User talk:Pppery/deletions

Review comments

BD2412's "not a sort name" deletions look like G7s and possibly G6s (created in error), although I've only spot-checked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: These redirects in particular were not created in error, but the nature of the redirect target was changed at some point (the target article was deleted and retargeted, or moved), and the incoming redirects were not addressed at that time, which they should have been. BD2412 T 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23's SPI page deletion look to be relating to merging archives so G6. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Sputnik's deletion of Masheal Al-Hamdan was an error - they undeleted it and redeleted it citing G5. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Do you intend to continue reviewing these? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's going to be a few days before I next have time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Any update on this? It's been almost a month. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will get to this but I've been ill so it wont be today most likely. Thryduulf (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping ahead to today's deletions:

User:I am KAGE/sandbox needs to be evaluated by an admin.
Sounds like a valid G3 "vandalism" to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Ayers and Talk:David Ayers are valid G6 (temporary deletion for history split).
I personally would have redirected Template:Portal-mobile/sandbox and Template:Portal-mobile/testcases rather than deleting them, and don't see any valid criterion. Several other people in various contexts have said that G8 applies (this is the content dispute I mentioned below at #Other ideas for sets of deletions to review)
Draft:Arnab Med looks clearly out-of-process.
Aye, not seeing a speedy deletion criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zubinovelszone and User talk:Catherinecarteres have the edit summary of "spam". There are a ton of these, and it's probably not worth manually evaluating each one to see if it in fact qualifies for G11 (so I'm not going to mention every later one)
Both of these are OK G11s in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JBW's mass deletion appears to be valid under G5.
Draft:New England Commission of Higher Education looks out-of-process; the correct action would be redirecting to the article it duplicates.
Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991-2003)/version 2 is valid under G7, since the bot that creates it includes a template which asks it to be deleted in certain circumstances, and those circumstances apply. The deletion summary is wrong, since the redirect was valid at the time it was created.
Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) is a valid G6.
Smothers (disambiguation) looks invalid to me. The most applicable criterion is G14, but I think Smothers (which I'm assuming it redirected to) counts as a page that performs a disambiguation-like function
If There Was a Place to Hide looks like a valid G6.
Willy Laurie, Raymond Kobzey, David Ayre seem invalid. The bit about proposed deletion in the edit summary is a red herring, thus making the deleiton amount to "redirect to an article without mention" which is (in some cases) a valid reason for a RfD but doesn't seem to be a valid speedy deletion criterion.
User:Peneloparial3 looks like a G11, although the lack of any explanation in the deletion summary is unhelpful.
Draff:Alfred Newell Johnson is a valid as R2 and G6, although the deletion summary is (again) not helpful.
Base-360 is a valid R2.
Category:Shaykh Husayn Ibn Muhsin Al-Yamani -Al-Ansaari is valid as G6 (redirect from moving page obviously created at the wrong title), although again the deletion summary is nonsense.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Packistani and Kapilamalai are valid G6 (temporary deletion for history merge)
User:Tharris100/ Kenneth Nwanze looks like a G5, although the cited reason for deletion is bogus (why not just move the page in that case)
Aye, valid as G5 but only that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HKUBAS Wong Kam Fai Secondary and Primary School is a valid G7.
File:Rhinosizes.png is an admin reverting their own undeletion. That aside, the original F8 by which it was deleted in 2010 is still valid.
Zzuuzz's mass deletion is valid under G5.
User:Atbannett:German Zakharyayev is valid under U2 and G6 (redirect from moving page created at wrong title).
Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of Curiosities and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeverTry4Me are valid under G6.
Draft:Lo Xiangzuo (died 1949 AD) and Draft:Luo Jianxiang (died 2000 AD) are a mass deletion where no obvious criterion applies.
Draft:Matro physics looks clearly out-of-process.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of deletions that look clearly invalid

Template:Home video by year - the closest applicable criterion is G8, which explicitly does not include navboxes containing only deleted pages
Talk:Ken Cage
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Crowborough Caves
Fly line, although I moved Fly Line to this title, retroactively validating the deletion as G6 deletion to make way for move (which may or may not have been the original intent)
Draft:Merlin Figama Worshipper
Draft:Hsu Yin Win and Draft:Murtazo Xurramov - deleted per "no content", but A3 does not apply to drafts
Category:Fa sttoting league - personal userspace categories are routinely deleted at CFD, but I don't see a speedy deletion reason here.
Template:Dukes of Edinburgh family tree and the other two templates immediately following it.

I looked at each entry cursorily (and am a non-admin so can't see the actual deleted text), so this should not be taken as implying anything about the validity of any entries I did not list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC) (edited 04:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Grouped by admin

Drmies (46.7%)

Liz (10%)

Acroterion (7.2%)

Anthony Appleyard (4.1%)

Graham87 (3.4%)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao (2.6%)

Other admins (26.1%)

Admin	Total deletions in table
Drmies	366
Liz	78
Acroterion	56
Anthony Appleyard	32
Graham87	27
Ser Amantio di Nicolao	20
Other admins	204

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we asking User:Drmies and User:Liz why they do not cite CSD criteria? Is it too hard? Would they appreciate a CSD deletion assistance tool? Do they not think that logging is important? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one asked them until you did, and the lack of response to your ping makes it clear that they don't find the question worthy of an answer. Meanwhile, I'm going to post similar stats for February 2022 so far: * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac (53.6%)

Wbm1058 (6.9%)

Acroterion (5.2%)

Anthony Appleyard (5.2%)

Graham87 (5.2%)

Liz (4.4%)

Kinu (4.4%)

Jimfbleak (2.7%)

Drmies (1.3%)

Other admins (11.1%)

Admin	Total deletions in table
Primefac	279
Wbm1058	36
Graham87	27
Anthony Appleyard	27
Acroterion	27
Liz	23
Kinu	23
Jimfbleak	14
Drmies	7
Other admins	58

Both sets are dominated by one specific mass deletion done using Twinkle (by Drimes in one case and by Primefac in the other). Aside from that, most deletions listed here seem to be done by roughly the same small cohort of 3 or 4 admins. Interesting ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that Special:Nuke lets you specify a speedy deletion criterion [although I believe that in practice G5 is the one that most nukes happen under] so mass deletes would not give a CSD criterium.

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_54#Deletion without placing a CSD tag first eight years ago touched on the question of whether it's OK to perform a speedy deletion w/o citing one of the formal criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no dropdown menu like with Special:DeletePage, but there's nothing stopping you from typing "G5" or "creation of banned User:Example" or whatever in the deletion summary field. —Cryptic 15:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a dropdown menu was added for nuke a few weeks ago in phab:T25020. But I'm not sure what the relevance of Nuke here is since I said mass deletion done using Twinkle. Nor do I personally see a problem with unexplained "mass deletion of pages added by Foo" when Foo is blocked as a sockpuppet; the reason for deletion is obvious to anyone after a cursory investigation. They show up here because I deliberately used no human judgement in compiling this report and included all output from the raw database query. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of Nuke is that some of the entries on your list have the deletion summary "Mass deletion of pages added by Foo", which is the Nuke autosummary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for March 2022 so far:

Acroterion (18.2%)

Liz (11.1%)

Widr (7.4%)

Jimfbleak (6.4%)

Graham87 (4.4%)

Materialscientist (3.4%)

Drmies (3.2%)

Zzuuzz (3%)

Explicit (3%)

Wbm1058 (2.7%)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (2.7%)

Other admins (34.5%)

Deleting admin	count
Acroterion	74
Liz	45
Widr	30
Jimfbleak	26
Graham87	18
Materialscientist	14
Drmies	13
Zzuuzz	12
Explicit	12
Wbm1058	11
Jo-Jo Eumerus	11
Other admins	140

As before, it seems to be mostly the same cohort of 3-4 admins. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for April 2022:

Acroterion (17%)

Liz (12.6%)

Zzuuzz (6.7%)

Jimfbleak (6%)

Widr (5.1%)

Ad Orientem (4.2%)

Jay (3.7%)

Deepfriedokra (3.3%)

Graham87 (3%)

Other admins (38.4%)

Deleting admin	count
Acroterion	73
Liz	54
Zzuuzz	29
Jimfbleak	26
Widr	22
Ad Orientem	18
Jay	16
Deepfriedokra	14
Graham87	13
Other admins	165

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other ideas for sets of deletions to review

G6 deletions that don't fail into any of the segregating criteria I listed at Special:Diff/1066071534 (927 deletions)
Deletions using a process that only applies to pages in a different namespace than the deleted page (97 U1s in user talk space, 109 U5s in user talk space, 96 others)
R3 and A10 deletions to pages that are more than X time old (arbitrarily setting X as 2 months produces 9 deletions)

All numbers refer only to deletions in 2022. If someone else thinks one of these lists would be useful, I would be happy to post it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally (inspired by a content dispute I got into about the scope of G8): G8 deletions where it's not clear what nonexistent page the deleted page depends on (896). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U5 deletions where the user in question has made more than X non-deleted edits outside user/user talk space (setting X=10 produces 67 deletions in March 2022). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to U5 - very short main user pages. I often see U5 deletion requests where the user wrote a short description of himself (allowed by WP:UPYES) and little else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "very short" as less than 500 bytes of Wikitext produces 624 deletions in March 2022. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted both U5-related lists to User:Pppery/deletions/U5 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]