.
Wikipedia:Office actions. The Wikimedia Foundation office can delete articles for reasons not immediately explained to the rest of the project. The actions are clearly marked and irreversible without input from the Office itself. This does not concern most editors.
Attack pages are pages that serve only to disparage a person or other entity, being composed solely of insults or pure slander (e.g. "John Doe is a bloody idiot who deserves to burn in hell"), or consisting of prose that, while written in an encyclopedic tone, portrays a living person in an entirely negative light and contains no sources to back up the negative claims (e.g. "John Doe is a disgraced former actor, who worked for ACME Studios until his dismissal in 1998 for the theft of equipment. He later committed a mass-murder at their Hollywood studios in retaliation, and is currently on death row after being convicted.") Before tagging a page with this criterion, be sure to check, as with G3, that there are no acceptable versions in the history to revert to, i.e. that a vandal has not hijacked a legitimate article and turned it into an attack page. Pages eligible for speedy deletion under G10 should have their content blanked while awaiting deletion, consistent with the BLP policy.
If the article has potentially salvageable text but needs more sourcing or a different balance, consider stubbing the article instead.Jimbo has done this a few times. [1][2] Where appropriate, revision-deletion or in extreme casesoversight may be used to remove the offending versions of the page while keeping the page itself in an acceptable condition. If an entire article history is deleted, theWP:FDL (Wikipedia's license) doesn't allow us to use the old text again as the basis for an improved, sourced article, unless all previous contributors are credited, usually through the edit summary.
Following a call to action by then-Foundation lawyerUser:BradPatrick, this was formed to provide the ability to remove articles that were nothing but spam. This is one of the most misunderstood speedy deletion criteria we have, so it's important to know how to use it properly.
Essentially, if you believe the article is salvageable, it isnot blatant spam. Period. If it's been through a consensus process already, it's been vetted and isnot blatant spam. Please be careful using this criterion.
Note that if an article looks the type of text you would expect to find in a "about us" section on a company webpage, then chances are that it is just that. Run a Google check on part of the text, and that will usually reveal if it is a plain copy. Typically, companies don't release their content under a workable license, so submissions like this are consideredcopyright violations and are usually deletable under the next criterion in addition to this one.
For promotional user pages created by an account with a promotional username, they qualify under this criteria with the use of{{Db-spamuser}} and immediately report the username toUsernames for administrator attention.
This criterion also coverspromotion of opinions.
Note: This criterion is about the page's content, not its creator. A page should not be tagged for G11 speedy deletion simply because it is anautobiography or the author otherwise has aconflict of interest. Although it is true that autobios and articles created by COI editors are often also blatant advertising, often does not mean always. If the page is written in a reasonablyneutral point of view (it needn't be absolutely perfect), it's not a G11, regardless of who created it.
Forclear copyright infringement – watermarked photos, cut-and-paste copies of websites that do not use a properlicense, pages from a book. This, again, is to protect against lawsuits – copyright litigation can be very pricey. If there's a question as to whether it's infringing (itlooks like a copyright violation, but you can't prove it), bring the issue toWikipedia:Copyright problems (orWikipedia:Possibly unfree images), which is better equipped to handle the issue. Always try to verify that you are not looking at a Wikipedia mirror or page that is copying Wikipedia such as Answers.com. Since articles on Wikipedia are published under the GFDL, other sites can copy Wikipedia word by word so long as they acknowledge the Wikipedia editors who worked on the article as the source.
Any Drafts or Articles for creation submissions that have not been edited for more than six consecutive months (excluding most bot edits) qualify for deletion under this criteria. If anyone requires these pages again after being deleted, they can do so atWikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
This applies to any disambiguation page linking to only one Wikipedia page and whose title ends with a "(disambiguation)" identifier, any disambiguation page that does not link to any Wikipedia page regardless of title or any redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" that does not point to a disambiguation (like) page. For the former case, ensure that the target page is not itself a disambiguation page before tagging.
This criterion is conceptualized as "behavioral"—it is predicated on an inference regarding the user's actions or lack thereof. The presence of certain blatant defects (such as user-directed text or nonsensical references) serves as proof that the creator did not perform an adequate "human review." Had such a review taken place, these obvious errors would almost certainly have been addressed before publication or corrected immediately afterward. The standard for such a review is relatively high: It is possible that a user performed some partial checking (e.g., verifying only some references). However, if the signs listed in this criterion persist, the page remains eligible for deletion. The presence of such defects is taken to mean that any review conducted was so inadequate that the result is so bad that saving the page through incremental editing is not worth editors' time and effort. The signs are described in more detail and with examples inWikipedia:Signs of AI writing.
This criterion intentionally leaves out many cases of LLM misuse as it is believed that these cases do not result in signs that are sufficiently objective and uncontestable. However, as there is significant overlap with G3 (for hoaxes), G11, and U7, many such remaining cases will be covered by other criteria.
Articles are, by far, the most likely to fall under a speedy deletion criterion. Many of these are very controversial, new criteria are rarely approved, and it is expected that these are followed as closely as possible. Because of the wider use, there's also widermisuse, and it's important to know when a criterion actually applies, or it will only cause problems.
The text of the criterion is "Very short articles providing little or no context." Context is not the same as content.
Note the difference – the first examples offer nothing (or too little) for anyone to build off of, it lacks any context to expand upon, while the latter examples, short as they are, clearly and specifically identify their topic, although the articles are hardly filled with information. If you can read the article and understand what it's about, it does not fit this criterion. If you can figure out where to go to get more information, there is context, and this criterion does not apply.
A user should wait 10 minutes after page creation before applying this criterion to the page.
This criterion is only for cases where no reasonable editor can tell what the article is, or is supposed to be, about. If you know what the subject is, but think it needs additional context for those unfamiliar with it, use{{Context}} instead.
A2 applies to foreign-language articles that have been copy-pasted directly from another Wikipedia project in that language. It doesnot apply to any non-English article that is not an exact duplicate of a foreign Wikipedia page; such articles should be checked using a machine translation tool to evaluate their suitability, and if the translated content would meet any of the other speedy deletion criteria (such as if the text is promotional in nature, or we already have an English article about the same topic), the page may be tagged for deletion under said criterion. Otherwise, if the article has salvageable content worth translating, tag it with the template{{notenglish}} to send it toWikipedia:Pages needing translation.
"No content" means "No content." It doesn't mean "some content." It doesn't mean "it's a short article with nothing I consider of worth." It doesn't mean "poor quality stub." It means "no content." Thus, an article with just an external link or a link to another article lacks actual content. An article that says "Pikachu is aPokemon" isnot no content. This is simple, but often misused. Be sure to check the page history: a blank or empty article may have previous versions that aren't empty. If the article is empty because it was blanked by the creator and sole editor, it may be more appropriate to delete the page under G7 (author request), as this better captures the reasoning.
A user should wait 10 minutes after page creation before applying this criterion to the page.
A7 is considered by some to be the most misused criterion; although it is often misused as such, it doesn't simply mean "non-notable." Controversial in implementation, proponents believe that it is essential to the working of the project, opponents point to the misuse and question the actual consensus for the criterion. Regardless, it exists, and isvery specific:
Theonly articles that qualify under this criterion are (real) people, groups, organizations (except educational institutions), animals,organized events, and web content.
Articles about these subjects, for example, donot qualify for A7 :
Though they may be speedily deletable under other criteria.
Despite common misconceptions, A7 does not hinge on how notable the subject actuallyis; instead any article that doesn'tassert notability is eligible, whereas those thatdo make even an unsubstantiated claim (which would meet our various notability guidelines) can't be tagged under this criterion. For example, the music criterion notes that a band who has toured nationally is considered notable, so if an article states that "The Stuffed Bunnies are an electroclash band that toured the United States," it doesn't qualify for A7, even if a quick web search fails to validate these claims of notability. Conversely, "Queen was a small garage band that never got its big break"would theoretically fall under A7, although if a web search establishes the subject as notable when the article doesn't, you can and should simply improve the article instead of resorting to deletion.
It is very important to note the following:
A good rule of thumb: if there is content in an article subject that qualifies for A7 that looks like it may have importance, don't tag it for deletion. Truly unimportant subjects will be deleted through a more valid and consensus-driven process. Always keep in mind how controversial this is – if it's misused too much, people may get fed up and pressure will develop for the criterion to disappear.
Note: The lack of sources alone is not a reason for lack of notability. Check for sources before you tag.
A9 is simple: If there is an article for a musical recording (meaning an album, single, DVD, etc.)and the artist's article either never existed, was already deleted, or is itself eligible for speedy deletion under A7,and the article does not credibly indicate why the recording is significant, it can be deleted via A9.
This criterion only applies ifall of the following is true: the article appears to be a duplicate of an article already on the English Wikipedia, it does not expand upon, improve upon, or add details to the existing article, andmost importantly, the article's title isnot a plausible redirect to the existing article. These aspects of this criterion make it rarely used: most duplicates of articles that already exist are under very similar titles that the duplicate's title can serve as a redirect to the existing article, and many others are actually better than their existing articles, in which case it may be better to redirect or merge theexisting article into the recently created one. If that can't happen, see if it's a plausible redirect, and if so, redirect the duplicate to the original, and if not, onlythen apply this criterion.
This criterion can also be applied to foreign-language articles about topics which are already covered in the English Wikipedia,if the title of the page would not meetthe guidelines for foreign language redirects if it were redirected. For example, if a user were to create a Dutch-language articleKoninklijke Luchtmacht, about theRoyal Netherlands Air and Space Force, the page should be redirected to the existing English article because the topic is related to the Netherlands. On the other hand, if a Dutch-language page about theMasked Laughingthrush were created, under the titleBrillijstergaai, it would be eligible for deletion under A10 as the bird has no connection to any Dutch-speaking country.
Entire copy-pastes of articles created under different titles (with no additional substantial content added) may need to be handled differently: though they may not necessarily meet this criterion, unless adequateattribution is provided in the article content or edit summary, criterionG12 (copyright infringement) will apply, as Wikipedia content is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, which requires attribution, and not supplying such attribution is a violation of our policies aboutreusing Wikipedia content and thus a copyright violation. If appropriate attributionis specified, and the article title is a plausible redirect to the target, redirect it. If these two cases don't apply, then you may apply this criterion.
The former part of this criterion is usually easy to understand once you read the context. "Obviously invented" means exactly what it sounds, as it could refer to anything that sounds like it came out of some random person's head (like, for example,a double-decker couch). The real challenge, however, comes from the significance claim.Just because an article's topic is "unusual" doesn't mean it can't have a credible claim of significance, assome "made up" subjects do in fact become notable over time.
Redirects are often deleted for any number of reasons. There is a process,redirects for deletion, but some often come up in speedy discussions anyway. In any case, do not speedily delete redirects with useful page histories and consider if retargeting the redirect can fix the problem before tagging.
We don't use article space to redirect to talk pages or userpage content. It's more to make sure that readers know the difference between encyclopedia content and meta content. We also delete redirects to drafts after draftifying an article because such articles are not ready for mainspace and should not be accessible from it. Redirects from mainspace to other namespaces like the File:, Timedtext:, Mediawiki:, Module:, MOS: and Event: namespaces are also deleted under this criterion.
Keep in mind – if a redirect exists that seems implausible, maybe it's not as implausible as you thought. Although, redirectingVo Vaughn toMo Vaughn is probably not a good idea, and doesn't benefit anything, so we tend to speedy delete those. Remember to check the creation date of the redirect before tagging, and if the redirect was created by a page move, also check the creation date of the page that was at the redirect's title before the move. For redirects that are not recently created, if the redirect was created by a page move from a title that was obviously unintended, or was unambiguously created by mistake in general, thenG6 applies, which has no time limit. Otherwise they should be taken to RfD.
If a redirect in File space has the same name as a file or redirect on Wikimedia Commons then the local redirect is deleted. This is because the local redirect makes it impossible for the Commons page to be accessed from the English Wikipedia. By deleting the redirect, the Commons page becomes accessible but the local file also stays accessible through its actual name so nothing is lost. Before tagging for R4, check that there are nofile links that point to the local redirect. If there are, then either bypass the redirect by pointing the links directly to the local file or leave them be if they were obviously intended to target the file at Commons and then tag the redirect.
Files are also possibilities for speedy deletion. Copyright, especially, on images is a big deal, and Wikipedia is stricter than most in terms of fair use, so many of the image criteria reflect this.
If we have two of the same image, why not get rid of one? No actual content is lost, so there's no need to discuss it in this case. Make sure that the item you want to keep has all the proper licensing information and that you delete the duplicate and not the original unless it was reuploaded because of a typo.
Some uploads don't work. If they don't, we get rid of them, although there are ways to test it within the framework of what Wikipedia is run off of.
In most cases, Wikipedia'simage use policy only allows the upload of files available under certain fully free licenses; all other files may be used only under aclaim of fair use. If a non-compliant file doesn't meet ourfair-use criteria, it should be tagged for deletion under F3 if it is not ablatant copyright violation, by virtue of being released under a non-commercial license such asCC BY-NC-SA, released by the rights holder with the condition that it only be used on Wikipedia (our IUP requires redistributability), or otherwise licensed under an incompatible reuse-allowed license. Most offending images don't fall into this middle ground, with the majority of files pulled from random corners of the Internet either requiring explicit permission for reuse or having no copyright statement (in which case it is assumed to be All Rights Reserved); such files areblatant copyright infringements and should be tagged for F9 or G12 deletion instead. Before using this criterion, make sure you aren't dealing with a botched upload of a valid fair-use file; if you think it can be used in an article you may insert a correct fair-use rationale and add it to that article yourself.
If a file has no license information at all, it should be tagged for deletion under F4. This criterion uses the delayed image deletion process rather than conventional speedy deletion, which means that deletion only occurs if seven days have passed without the problem being fixed; the uploader may also remove the tag themselves if they solve the issue. Before using this criterion, make an attempt to find the original source of the file, and either add the correct licensing information if it turns out to be freely licensed, or tag it for speedy deletion under the relevant criteria (F3, F9 or G12) if it turns out not to be; F4 is best used for obscure files whose origin cannot be ascertained.
The use of non-free images is permittedunder some circumstances, one of which is that the image must actually be used in an article; orphaned fair-use images not currently used in an article may be deleted. In addition, only the latest revision of a non-free file may be kept. How these images should be dealt with depends on the nature of the problem:
Along the same lines as #5, if you do use a fair use image, make sure you explain where it's from and why you're using it. Also, if you encounter one without a rationale, you can add one as opposed to deleting the image if you feel the image adds something to the article...
...but don't use an improper fair use claim, or it'll still get deleted. You can often fix this, too. This criterion is split into several subcriteria depending on which part of the non-free content criteria a file appears to fail:
This gets complicated because of licensing issues, but the quick answer is that if an image is a duplicate atWikimedia Commons, we'd prefer to keep the image at Commons so any Wikimedia project can use it. Feel free to tag these if youknow that the image is a duplicate, but be careful when deleting them to make sure that all the licensing issues are met.
Similar to criterion G12, this criterion is for images and other media from a source or creator that has not released them under a license compatible with Wikipedia's own, and where no claim of fair use has been made. When tagging images with this criterion, you can provide either a source URL or a written rationale - this latter option can be used in cases where a source website cannot be found, but the image itself indicates that it has an incompatible license, e.g. there is a watermark saying "John Doe Photography, All Rights Reserved". When checking for copyright violations, try to find theoriginal source of the file, as contributors to external websites often misrepresent the copyright status of a file, e.g. by illegally using a non-free image and claiming it under a CC license, or by placing a public-domain file on a page that claims to reserve all rights.
In addition, because Wikipedia's fair use policies strive to protect the revenue earnings of content creators, images that are sold as commercial products, including most watermarked photos from stock photography websites, can in many cases be speedily deleted under F9 even if a claim of fair use is given - commercial images canonly be used on Wikipedia if they themselves are the subject of sourced commentary in an article.
Categories are functions that help the navigation of the site. Most deletion discussion of categories occur atcategories for deletion, but some still qualify for speedy.
If a category has been empty for seven days, it can be speedy deleted. Some investigation may be necessary if the category has existed for a while, because articles come and go from categories rather quickly. If it's being discussed at categories for deletion, however, it does not qualify – the discussion may have resulted in a temporary depopulation of the category. Administrators can be warned through the{{Possibly empty category}} template so that they are more aware that such categories should not be deleted even if it is empty.
Not all empty maintenance categories are unused, as some may be populated by a template. If unsure, check with the author. Dated maintenance categories for past dates, and categories not used after a restructure, fall under this criterion.
Some user pages qualify for speedy deletion. It is recommended that if you're requesting a deletion of a userpage that isn't yours,miscellany for deletion may be a better choice, but some user pages have speedy criteria as well.
Wikipedians are given great leeway in how to use userspace. Thus, you have the authority to delete most of what's in your userspace upon request. However, talk pages with discussion pertinent to the running of the project or other subpages with similar information cannot be speedy deleted.
User:/ is not a real user, and the "/" character cannot be used in usernames due totechnical restrictions. If someone set up a userpage for/, it can be speedily deleted. The way to tell whether a user exists or not is to go to the user's page, and see if there's a "User contributions" link in the toolbox. If there isn't, the user doesn't exist, so any content on the userpage can probably be speedy deleted. However, redirects to an existing userpage do not generally fall under this criterion.
Criterion U6 is used to remove stale user subpages of non-contributor accounts in a similar manner to G13 deletion of abandoned AFC submissions. If a user has madefew or no edits outside of userspace, any of their user subpages that do not qualify for deletion under U7 (see below) and have not been edited in at least six months may be deleted. This does not apply to .js and .css pages, redirects, and main userpages (e.g.User:Example/Sandbox would be eligible for deletion if stale but notUser:Example).
Criterion U7 allows the deletion of user subpages that appear to violate ourWP:NOTWEBHOST policy. Like U6, it only applies to user subpages that are at least six months old and belong to users who have made few or no non-userspace edits, but unlike U6, eligible pages may be tagged six months after thecreation date, regardless of whether they are still actively being edited. If an old userpage is one of the following, and does not remotely resemble a work-in-progress encyclopedia article (even one that would require a significant rewrite in order to be accepted), it should be tagged as U7 instead of U6:
Unlike with U6, creators cannot remove U7 speedy deletion templates themselves, nor can they have the pages restored no-questions-asked viaWP:REFUND; this is done to prevent intentional abuse of Wikipedia as a webhosting platform.
There used to be T1, T2, and T3 criteria for "divisive" templates, templates misrepresenting policy, and duplicates or hardcoded instances of other templates respectively. T1 was removed in February 2009. SeeWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 3 and pages linked there. T2 was removed in July 2020 followingWikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 78#RfC: Removing T2. T3 was removed in December 2020 followingWikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 79#RFC: should WP:T3 be deprecated?.