Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85→Archive 89

CSD G3 vs. G10, and blanking of pages by G10

Obvious G3 deletions include insertion of bad words that are typically caught by edit filters that deal with general vandalism in mainspace, or consisting of purely false/joke information. Obvious G10 deletions are similar, except that they typically attack a person by insulting them (like saying they're dumb), or an attempt to slander them by posting (usually false) unsourced information. Most of these obvious G10-deleteable pages are made for vandalistic purposes, and so they can technically also be a valid G3 deletion too. It is even considered to be vandalism to create attack pages.

This also brings me to another point. BLP violations, vandalism, spam, all of these can be quickly removed by any editor if it appeared in an article. However, if any of these appeared as a standalone page, it is not possible to revert the page to remove such disruptive additions, so we speedily delete these pages instead. Of all the general speedy deletion criteria, only G10 is used to blank a page's contents, in accordance with Wikipedia:Attack page. However, I don't see a point in having to blank such pages, when all of its contents won't be indexed if tagged for speedy deletion. Once the page is tagged for deletion, any legal harm that the page could cause is immediately gone. If someone, either an editor or just a reader, somehow manages to come across an article that was tagged for deletion under G10 or some other criterion, common sense would indicate that the page is illegitimate.

These are some things that I've thought of in regards to the purpose of G10: Combining G3 and G10 for the reasons I specified above would be something I won't mind too much. Most G10-deleteable pages are made in bad faith, with an intent to vandalize Wikipedia. I would not mind blanking general pure vandalism pages either. Courtesy blanking attack pages seems redundant as tagging such pages already prevents it from being seen by search engines, the one place we do not want them appearing in, so not blanking such pages at all would not change much. Alternatively, make certain criteria cause a page to be blanked, which in addition to G3 and G10, it would also be useful for G1 (unsalvageable junk), G5 (WP:DENY), G7 (often used for pages blanked by the author), U5 and G11 (prevent spammers from getting recognition), and G12 (for legal reasons, though it might make it harder to check for copyvios).

I would like to know what other people think about G10's purpose. EDM fan 2 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference is urgency. If mere vandalism sits around for a day or so, no big deal, but attack pages are much more urgent and many admins check those first. We need to have the distinction. And the noindexing doesn't help that much. Many search engines do not honor noindex requests, so the only way to really eliminate this is thru deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Does G6 apply to redirects created via page move in the file namespace?

Hey folks, I've been seeing several admins delete numerous pages such as File:Sangamamalbumcover.jpg, File:Yaar 1985.jpg, and File:America Ammayi.jpg, citing criteria such as G6/G7/R3. To my knowledge, redirects created as a result of a page move cannot be deleted in this fashion. I'd also like to call attention to WP:PMRC#10, which was codified by @Wugapodes with this as the rationale. This addition seems incompatible with the language of G6/G7/R3 as currently written. To be clear, I'm indifferent to the outcome, but there is a consistency issue here, and we need to decide whether this is acceptable and/or update the text of the relevant CSD criteria accordingly. -FASTILY 03:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  • No, see WP:FILEREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) G7 clearly doesn't apply unless the mover is the same as the person who uploaded the file (or the uploader requested the file be moved without a redirect). R3 clearly doesn't apply unless the file was moved soon after being uploaded. I really don't see a reason G6 would apply here. And there's no contradiction in the policy as worded; people are allowed to move files without leaving a redirect, but not delete any redirects if they were originally left behind -- this is probably not the intent, but it isn't contradictory. More fundamentally, these are generally kept at RfD, so clearly shouldn't be speedy deleted.
    There was never any actual discussion on the policy of not having redirects; it seems to date to one person's suggestion at VPT in 2010, which was implemented with no further comment, and then copied-and-pasted various places until we got here. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, the reason for PMRC10 mentioning G6 is that when a file mover suppresses a redirect, the software logs it as a deletion under the G6 criterion.I did not recall correctly I think I agree with Pppery that it's useful to distinguish suppressing redirects and deleting redirects. Going around and deleting file redirects citing G6 is a bad idea because there may be external links or old revisions for which it would still be useful (imo the rationale behind WP:FILEREDIRECT). For files covered by PMRC10, they are generally not widely used and the redirect isn't really worth the added maintenance burden (imo the rationale behind the move interface text). They are treated differently because they are different: not leaving a redirect behind is a different thing from typical page deletion even if the software treats them similarly. Now, the files you bring up as examples are interesting. They all seem to be redirects left behind by a single editor who then requested that they be deleted. To me this seems like the editor forgot to suppress the redirect and asked admins to clean up after them. I think G6 covers that. If these were tags left well after the page move or by someone other than the page mover, I think it would be different. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You don't recall correctly. The only time the software automatically logs a deletion is when a page is moved over an existing page.
    Everything both you and Pppery bring up apply exactly as much to a redirect created by a page move and then requested to be deleted as to a redirect suppressed as part of the page move. These suppressions contradict long-standing policy, "all uses have been pointed to the new name" isn't enough to get a redirect deleted at WP:RFD let alone by speedy deletion, and G6 is not "whatever I want to delete that WP:CSD otherwise forbids". —Cryptic 07:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Cryptic is correct. Page movers should only be suppressing redirects if the redirect would be subject to speedy deletion, and G6 does not apply in most of the situations it is seemingly being applied in. This is one of the reasons I think we should just abolish G6 and replace it with separate criteria that would be much harder to abuse in this manner, but that view has never yet had consensus (I live in hope). Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
      • One of the reasons I started patrolling G6 in the first place was because I noticed pages were being deleted improperly and wanted to get ahead of the "d-batch the entire category" group of admins to decline those that had been improperly nominated. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    Well, the text on the move interface for files specifically recommends file movers suppress redirects in exactly that situation so "contradict long-standing policy" is a little strong. I don't really care what gets decided, but if the consensus is that redirects should not be suppressed, then MediaWiki:Movepagetext needs changed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the consensus is going towards the "not appropriate" path, I will admit that the fault appears to be mine, as I read the PMRC#10 much in the same was as Wug wrote/intended it, and if that is indeed the case I am perfectly willing to reverse the deletions I made under that criteria. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    I am neutral here, and the creator/current admin behind LuckyRename may be notified. Since there is an option on the gadget NOT to leave redirects, I just go with it. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Looking at your deleted contributions (admins only), I can see that you've tagged hundreds of such redirects for deletion. Perhaps you should stop tagging more for the time being. Courtesy pings for @Liz & @Explicit -FASTILY 21:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hey @Kailash29792, you were asked to stop nominating redirects from files moves for speedy deletion, but you haven't heeded that request. In fact, when I declined two of your requests, you uploaded duplicate files at the titles so that they'd qualify under a different speedy deletion criterion. That's not a good look. What's going on? - Eureka Lott 00:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    @EurekaLott: Wait ... they're STILL doing that??? Before they were using RFD, but now I guess they're trying to circumnavigate the system by doing speedies. They've been doing this for like 3-4 years now... thought they would stop at some point ... almost a WP:ICANTHEARYOU issue at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Uploading files just so they would be speedily deleted is gaming the system and disruptively editing so worthy of block on its own. Continuing behaviour after being told to stop that behaviour is even worse. If this does not stop right now you will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    @User:Thryduulf: Looks like @Kailash29792 is still nominating such pages for deletion. -FASTILY 05:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, old habit. I thought "By the People" was too ambiguous, hence it had to be deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    The major thing here is that it's not even a valid WP:G7; you aren't the creator of the file. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I posted this statement on Kailash29792's talk page a while back, but even with that and their subsequent response, they are apparently still performing such problematic file redirect tagging that started all of this in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    Once again I apologise since the page showed me as creator. I'm gonna stop tagging files for deletion hereafter. Instead, RfD as I'm doing with File:Kathputli (1971 film).jpg. But this was a hiccup, something I want to avoid again. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    To be fair it would seem there are around 3 vocal editors that think it is "not appropriate" while the rest were "don't care" or neutral. I'm not a file mover but I personally think this is fine. I know some people love them redirects more than anything in the world, but I don't see any issue with the current status quo. So just to throw some wrench in this discussion, I oppose any changes, things are fine as is. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    If file movers are doing this outside policy, then they should be warned and lose the permission of the activity continues. There is a reason that redirects should exist for old files that are moved. 1. it is for attribution expecially for uses off Wikipedia, and 2 makes uses of the old file, such as in old revisions work properly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I have moved quite a few files and have suppressed redirects most of the time noting a rationale of WP:PMRC#10. I thought I would give my perspective on the action rather than if it falls under G6 or not. For me, most files stored on Wikipedia instead of commons are licence restricted and can't be used on multiple pages, this means that there is only going to be the file link that is in the specified article and possibly 1 or 2 talk page mentions. Therefore the redirect will serve no purpose as it is unlikley to be found through search, there should be no usecase that I can think of where the redirect would be used over the new filename and if someone did come across the deleted page then they could just use the deletion log link to find the new page. I am unsure if you can upload a file over a redirect (But I assume you can't), this is significant in some cases of WP:FNC#5 where an uploader has made a mistake but still needs to upload to that filename. (Example: file 1 & File 2). Terasail[✉️] 16:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-English in Draft-space

Do any of the speedy deletion criteria apply to foreign-language drafts? e.g. Draft:श्री भास्कर राव रोकड़े and Draft:Shri Bhaskar Rao Rokde. ValarianB (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No (other than G13 when they inevitably go stale). Not even foreign-language articles meet any speedy deletion criterion unless they're direct copies from other wikis (in which case A2 applies) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Why would a non-English draft be an issue? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
No speedy deletion criteria even apply to foreign-language articles in article space (though see WP:PNT for the applicable provisions for deletion). Draft space is a perfectly good place for such articles to sit while they're translated into English, just as it's a good place to put them for any other improvements that will justify having them in article space.. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
If you're translating an article from some other language into English you might well start by creating a draft with the foreign language version. Why would we want to stop people doing this? Hut 8.5 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

G5 doesn't apply to categories?

I've been getting some rejections for some WP:G5 tags I've placed on categories with the claim that G5 doesn't apply to categories at all. With the way that the G5 section is written, it states that "...categories that may be useful or suitable for merging" are not eligible for G5, but it doesn't state that categories are not fully immune from being deleted per G5. Can someone explain this please? Steel1943 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 7 May 2022‎ (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_51#G5_and_in-use_categories and implemented in 2014. I understand that we don't want to delete a category if it has pages in it, but I don't get what "suitable for merging" is supposed to mean in this context. There are some banned editors whose disruption mostly comes from categorisation that looks reasonable to the untrained eye, and their edits should be reverted and their categories deleted. I would support changing the wording so categories need to be empty or not in use by anyone but the banned editor to be deleted. —Kusma (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
If the category has to be empty then it already meets {{db-c1}} and doesn't need to be deleted under G5. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
That's not ideal due to the seven day wait. I'd also prefer to be explicit with the deletion comment that it's deleted due to being created by a sockpuppet so that other editors aren't discouraged from creating it themselves, just in case someone in good standing finds it useful after all. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
If a banned editor was the only one who added the categories to pages, that could all be reverted, and then the category deleted (so the wording about being only in-use by the banned editor is redundant). Agree that the "suitable for merging" makes the criterion unclear. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreeing with the above, how about something like: "G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or poplulated entirely by the sockpuppet; these edits should be reverted before deletion." -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't belong in G5. Transcluded templates and populated categories shouldn't be deleted at all, whether speedily or not - there's often reason to leave links to deleted pages in place, but essentially never for templates or categories. (Though there's nothing wrong with deleting first and then immediately orphaning/depopulating; I don't mean to imply otherwise.) If a banned user was templating or categorizing pages, that can already be reverted independently of whether they also created the template or category page. —Cryptic 15:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically, speedy deletion should not be done when it would cause disruption (like deletion of a widely used template), and this caveat applies to all speedy deletions, not just G5. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
It sounds like we may be on the same page due to your last sentence, but perhaps I'm unclear on your conclusion about whether it should be G5. I agree with you that transcluded templates and populated categories should not be deleted when they are still populated/transcluded. However, it is currently unclear what should happen with sock templates and categories that have been been emptied due to the WP:BANREVERT process. My proposed change clarifies the process. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed like transcluded templates G5 can't apply to categories populated by others unless those others agree G5 applies otherwise use CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Policy question on speedy deletion and the role of administrators

I've usually come to this policy talk page to talk about specific criteria I have questions about but this time I have a very general question.

If a page is eligible for speedy deletion and fits a criteria MUST it be deleted? That is, is it in an administrator's realm of decision-making ability to deny a CSD request that is valid and instead ask that an article be PROD'd or sent to AFD or, in the case I'm working with, simply let exist on the project? Even though a criteria fits, is deletion inevitable?

I've read this policy page on whether a speedy deletion is ever "optional" and the only advice I can find is Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases that seems to imply that administrators have some leeway in whether an article is deleted through speedy deleiton. I have a specific criteria that I thinking about here but I'd rather hear your ideas on the policy and the role of administrators before bringing specific examples up that folks might focus upon. Thanks for any insight you have on this question. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that many administrators interpret "at their discretion" in the lead to mean that they are not compelled to delete a page (also factoring in our volunteer nature). Candidates at RfA frequently get questions on pages that are technically eligible for A3 and A7, but where a perfectly-acceptable article may exist for its subject. While an administrator may choose to delete such a page, they may also choose to expand it to save it from deletion. ATD of course also comes into it, like this declination I did. I see some articles that get tagged overly quickly, where I take a wait-and-see approach and do not delete them. This A7 may have been technically correct, but I wouldn't have deleted it. This has proven controversial in the past, but G5 is possibly the one that fits the most with administrators declining substantially correct tags. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This is about choosing to decline a speedy, not choosing not to action it. Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, no one (admin or anyone else) is ever required to take a specific action. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In theory (quoting from the NEWCSD header), [i]t must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus, so yes barring WP:IAR. In practice, we, for example, have two redirects that technically meet R2: MOS:FAQ + T:TDYKA, plus a few others that would qualify except for the rule that you can't speedy pages than have been previously survived a deletion discussion. And that's one of the most objective criteria there is.
I don't think declining speedies of eligible pages is likely to accomplish much; whoever tags the page will go on to start a deletion discussion and (assuming the quoted clause is right) it will be deleted.
You, specifically, have done exactly this (denying a valid CSD and directing the tagger to start a discussion) before with Category:Wikipedian WikiOtters. And that's just the one example I remember off the top of my head. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
These are all great comments, I appreciate the discussion. I also came across Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Declining a speedy deletion...I should have read this before posting this query (it's been awhile since I read this page) but my question still remains for discussion. Thanks for indulging me. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Shortcuts (like the MOS: redirects) are explicitly not eligible for R2 deletion. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Good point. My general point that we have plenty of pages that could in theory be speedy deleted but aren't is still valid, even if my example wasn't. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Coming back to the question at hand, I think the answer lies in the reason CSD exists. It's supposed to lessen the load on other deletion processes for cases in which those processes would almost certainly end with the deletion of the page. Consequently, if the admin reviewing a speedy deletion request thinks that a specific page might survive PROD/XFD, they should decline the request and direct the user to those processes instead. Speedy deletion, like all deletion processes, presupposes that the deletion would be beneficial to the project compared to keeping the page (arg. ex. WP:PRESERVE). If you do not think this is the case, you don't have to delete it and you are allowed to decline it. I have declined dozens of speedy requests (see this almost complete list) by telling people to use XFD instead and quite a few of those still exist today (e.g. Tyler Yarema, Zak Kustok). I even fixed up a number of those (especially A7 noms) to the point that they were featured on the main page (e.g. Unavowed). Point is, erring on the side of caution seems to me the prudent thing to do whenever you are unsure and speedy deletion policy does allow this. Regards SoWhy 18:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed...

If a page has been tagged for speedy deletion (let's say under G11), and an administrator declines it and explains why they don't feel it meets the criteria, and the same page gets tagged under the same criteria by a different tagger, and a different administrator declines it and explains again why they don't feel it meets the criteria, and it then gets tagged under the same criteria again by a third tagger, and this time it gets deleted (no substantive changes to the text of the page in all of this) - is it just me, or has something gone wrong somewhere in this process? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  • No, that's certainly not how it's supposed to work. Speedy deletion is only for indisputable cases, and if two sysops have disputed it, it clearly wasn't indisputable. WP:CSD, which is policy, is pretty clear that "[i]f an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used", and it also notes that "[a]dministrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". I of course don't know the specific details of the situation you're referring to, but if you don't think G11 is met, I'd encourage you to talk to the deleting admin and, if you don't get a satisfactory answer, take it to WP:DRV, which in my experience tends to interpret the criteria very reasonably. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    DRV is not, in practice, particularly welcoming to complaints that G11 was used when it should have been deleted via another process, PROD or XfD. In theory, it should review, but in practice many DRV reviewers focus on the outcome and tolerate some level of process flexibility, as long as the outcome is objectively correct. In cases of wrong process getting to the right outcome, I will raise the issue directly with the admin, usually via a ping, but not seek to make a case of it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The second tagger, citing the same criteria, requires a WP:SLAP. They should have checked the history. Once declined, that tagging is known to be objectionable and it should not be tried again. If there is new information, such as discovered proof for G12, then cite the new proof, and that’s good. A third tagging on the same criteria? Being them all here for a discussion, because something is systematically wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
There is subjectivity in G11 calls. However, taggers and admins are supposed to check the history, and speedy deleting following a recent speedy deletion tag decline is objectively a failure to check the history for both the tagger and the admin who deletes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

New essay: G5 is not a firm rule

Hi all. I have written a new user essay that expresses my view on how WP:G5 should be interpreted: see User:Mz7/G5 is not a firm rule. I am a relatively active WP:SPI administrator, so I find myself using G5 a lot when I respond to nonconstructive content created by sockpuppets of blocked users. I've been noticing that there have been a decent number of discussions lately that express concern over the use of G5: specifically, when administrators appear to indiscriminately delete helpful new pages without regard for their quality just because they were created by a blocked user. I hope that this essay is helpful in addressing those concerns, and I would invite your thoughts. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that there is a philosophical divide on G5 deletion of helpful pages. Ignoring seemingly "helpful" pages which are in reality hoaxes/copyvio/fake sources, there is a school which considers the deterrent effect more important than the quality of the deleted article and another with the opposite weighting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the divide really is different opinions on what being banned (i.e. not allowed to edit) should mean in practice. When a banned editor creates a sock and edits, should we (a) block the sock and treat the edits exactly like those of a non-banned editor (keep the good stuff, delete the bad stuff) or should we (b) block and enforce the "not allowed to edit" by indiscriminately revert/delete everything. There are editors in camp (a) who think that bans should only be a shortcut for faster blocking of socks. I find that utterly pointless: if we want an editor's contributions, we should just unban them instead of encouraging them to change username all the time. So I'm in camp (b): banned editors are not allowed to make edits, including good edits, so we should reject all of their edits regardless of quality and without triage. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
There's also an important consideration of volunteer time. Perhaps ideally constructive edits should be kept, but requiring editors to assess whether something is constructive or not means that the banned editor is taking up even more community time then they already are, time that could be better spent elsewhere. The worst case are edits that appear constructive, but really aren't. Handling these without spending perhaps hours is one of the tasks which G5 really helps with. SPI is almost perennially backlogged as it is. I'd be interested in some examples of reckless G5 application that this essay is meant to address, in my experience there is a tendency towards caution rather than towards deletion. CMD (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The above comments are fine but the real reason to support deleting contributions from a banned user is WP:DENY. If socks make good contributions without exposing themselves, no one will know or care. It's because they do expose themselves that we know they are trolling and won't stop unless bored by DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
What that view misses is that we are here to build an encyclopaedia. If an edit improves the encyclopaedia then deleting it harms the project and disadvantages our readers for no benefit. There is this view that a contribution from a banned or blocked user is always bad and taints the project even if the exact same edit made by a user in good standing would be an unarguable improvement, yet nobody has ever been able to offer any explanation of how or why this could be the case, let alone demonstrated that it actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis already supplied exactly such an explanation. It harms the encyclopedia in that it allows the persistent user who was blocked because of what was judged to be the net harm their efforsts were producing to continue to participate as though there were no block except for the inconvenience to them of constantly creating new accounts to circumvent sockpuppet blocks. And I can tell you that there are numerous users who have had no problem creating account after account after account after account after account. These are users whose every edit, if we don't conduct blanket reversions of all of them, would call for individual scrutiny because we already know their record. This is a drain on the time of people who could be focused, instead, on edits by users who haven't been blocked. This is of negative value to the encyclopedia.
For example, we have user Honduras200010 whose sockpuppet record is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010. A block was finally put on the /23 IP range that this user had been contributing from anonymously—this range is virtually exclusive to this person—after I'd spent two and a half months reverting all their characteristic edits to climate information and addition or replacement of images in articles. The user's block was occasioned by bad edits of these types. I am not going to spend all my time judging every new edit by this person to see whether, by any chance, it happens to be correct information rather than misinformation, or whether a new image placed by them is appropriate or better than the previous image. The person's record speaks for itself. I revert all. Were any of this user's block-evading contributions useful? Maybe. But the encyclopedia is no worse off than it would be if that user hadn't been breaking the rules, and it's better off for my time and that of others being devoted more productively to examining edits by non-blocked users.
And it, net, improves the encyclopedia by discouraging these people's continued attempts. It isn't 100%, as witness the case of Honduras200010, but, for example, the user whose case history is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PHAM VIET DUNG finally gave up, as have others. Activity by the user whose case history is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewpalazzolo hasn't disappear completely but it's slowed down considerably, and I'm supposing that all the reversions were sufficiently frustrating to bring that about.
On rare occasions I've looked at a particular sockpuppet edit and noticed that it was obviously an improvement—a grammar or spelling correction, typically. Those, I've left. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Your last two sentences contradict the entire rest of what you wrote - you can't have it both ways "if the edits are a clear improvement I don't revert them" and "I'm going to revert every edit whether its an improvement or not". Wikipedia is not a battleground where you have to fight people until they give up, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If an edit improves the encyclopaedia it doesn't matter who made it, if an edit doesn't improve the encyclopaedia it doesn't matter who made it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I can see why you might have thought it's a contradiction, so let me clarify. To identify an editor as a block evader, I have to have examined some of their edits to be able to conclude that it's the same person as the blocked user. In that case, I'm not reverting bona-fide corrections. Once I know the user is a sockpuppet, and generally after I've reported the account or IP address as such, then I no longer examine their individual edits, I treat them outright as a person whose edits shouldn't have been made, and revert them. Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - you start off by recognising that they can make edits that improve the encyclopaedia, and let them stand because doing so benefits the project. But then you stop doing that because something entirely irrelevant to their edits means that you no longer care about whether edits are good or bad? Determining whether someone is or is not a sockpuppet is somehow more important to you than improving the encyclopaedia? Can you really not see why this is fundamentally incompatible with building an encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The whole point of having blocked them is that their edits on the whole have been judged to be a net detriment. Therefore, I am not going to keep readjudicating, every single time that person returns under a new guise, whether that person's participation is still a net detriment. Otherwise, why do we block anybody? Are you opposed to blocking? If you support blocking, do you believe that allowing blocked people, whose participation has already been judged to be a net detriment to the encyclopedia, to continue editing is a net benefit to the encyclopedia? You're speaking in fallacies. Largoplazo (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Reverting 9 bad edits and somehow catching 1 okay one in the process is already a net benefit to the encyclopaedia, and that doesn't include the time you have freed up to go make new benefits elsewhere that isn't being spent going through 10 edits to find the one okay one. CMD (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. If a sock account makes, say, 50 edits and it takes you looking through the first ten edits to determine they're a sock you're not obligated to go back through those ten edits to revert the typo fixes the banned sock account did. Neither are you obligated to sift through edits 11 through 50 to determine which are "helpful" and which are whargarble. You can just go and revert them all once the culprit's sockitude has been established. If someone else wants to wring their hands and bemoan the loss of a couple of innocuous edits made only to disguise the sock as a legitimate account then they're welcome to take responsibility for them. But they can't impose that responsibility on anyone else. Reyk YO! 02:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/pure junk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A9 vs other creative works

I just happened upon Jacques Cameron filmography. If this was a discography, I could've just CSD'd it under WP:A9, but instead I had to draft-ify because I don't want to waste contributor time with an AFD for an article that obviously should be deleted (it's a list of one unreleased movie by a director with a redlink).

What's the logic behind A9 being exclusive to musical recordings? WP:NOTCSD says its scope being expanded has been proposed many times, but the reasoning is unclear. Surely any filmography or bibliography where neither the author nor any of the list entries have any credible claim of significance could be pretty easily assessed? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  • If A9 was expanded like that then it would apply to a lot more than just filmographies and bibliographies. It would also apply to films where we don't have an article on any of the cast or crew, and books where we don't have an article on the author. I suspect it's a lot easier for a film to be notable even if none of the actors in it is notable than for a song to be notable if the singer isn't notable. Hut 8.5 07:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Hut 8.5: A9 applies to both musical recordings and list[s] of musical recordings. I understand why movies should not apply to A9, but I don't see why a list of movies or books shouldn't if none of the entries have articles and the list itself does not make any credible claim of significance. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In the specific example, why did you not merge the filmography into Draft:Jacques Cameron? Also, moving a page to draft space with the specific intention of it being deleted without an AfD is not a valid use of draftspace. If you think a page should be deleted but it does not meet any CSD criteria then you should either leave it or take it to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: I draftified it because I think it isn't ready for mainspace; not with the intention of it being deleted (I doubt it's going to get deleted even in draftspace). A potential merge like you described would still require the page be draftified to avoid a cross-namespace redirect, so I don't really get your question? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure why PROD couldn't handle that? As for the question at hand: Exactly how often are such filmographies for non-notable artists really created. Because this does not appear to happen all that often and if that is the case, any A9 expansion would violate the "frequent" rule at the top of this page. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed footnote for clarifiying A10 and R3

I propose adding a footnote for CSD A10 and R3, based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_166#Define_"recently"_for_CSD_R3:

The definition of recent is intentionally flexible since some pages may receive more notice than others, but a good rule of thumb is that pages created in the past 30 days are likely to qualify as recently created.

Is the proposed wording sound? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

plus Added a footnote in Special:Diff/1094064144 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Specific examples

All A10 and R3 deletions of pages more than 2 months old in 2022, from quarry:query/61997. Include a few false positives, so each entry should be looked at manually.

Page Deleting admin Edit summary Timestamp
Stateship Kaihsu R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220113153912
Typhoon Maliksi (disambugation) Wbm1058 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220120142112
List of number-one singles of 198 (UK) Mahagaja R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220126210220
High-Level Shading Language/old Wbm1058 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220129155506
Talk:High-Level Shading Language (version 2)/old Wbm1058 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220129155823
Isso, Itlay Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220203042327
Favorite (Vampire Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220203224815
Jim Fleming (rugby union, Spinningspark R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220206114746
ENERGY NUSA DERENDA Anthony Bradbury R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: G6: The name of this song is "Energy" and this page was created via an improper disambiguation technique in 2007. Trivial page history as it was quickly moved to a proper title. 20220209221841
House of Jagat Seth (Mueseum) Wbm1058 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220214230821
File:TAS road A10.svg Liz Expired PROD, concern was: Unused. Superseded by File:AUS Alphanumeric Route A10.svg (used by Template:AUshield) 20220215215607
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220220054306
Wikipedia:Lauren Cohen Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220221011753
Donald Tramp PhilKnight Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria R3, G10 20220222161335
TimedText talk:Tertiary Sources Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220301065258
Encanto (dab) Wbm1058 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: unnecessary disambiguation redirect; only Encanto (disambiguation) is necessary 20220301155803
User:Mukt/sandbox Nthep WP:A10 Thanjavur student suicide case 20220306173215
Al-Baqi Cemetry Primefac R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: typo in title 20220316114659
Draft talk:ER305 Liz G8: Talk page of deleted page "Draft:ER305" 20220318173707
File:BBenHDR3.jpg Explicit This file is now on Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BBenHDR3.jpg (moved with FileImporter). 20220324120309
Draft:VE Commercial Vehicles Bbb23 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220325132542
Coppa (disambiguation Wbm1058 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220330230900
Cherokee grammar.html Maile66 R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220403194719
File:R32 Subway on New York E Line.jpg Explicit This file is now on Wikimedia Commons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:R32_Subway_on_New_York_E_Line.jpg (moved with FileImporter). 20220411033959
Dhansika Deb R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220417120732
Catrgory:Indian COVID-19 vaccines DaGizza R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: created in error 20220419122354
Oneitis Anthony Bradbury R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424215708
Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Nucleic Acids Relat Subj Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Enzymol. Subj. Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
IUCN/SSC Primate Specist Group Newsl Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
J. Health Spec.ties Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
J. Indian Acad. Dent. Spec.ist Res. Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
J Indian Acad Dent Specist Res Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Indian J Med Specities Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
J Health Specties Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
IUCN/SSC Primate Spec.ist Group Newsl. Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Indian J. Med. Spec.ities Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Nucleic Acids Relat. Subj. Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Lipids Relat Subj Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Lipids Relat. Subj. Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Biochim Biophys Acta Specized Sect Enzymol Subj Liz R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220424233948
Air Elements Rosguill This qualifies for WP:G7 and WP:R3 20220430190434
Rfdutcher1/sandbox CambridgeBayWeather A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Laurie Toby Edison 20220512043653
Sferical category Athaenara R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220512073441
Servia Strong Ponyo Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria R3, G7. Rationale: Typo when moving page 20220525195826
Glavni grad Hrvatske Joy R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Croatian phrase for "Capital city of Croatia" which just won't appear in English articles 20220530183346
Hrvatska metropola Joy R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Croatian phrase for "Croatian metropolis" which just won't appear in English articles 20220530183610
Mali Beč Joy R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Croatian phrase for "Little Vienna" which just won't appear in English articles 20220530183812
At Carthage's Church, Lismore GB fan R3: Recently created, implausible redirect 20220602181833


* Pppery * it has begun... 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Typhoon Maliksi (disambiguation)Looking at a sample of those:
  • The three Croatian phrases deleted by Joy redirected to Zagreb (the capital city of Croatia) should have been discussed rather than speedily deleted - a quick glance at google results shows that it's plausible they are plausible search terms. Whether they were recently created is irrelevant.
  • I can't quite figure out what is happened regarding Sferical category but it looks like it could have been speedily deleted under either G3 (vandalism) or G6 (obviously created in error) neither of which have a time stamp. Time limit for R3 was irrelevant.
  • Servia Strong - G7 applied (as did G6), so R3 time limit is irrelevant
  • Biochim. Biophys. Acta Spec.ized Sect. Lipids Relat. Subj. and similar G6 and G7 applied and there was also consensus for deletion at RfD, R3 is irrelevant
  • File redirects should not, per WP:FILEREDIRECT, be routeinely deleted and I'm not sure at a glance how those redirects were implausible? File:TAS road A10.svg was actually deleted as an expired PROD, so doesn't seem to belong in this list?
  • The edit creating Typhoon Maliksi (disambuguation) was a move reverted by the same editor 2 minutes later, and that editor has had multiple warnings about disruptive page moves. If it was neither a mistake (G6) or vandalism (G7) then it should go to RfD for discussion.
  • Donald Tramp, deletion explicitly cited G10 so R3 and its time limit is irrelevant.
  • user:Mahagaja needs a WP:TROUT (if not a whale) for List of number-one singles of 198 (UK) - 12 years cannot be considered recent under any reasonable circumstances whatsoever. The only reason nothing stronger than an aquatic creature is needed is that the page was speedily deletable under criterion G6 given the very obvious typo in the title was corrected by a further move less than a minute later.
So in summary, all of the ones I looked at either should not have been speedily deleted or were (or should have been) deleted under a criterion without a time limit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The reason the file appeared there is that the string "A10" is in the deletion reason, which was sufficient to include it in my query. Likewise for File:BBenHDR3.jpg and File:R32 Subway on New York E Line.jpg (where "R3" got included in the name of the new file on Commons) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Responding to ping - sorry, but no. Just because something is an existant phrase in a foreign language that does absolutely not mean that the English encyclopedia should have redirects for it; the onus for making one should be on the person creating them, not on the people who find them littering the landscape afterwards. I actually found that the same person created a whole slew of these kinds of redirects there, and I only cleaned up a fraction of them. If we were to entertain this argument in a way that prevents even this modest kind of a cleanup, that would be a slippery slope into bureaucratic madness. The reason I chose that deletion reason was that it seemed the most relevant, but even if it wasn't there, I would have found another one from the list of available ones. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:RFOREIGN is clear that some redirects from foreign languages are good and useful when there is a clear connection between the language and the target - Croatian terms for Croatian places clearly have that connection. I don't know whether these were useful terms, I haven't looked in enough detail, but what I saw is enough to say that they might be useful and so should not be speedily deleted. If you don't think they should be present then nominate them at RfD - that's what it's there for. Speedy deletion is absolutely not for getting rid of things you dislike, deleting anything that is not clearly by both the letter and spirit of one or more criteria is an abuse of administrative actions. Deleting potentially plausible redirects like that is not "cleanup" it's harming the project. Shoehorning pages into speedy deletion criteria that they are not unquestionably and uncontroversially covered by is abuse of your admin privs and if you are doing that then you must stop immediately or face being desysopped. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this discussion is giving me whiplash. You're referencing an essay that literally contradicts your argument. It says common terms aren't supposed to be used for redirect, and that there should be well-grounded rationales for redirects. "Glavni grad Hrvatske" means "Capital city of Croatia" in Croatian. The editor who made the redirect left no rationale whatsoever (WP:ES comes to mind as well). Why are you arguing for this without using any kind of a basic sanity check on your argument first? This would be a search term for maybe a 6 year old Croatian reader, because this is kindergarten/early elementary school common knowledge for Croatian speakers. So we're supposed to be catering to a reader who can somehow both formulate such a concept, find the English Wikipedia search box and be able to both spell and to type well enough to initiate this search query, only to find themselves at an English-language non-simple encyclopedia article about this topic that they could then derive some value from. Somehow. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more preposterous situation being argued for. The fact that I'm responding to this kind of a zero-knowledge argument, and being threatened by sanctions on top of it - is beyond preposterous. Please stop wasting everyone's time on this, it's just silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what on earth is "preposterous" about asking you to follow speedy deletion policy? This really isn't giving me confidence if your ability as an administrator. There is not, never has been, and should not be, a requirement for someone to leave a detailed explanation of their edit. We assume good faith. That some foreign language terms are useful search terms is because they are ones that English-speaking readers will encounter and look up (and I don't know what you find problematic about six year olds). The point is not that these are plausible, the point is that they might be and so are not eligible for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for the most obvious cases, and these are not obvious. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Over the last couple of decades, I've been the one advocating giving due weight to foreign-language concerns, but this time I have to be the one to argue that foreign language claptrap should not be given undue weight... the only reason those three redirects weren't deleted many moons prior to me doing it is that nobody who cares noticed, and took the modicum amount of effort to run these words through google translate, to see how glaringly implausible they are. This is not a productive discussion at this point, and I'm going to do my best to disengage now, because it's probably just a distraction from whatever useful point was being made in the rest of the discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Joy: The entire point of speedy deletion is that neither you nor anybody else gets to be the sole determiner of what is and isn't "crap". The reason the time limit for R3 exists is because the longer something has existed the greater the probability that multiple have seen the redirect and determined that it is either useful or insufficiently problematic to need deletion. If you can't understand this then please hand in your admin bits before you do something that gets them taken off you. Following policy is not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to deal with probabilities here, you should be able to see these inside Pageviews and see if you're correct or not. Sadly, that doesn't seem to work right now after deletion. I'll go undelete these three for the purposes of this exercise so we can try to see if the database of that information is still intact. (I'm going to ignore the continued threats to remove my admin bits, it's just so nonsensical, I don't know what to say to that any more that would be useful.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Here we go, after undelete it reappeared - https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Zagreb%7CGlavni_grad_Hrvatske%7CAgram_(Croatia) shows 3397017 views of the article, 93 of the 'Glavni grad Hrvatske' redirect, and 16882 for the very intricate, disambiguation-related historical name redirect Agram (Croatia) over all time (2015, which was roughly the age of the deleted redirect too). This volume certainly doesn't seem to me like something that implies the deleted redirect is plausible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
You are still missing the point that these are arguments for RfD not for speedy deletion. If you don't want someone to threaten to take away your admin bits for not following policy you might try following policy. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I've already explained the rationale for why the deletion was appropriate and how I believe I was acting according to the spirit and the letter of policy, i.e. how I disagree with your assessment of these actions. If someone actually argues that this was bad for the encyclopedia and there's consensus that this was indeed so, I will have no problem with that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the easiest way to get that formal consensus is to list the redirects at WP:DRV, so I've done so. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

New case today: Tiger Bowl (game) by MelanieN. A10 didn't apply for reasons unrelated to not being recently-created, since it only applies to duplications of full articles rather than sections of articles and the title could have been redirected. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Summary deletion of BLP that is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

I noticed that Draft:Tom Hyland was deleted by Sdrqaz for that reason while reviewing what became User:Pppery/deletions/May 2022. While Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does indeed say that If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion, this contradicts Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, where the only relevant text is that G10 allows deletion of [...] biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, a stricter standard. This contradiction should be resolved one way or the other. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few situations where you are allowed to delete something without discussion which aren't listed here, e.g. listings at Wikipedia:Copyright problems can be deleted by the reviewing administrator after seven days if they aren't satisfied that there's no copyright violation, and you would be justified in deleting some types of content under Wikipedia:Child protection. It would not be a good idea to add a criterion for this because this material doesn't have to be deleted, deletion is only one option. Hut 8.5 17:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The draft page easily met the G10 standard - more clearly the "material intended purely to harass or intimidate" clause than the entirely-negative-and-unsourced clause. (Not that having about one sentence in four that wasn't a direct insult should matter anyway.) There wasn't particular need to resort to the more contentious WP:BLPDEL standard. —Cryptic 18:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Mmm. I vacillated between G10 and BLPDELETE at the time because I viewed it as a borderline-ish case of whether it was entirely negative and unsourced. I recognise that others would probably have just deleted it under G10, but I thought that BLPDELETE (as the "broader" of the two) would be a better log summary. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy-deleting a redirect created during cleanup of page move vandalism

I'm intending to nominate a redirect under WP:G3 (hoax/vandalism), but in this case the "page creator" was cleaning up after page move vandalism by someone else, and therefore the message at {{Db-vandalism-notice}} doesn't seem appropriate. Is it necessary to use this template in the page creator's talk page, or is there a better template to use in this case? (Or is it not necessary to provide a notice at all in this case?) Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no strict requirement to notify any editor of a page that the page has been nominated for deletion (whether it be CSD, PROD, or XFD). It is strongly encouraged, of course, but if it doesn't make sense to nominate the "creator" then you shouldn't worry about it. That being said, a non-templated note would probably work as well, just as a heads-up. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I see, thanks then. I had actually wondered about that last suggestion myself, so I'll probably do that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Does CSD G8 cover templates that are wrappers for deleted templates/modules?

It's fairly common for a template to exist as a wrapper for another template or for a module – modules need template wrappers in order to be usable, and a template that consists only of a call to another template can be used as an advanced form of redirect (that allows hardcoding and/or reordering parameters).

Sometimes, the page being wrapped by a template is deleted (meaning that the template will produce a red link to the deleted page when used, and nothing else). In this situation, does the wrapper have to go through TfD? Or can it be deleted under CSD G8? This currently isn't in the list of examples of valid G8 deletions, but it somewhat fits the spirit, so it's unclear whether it's a valid G8 that's too rare to list, or a non-speedy deletion. (The situation is fairly rare, because normally the TfD that deletes the template or module will also delete the wrappers for it, but sometimes people forget – it may well be that this is a valid deletion that simply isn't worth listing.) --ais523 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is "yes", as the wrapper template is a dependent page of a page which ... has been deleted. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Soft redirects and R criteria

There seems to be an ongoing disagreement between Primefac and Danbloch about whether the note directing people to RfD for non-speediable redirects should read:

  • For any redirects, including soft redirects, that are not speedy deletion candidates...

or

  • For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates...

Based on edit summaries the disagreement seems to be about whether soft redirects can be eligible for speed deletion under R criteria (I assume nobody disagrees the G criteria apply). The note was added in the form including soft redirects in June 2008 and, excluding vandalism and April Fools Day 2014, has remained unchanged and unchallenged since yesterday. It was added following this talk page discussion, which clarified that soft redirects are not eligible for A criteria. To avoid this disagreement becoming an edit war, I suggest we discuss things here. I see there being two questions:

  1. Are soft redirects eligible for speedy deletion if they meet one of the R criteria?
  2. Should this page note that soft redirects that are not eligible for speedy deletion (whether that is all of them or only some of them) should be nominated at RfD?

If the answer to 2 is yes we can discuss how to word that after we know the answer to 1.

Regarding question 1, relevant previous discussion I've found is:

Wikipedia:Soft redirect is explicit: For purposes of administration, particularly deletion, soft redirects are subject to the same administration processes as regular redirects, and should not be handled by processes that are intended for articles. For deletion this means that soft redirects are subject to R2 – R4 speedy deletion criteria, and are not subject to A1 – A10 speedy deletion criteria. but I've run out of time to investigate the consensus behind that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

If someone creates Donut be a jerk as "{{softredirect|meta:Don't be a jerk}}", does anyone really want that to sit at RFD for a week instead of being R3d? —Cryptic 16:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no obvious reason soft redirects should be treated any different, they're still redirects. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not as obvious since I stopped replying in edit summaries, but I did admit I was wrong. Good to get formal clarification, though. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The R criteria should apply to soft redirects, as they are redirects, but the bit about sending other redirects to RfD seems like a strange place to put it. Possibly we could just say "These criteria apply to redirects in any namespace, including soft redirects" or mention in a footnote that "redirect" here includes soft redirects. Hut 8.5 17:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5 I've always read the note as just saying that RfD handles both hard and soft redirects, not whether they were speediable at all. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: question 2, I don't see any particular reason for this page to explain how the RfD process works; this page is about speedy deletions, and we have other pages to explain other sorts of deletions. (I agree that whether we should include text about RfD at all is a different question for whether soft redirects are eligible for speedy deletion.) --ais523 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Every section has a line saying "if you want to delete <type of page covered in this section> but it is not eligible for speedy deletion, then nominate it at <venue>" (e.g. For any user pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. and I see no reason to remove these generally or the redirect one specifically. The issue is whether the "for X" should explicitly mention soft redirects or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the R criteria should cover soft redirects. They serve the same purpose as hard redirects, just with an extra click. Glades12 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages of archived pages in Project space

A number of pointless pages in Wikipedia talk: space have been created today by DerekSquared (talk · contribs). They are:

is there an appropriate CSD criterion for these? I was thinking G2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

G2 could be appropriate (one page does say "thank you for archiving") but it's pushing the limits. A similar case could be made for G6 – uncontroversial, and created in the wrong namespace – but such pages sometimes do exist as archives (Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/Archive 1, for instance). No criterion seems to cleanly catch these, so the safest bet is probably MfD, where I expect it will be snowing. ComplexRational (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree there is no CSD criteria that covers these, and I can't immediately think how to word one that would meet the WP:NEWCSD requirements - particularly points 1 and 3. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think people do this sort of thing often enough for it to be worth having a rule for handling it via speedy deletion. Filing an MfD (of all the pages at once) would be much simpler, as the situation is unlikely to come up again. --ais523 05:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Article re-created in mainspace after AfD consensus of "draftify"

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

At Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Article re-created in mainspace after AfD consensus of "draftify" the applicability of G4 with reference to articles recreated in mainspace after being moved to draft is being discussed. Please reply there if you have any comments to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

G15?

Maybe there should be a new criteria — G15 perhaps – move back to draft following a move from draft, despite a failed AFC — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria have jack to do with moves, and maintenance/technical deletions are covered by other speedy criteria. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Which existing criteria covers this? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
G6 for moves blocked by existing history on the target page, G8 for pages which are dependent on a page that no longer exists, and R2 for cross-namespace redirects. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Not G8 – there is no "other" page. Not R2 – this is nearly the reverse of R2. G6 would clear the redirect left in draft space, and I assume that I could do the second part and move the article back to draft myself? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Before wrangling procedure, why should these pages be speedy deleted at all. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, anyone can object to a draftification. The correct procedure when this situation happens is to history merge the draft with the article and then list it at AfD, not any kind of speedy deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Pppery. AfC is not compulsory, if someone thinks a page belongs in mainspace they can move it there regardless of what any reviewer has said. If you disagree and G4 doesn't apply then you have exactly four options available to you: (1) ignore it, (2) improve the article, (3) merge and/or redirect it to an existing article, and (4) nominate it at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Pppery and Thryduulf here. If AFC is not mandatory (as it shouldn't be), any draft moved to mainspace should not be treated different from any other new article. Regards SoWhy 10:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the above - this would only make sense if AfC was mandatory, but it isn't (and it shouldn't be). Hut 8.5 11:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Might wanna update guidance/provide some guidance for contesting speedy deletion

Yesterday a redirect I created in 2013 for one of several titles of a PBS program that aired from the 1960's to the 1990's was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it wasn't mentioned in the target article (it was), then modified to say that it was "barely mentioned" in the target article (not relevant, IMO), in order to make room for a recent podcast with the same title. I read the criteria for speedy deletion (not for the first time, mind you) and wasn't sure they were being correctly applied. The guidelines for contesting speedy deletion say that the editor who created a page may not delete the speedy deletion notice, but may contest it by clicking a button in said notice to start a talk page discussion. This button was not present in the notice. Searching additional pages related to/linked to the notice provided no further help. Since the purpose of the button was to start a talk page discussion, I guessed that starting a talk page discussion about the deletion would preclude speedy deletion. I was wrong—even though the editor who proposed speedy deletion was willing to discuss the issue and provided his reasons—and an apology for assuming that the deletion would be uncontroversial—and I suggested I was inclined to agree at that point, but would have liked to hear from other editors in case there were any other opinions, and suggested leaving the discussion open for a few days—the redirect was speedily deleted, less than twenty-four hours after the original nomination.

So, overlooking my thirteen years' experience as a non-admin editor who doesn't frequently get involved with speedy deletion, what was I supposed to do? With proposed deletions, you simply delete the notice and provide a reason in the edit summary, elaborating on said reason on the talk page if necessary. There's no warning about the editor who created the page not being allowed to do this. And once done, the page can't be deleted without some attempt to achieve consensus through talk page discussion. Apparently speedy deletion is a completely different vehicle for achieving the same result, bypassing any discussion—and apparently any contest, since I could find no other guidance besides starting a talk page discussion or using a non-existent button to start said discussion—which proved fruitless, since the process was carried out ignoring the discussion. I seem to recall that the creator of pages nominated for speedy deletion is also supposed to be notified as a courtesy, but this didn't happen either—I only knew about it because the redirect in question was on my watchlist.

If this discussion is in the wrong place—I don't know where the right place is, and don't see anything to clarify that, if there even is an appropriate place where this can be discussed, something I am not going to assume under the circumstances—then of course feel free to move it to the correct place, if there is one. I'm sure this can be resolved simply by pinging me with an italicized and boldfaced sentence quoting some guidance that I couldn't find yesterday after searching multiple pages fruitlessly. But the fact that the entire process proved bewildering and that nothing I did or seemed to be allowed to do made any difference to the procedure might suggest that the procedure itself is in need of updating or improvement. P Aculeius (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a few choices here:
  1. If you're OK with having the podcast as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title, you can add a WP:HATNOTE to the article linking to the Cover to Cover (1965 TV program) article and call it a day.
  2. If you disagree with the speedy deletion, you can leave a note at the talk page of the admin who made the move. (Hi, Liz!)
  3. If your conversation doesn't reach an agreeable outcome, WP:DRV remains an option.
Eureka Lott 14:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The policy already says that admins should check the talk page about potentially relevant discussions and not speedy delete pages that do not fit the criteria. Not being mentioned in the target article is not a reason for speedy deletion. So the move and the accompanying WP:G6 deletion were incorrect anyway, since it was clearly not uncontroversial (so a {{trout}} for Liz is probably in order). Like so often on Wikipedia, the processes are there to prevent such mistakes from being made, they just need to be followed but that's not something that can be achieved by changing this policy.
That being said, in this case, I think Eureka Lott's suggestion of a hatnote should be sufficient to fix the underlying problem of the redirect no longer existing since a possible WP:RFD discussion would probably resulted in the same outcome. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Just as a note, Liz doesn't respond to pings, so if you want her to participate you'll need to leave her a talk page message. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It's okay. I'm still concerned that it's a little hard to navigate the process if you don't deal with this type of procedure regularly, but ultimately the move was likely to succeed, and a hatnote was always going to be the right solution if it did. I just wondered if people might think of it as a case of recentism, or where there might be no primary topic, because the redirect was primary until the podcast started. I thought it was worth discussing first, but couldn't figure out what to do to bring it about. But as I said, the outcome was likely to be the same even if there was a discussion first—I don't see the need to fight over it. Perhaps the process needs to be reviewed to make sure that it's up-to-date and easy to navigate, though. P Aculeius (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, now that I've read through everything more fully I actually disagree with SoWhy re: the appropriateness of the deletion, but I know the primary question being asked was "what's the point of contesting a deletion if it's just going to be deleted anyway", and my answer to that would be that it really depends on the reason for deletion and how reasonable the contest to that deletion is. In this case, clearly it was up to some administrator discretion whether the deletion or the not-deletion arguments were stronger, but on something like a G12 the only time a contesting note is helpful is when it says "actually, this text is PD" or similar. Primefac (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: I'm interested in your reasoning as to why you think the deletion under WP:G6 was appropriate, given that this criterion explicitly limits its application to "uncontroversial maintenance". Regards SoWhy 08:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
If someone tags a redirect with {{db-move}} on a non-disambiguated page, asking to move a disambiguated page to what they feel is the primary topic, where the term does not obviously appear on the target page, then yes, I will absolutely perform the move. I genuinely cannot say what I would do if I had found the page after the contest was made on the talk page, but I would likely decline the G6 on account of it (I've declined db-moves for much less). But the move itself, without any external influence, is absolutely acceptable. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: The deletion (move) was performed on 05:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC). The talk page discussion with the objections was created on 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC), seven hours prior. So you agree that if Liz had checked the target page (as is the job of the deleting admin), she should have declined the G6 request because of the contest on the talk page? Regards SoWhy 15:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I do not, actually, upon re-reading the contest, which I can summarise as "this is an alternate name, but I suppose the podcast can go here with a hatnote". Primefac (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac if there are arguments for and against deletion and neither of them are unquestionably wrong or irrelevant then deletion is controversial and the page cannot meet any speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
For some values of "irrelevant" only, that is. If a page is tagged for speedy deletion as an unsourced negative BLP, and the page creator contests it with "but is all true", then that response may be right and is hardly irrelevant (at least in the eyes of the article creator), but it still won't stop a speedy deletion. Similarly, for a G11 promotional page, people will often contest the tag with "it's factual" and similar stuff and will contest the promotional character of the page. It is still up to the admin whether they agree with the tagger or with the contestor, good admins won't decline a G11 because the page creator objects. Speedy deletion is not as black-and-white as you depict it, and as long as the speedy is reasonable and most people would support it, then it can go ahead. There is no need for it to be a "no one ever would oppose this" situation. Fram (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not quite "no one ever would oppose this", but it's much closer to that than you are suggesting. From the policy page:
  • Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. i.e. if there is a practical chance of an XfD coming to a conclusion other than delete then speedy deletion is not appropriate.
  • If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. i.e. any good faith objection by someone other than the creator means CSD is inapplicable.
  • Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. i.e. if there is any doubt that a speedy deletion criterion applies it does not. If there is any doubt that deletion would be uncontroversial it would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
First quote doesn't contradict my point in any way (even a Snow close doesn't need to be unanimous), second point is not what this is about (I never said anything about the CSD tag getting removed, there is a difference between the page creator contesting and someone else, and even this point is less black-and-white in practice; I recently reinstated a speedy tag even though it was removed by an admin, as they totally misunderstood the situation (it was a copyvio tag, but for a translation; they had just checked the copyvio tool which of course only highlighted the source title but couldn't detect translated text copyvio; a second admin did their job better). And third point is same again. Even the most obvious cases can have people opposing, as we have enough editors who don't know e.g. our BLP policies. Luckily enough admins use common sense when judging speedies. Fram (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Example: Tiki Short Video is tagged for G11 (understandably: "Tiki is a short-form video community that promotes 100% original content created by real local talents, and where people come for the content but stay for the community."). However, it was created by one editor and contested on talk by "another" (if I looked correctly; it is now deleted and I can't thus not check it). According to your rather rigid rules reading, it should not have been speedy deleted. @Athaenera: you speedy deleted this while I was writing this, so I would like to hear your perspective here. Fram (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Reping Athaenara since the previous ping misspelled the username. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Fram: Twerpygeek (talk · contribs) created the pages, Hitoyoshiramen (talk · contribs) contested deletion. – Athaenara ✉ 14:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. According to the hard-line reading of the speedy rules, you should not have deleted that page then. According to common practice and for the betterment of enwiki, you were good. Fram (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
No, interpreting speedy deletion criteria and rules in any way other than a strict reading of them as written is explicitly not benefiting the encyclopaedia. If the rules are wrong occasionally then it's not a problem as it just means we occasionally take longer to delete something. If the rules are wrong frequently then the rules need changing, but this cannot happen if they aren't being followed. The problem with them not being followed frequently is that this will lead to them not being followed where they absolutely should be and things that should not be deleted get speedied. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
How can I actually create a page without put under speedy deletion? Twerpygeek (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
One point that seems to have been missed in the above discussion; the action being challenged here is really the move, not the deletion. That is, if Liz had WP:PAGESWAPped two titles instead of deleting one the result would have been the same. P Aculeius should have followed WP:RMUM instead of worrying about the deletion process followed and there was nothing wrong with the deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
And I should have found RMUM because...? This discussion is about the complexity of the process to figure out what to do when you're not experienced with the process to begin with. I searched for guidance across multiple pages and then guessed what to do—and that failed. And we had to have quite an extensive discussion before anyone mentioned RMUM. I guess you're supposed to be an expert with all Wikipedia procedures before you complain about how hard it is to navigate through a maze of different policies and procedures. P Aculeius (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The contest deletion button for the G6 template has been there on and off. The button was removed, then added back at the request of BarrelProof in 2015, then removed at the request of Uanfala in 2020. In my opinion, the button should be added back. With CSD, our minds have only milliseconds to react, and the button is the saviour, no one has time to read through procedure at the time. Jay 💬 10:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that if the instructions tell editors to use a button, then the button needs to be there! You could eliminate that instruction, but that would still provide no help whatever to editors who don't understand the instructions for contesting a speedy deletion nomination—and they are certainly unclear. For instance, one of the guidelines cited above says that any editor other than the one who created the page being nominated for speedy deletion may delete the tag. What is the editor who created the page supposed to do, if he or she is forbidden from removing the tag? Surely the creators of articles have just as much right—and certainly more motivation—to contest the deletion of a page.
The discussion above seems to regard this as a problem only for editors who are unfamiliar with basic Wikipedia policies. This is clearly not the case. I've been an editor since 2009, and have made over 16,000 edits, including the creation of several hundred articles and redirects. I don't often encounter speedy deletion, because (I like to think) my articles are well-sourced and not frivolous, and I don't generally edit things that appear to be frivolous, or add them to my watchlist. There are a lot of technical processes on Wikipedia that seem to require a great deal of expertise to navigate, often requiring editors to browse through multiple pages and policies to understand in the context of a particular circumstance. In this instance, I could not figure out what I was supposed to do in order to postpone the deletion of a redirect until the merits of the deletion could be discussed. I chose what appeared to be the only avenue open to me, and then the redirect was deleted anyway.
I want to emphasize that I am not asking anyone to undo the deletion and move everything back to the way it was. Having considered the issue, I'm sure it would ultimately end with the same result, in which case reverting the changes would waste everyone's time. What I'm asking for is clearer guidance for navigating the speedy deletion process, particularly for the creators of articles or redirects nominated for speedy deletion—because right now the guidelines seem to be saying that they're not allowed to contest the nomination of articles or redirects they created. Referring any editors, whether or not they're the creators of the page nominated for speedy deletion, to a non-existent button, is supremely unhelpful. I just hope that there's a better solution here than deleting all mention of said button! P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
P Aculeius, do you recall where you read that a creator could contest a speedy deletion by clicking that button? Such a page would likely need updating. The relevant up-to-date guide is in the fourth paragraph of WP:CSD. The gist of it is that for most CSD criteria, the creator can't remove the tag but can contest it by posting on the talk page (the button is just a shortcut for that action); some criteria (like the G6 involved here) do allow the creator to simply remove the tag, just as they would do with a PROD. That's why the speedy tags for those criteria don't have a "Contest" button, but instead have text that says something like If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. Maybe this bit needs to be explicit that page creators too are free to remove the tag? Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The "lead" to WP:CSD explains the use of the missing button: "A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag." It doesn't seem to me that is a satisfactory way of saying what is required is posting on the talk page. Thincat (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
But the very next sentence explains what the button does. And two sentences later comes the text that allows creators to simply remove tags for G6 and several other criteria. Is there a clearer order in which the policy page can present this information? Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It explains part of what the button does—but not that setting up a discussion on the talk page is all that it does. One might reasonably suppose that once you press the button, there's a hold on speedy deletion until some discussion has been had and people's concerns have been addressed. And when that button doesn't exist, you're just guessing as to whether posting on the talk page will have any effect. There doesn't seem to be any way to notify administrators carrying out speedy deletion that a nomination is being contested, just as there's nothing to tell editors what to do if they can't find the button. Presumably part of the solution would be to put the button back—is there any real disadvantage to having it? And/or explain that all it does is start a talk page discussion—the button is just a shortcut. Lastly, do you suppose it might be practical to provide some means for administrators to see quickly whether a speedy deletion is contested? I'm not trying to place blame on anyone, just find ways to make the process easier to navigate! P Aculeius (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if could have a module that scans the talk page for talk page objections and automatically mention they exist by changing the CSD tag's output text (like appending Note: This speedy deletion has received an objection on the talk page.) or by just adding a parameter that lets page creators do that manually in some sort of semi-automated process (like a script/bot that adds |contested=yes to {{db}} when the objection is raised). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
{{Hang on/notice3}} is given in the CSD notice if a talk page exists, so... already done? Primefac (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
That just tells you that the talk page exists though. A LOT of the time the content of the talk page is just Wikiproject banners. It would be nice if there was some way of being sure there is relevant content on the talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn That's a good point. My first thought is that the talk page could be placed into a specific category (possibly via a template), and the CSD template could contain some code that checks whether the talk page is in that category. Removing the template and/or category from talk pages of pages that are not nominated for speedy deletion is something a bot could easily do. This is all way above my ability to code with templates though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Checking the talk page is a 10-second job, less if there are only banners; it is not a burden for admins to check the talk page, regardless of what is there. The time and effort needed to create and implement (and more importantly, maintain) your suggestion does not seem like a reasonable tradeoff, especially when in all likelihood someone will find a way to screw up the check and then have a reason to bitch because the db- template didn't properly notify the patrolling admin. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jay With CSD, our minds have only milliseconds to react... no one has time to read through procedure at the time.. This is completely wrong - when evaluating a speedy deletion nomination you must determine whether it is valid and/or likely to be controversial. That includes checking to see whether every revision of the page meets the criterion, whether there are objections on the talk page, whether there are obvious alternatives to deletion, etc. You absolutely should be referring to the policy and procedure as part of that evaluation. If you are only spending milliseconds then you are abusing your authority as an administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I was talking from the viewpoint of the hapless editor who has to act fast to save his article. Although it was an exaggeration, it is definitely a matter of seconds. By the time I read what the article is about or why it has been tagged, it is gone. Jay 💬 17:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
On Commons, any editor (including the uploader) has the right to contest a speedy deletion by converting it to a deletion request. The button automatically runs a Javascript function that does all the dirty work. We should have the same feature, i.e. allow anyone (including the creator) to convert a speedy deletion to an AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree on this. Enabling such a feature would render CSD nearly useless; the whole purpose is to handle obviously problematic pages that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD as determined by previous discussions. In some cases (e.g., G10/G12), the page must be removed ASAP, and in others (e.g., G3), objections by the creator are almost certainly in bad faith. Allowing the creator to object without explanation is already a shortcoming (in my opinion) of PROD; in my experience, this renders it close to ineffective in NPP work. Doing the same for CSD would flood AfD and make it much more difficult to eliminate problematic pages at NPP. Do we really need to spend seven days !voting to delete vanity pages? Complex/Rational 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, for some CSD categories (such as G12), AfD would not be an appropriate venue, and for other CSD categories (A7, G11) the CSD-valid issues could in theory be addressed by further editing. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: You'd be surprised. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination) (yes, the AfD itself) was deleted under G3, before being overturned at DRV. One would not need a bad-faith rationale to object to that deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Indeed, though these cases are (hopefully) rare and I'd like to think another editor or the reviewing admin should have noticed (this part is somewhat surprising). I should have specified correct applications of G3. Complex/Rational 19:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should allow authors to remove most speedy deletion templates, if they think its incorrect they can contest it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I should add, this is more so a problem should other editors not be allowed to reinstate a removed CSD tag (as with PROD), though the alternative could be unnecessary edit warring, which may in turn lead to 3RR blocks and further discouragement. On the other hand, having such a feature for users other than the creator could be useful, simplifying a two-step process to a single click. Complex/Rational 19:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed with ComplexRational (except re the scope of PROD); a determined enough creator can always go to DRV; if they don't have enough experience to know how to do that then they don't have enough experience to be making decisions about whether articles should or should not be speedy deleted.
From my limited experience at Commons; it does not in fact always work the way King of Hearts suggests, and files are sometimes speedy deleted over the objections of the uploader. For example, c:File:GKS Jastrzębie logo.png was speedy deleted as a copyright violation and then reuploaded by the same person and speedy deleted again, when by King of Hearts' reasoning there should have been a DR since reuploading a deleted file is clearly a manner of contesting deletion.
Actually, on second thought, there's not much difference between enwiki and Commons even under King of Hearts' description; both have processes that if followed correctly allow the creator of a page to force it through a 1-week discussion, but those processes require enough technical skill to mostly weed out frivolous requests. And it works. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't patrolled CSD on Wikipedia in a long time, so I don't know what the landscape looks like now, but as a frequent patroller of c:Category:Copyright violations I have to say that the quality of copyvio tagging and patrolling is a bit inconsistent (note that copyvio is the primary reason for speedy deletion on Commons). That is why I think the "convert to DR" button is helpful, as it gives uploaders a chance to explain their position instead of rolling the dice and hoping they don't get an admin who's not careful (e.g. fails to check the talk page, or fails to consider how the image might be PD). How important such a feature is for Wikipedia depends on how much of a problem "careless patrollers" are here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not difficult to imagine alternative systems. For example, all CSD tags will contain a big "Contest" button. When pressed, it will run a script or some template code, which will check if the editor is the same as the page creator. If yes, then it will allow the creator to write up their objection, which will then appear within the tag itself, so that it's easily visible and there's no risk the patrolling admin will miss it (if the admin declines the CSD, then the creator's objection could automatically get moved to the talk page, so that there remains a record of it as before). If the editor is not the same as the creator (or it's just a case of a CSD that allows creators to remove the tag), then pressing the button will remove the tag (or, in case that is not technically possible, it will display instructions on how to remove the tag). That would be an improvement, right? Uanfala (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. The current informal technocracy is working fine. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
On second thought that comment was probably terser and more direct than warranted. A better way of phrasing my point is that a certain amount of Wikipedia knowledge being necessary to contest a speedy deletion (as is the case in the current system) is a good thing, and it should not be gamified all the way to a mere button press. The other part of your comment, about displaying any contestings in the CSD tag itself rather than forcing the reviewing admin to check the talk page, seems likely to be an improvement, although it appears the community thought differently in 2011 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

C1 removal by author

For the part "For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it" there is the exception "The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1". I propose adding C1 to this list, the reason is:

  • Unlike things like A7 or G11 where new users often create unsuitable pages most categories are created by experienced editors who can probably be trusted to judge if C1 likely applies.
  • This often happens when another editor empties a category "out of process" ie boldly remove all pages from it and then it gets tagged for G1 by a 3rd person or the person who emptied it, the author then re-adds the category to the pages and says they don't think it should be deleted and says to use CFD is deletion is desired.

There was a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? to prohibit emptying categories just to delete them something I didn't really support but I did point out that people probably should have the right to object to it and require it to go through CFD. I'm open to the alternative of allowing authors to remove only if the category has at least 1 page but I don't really see a problem with allowing authors to remove speedy deletion tags from emptied categories. I think this is somewhat similar to G8 in that the author may object if they think it may be an exception for some reason. As a side note I'm not sure if C1 is needed since it may be better to just list these at CFD since this often happens (1) "out of process" (2) because all the pages were merged/deleted or (3) all pages in the category weren't felt to belong there though that is a discussion for another day, here I'm just asking about if authors can remove C1 speedy deletion tags. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
C1 is somewhat self-cancelling, so I see no reason why if the category isn't empty that only one specific editor is prohibited from removing the tag. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we could allow authors to remove C1 tags only if the category isn't empty but even then I don't think that's necessary. C1 is similar to PROD in that if its remained empty for 7 days it can be deleted which is the same base time for a CFD or AFD. There was a case of this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 350#Category:Villages in Aberdeen last year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree too: C1 is essentially asking for technical deletion and there's no reason why the creator should be prohibited from stopping it. Uanfala (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

plus Added to the list at the top. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a dumb clarification question

I saw in a deletion log earlier someone using the rationale G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: Convention is to leave link red for names, not redirect to other person. Based on the various conversations I've seen at this board, this seems like one of those "inappropriate uses" of G6. Is this correct, and should I leave the admin a question a polite note that while convention may indicate a redirect is not preferred, it is still not a valid G6 criteria? Or, am I misreading/misremembering previous conversations and this is perfectly acceptable? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it is unacceptable. Nice to see someone else patrolling the deletion log. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Don't give me too much credit, someone just happened to delete a page on my watchlist and that led me to their deletion log... Primefac (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing issues with G6 stretching back to at least 2013 and many deletions with rationales that belonged at RfD. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to discuss the general concept of G6 misuse, then I have made lengthy comments on that subject above at #Adding to Non-criteria list section, which seem to have gone without reply. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pppery: My post about deletion log reviewing at VPT got archived with zero comments... other ideas? Complex/Rational 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, let's see if we can't get something going. Hopefully the discussion stays somewhat on-track. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Bandity" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Bandity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#Wikipedia:Bandity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding to Non-criteria list section

I keep running into instances of deletion rationales that push the envelope of their definitions here and in this case, I think they could be added to the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria section of this policy page. I'm finding CSD G6 being used to cover all sorts of random reasons why an editor thinks a page should be deleted but they don't seem like obvious, uncontroversial or technical reasons for a page to be deleted. There are two that I just ran into that I'll mention now.

Some editors tag drafts for CSD G6 speedy deletion that cover a subject that already has a main space article. They can't apply CSD A10 because that criteria doesn't cover Draft space so they try G6. Also, recently, I've found that if an editor has written an article that gets moved to Draft space, and then the editor cuts & pastes a version of that draft back on to that main space page, the main space article can be tagged for a CSD G6 deletion on the grounds that a draft version already exists and was, technically, created first. In the first case, I'll often untag the duplicate draft and turn it into a redirect to the main space article and in the second case, I might untag the main space cut & paste job or leave it for another admin to evaluate. But I think it would be helpful if there was some note on this page that CSD G6 isn't a catch-all for a page that should be deleted for "obvious reasons" that simply don't meet any of the CSD criteria. What do you all think? Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

<sarcasm>... but G6 is used as a catch-all even by admins (that is, when they even deign to give something resembling a proper reason), so I don't see what you can possibly accomplish here.</sarcasm>
In a serious tone of voice, definitely support doing this, although I doubt whether it will help anything for the reasons I explained above. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with pppery, the folks misusing G6 will not be reading WP:CSD, they will be seeing "housekeeping" and figure it means "catchall". Primefac (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
That being said, I do agree with Thryduulf below, at the absolute worst it's a waste of page space but at best we have something we can point to when someone asks why their not-a-G6 was declined. Primefac (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
We really do need to reign in the abuse of G6, I don't think this will help regarding the people currently doing that but I don't think it will hinder either, and it might just help prevent a new admin from doing it future so support. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support. G6 should clearly state what is "non-controversial" maintenance, seeing as its use has sparked controversy. I believe we also need to clarify the scope of A7; recently, I've encountered some uses of A7 that were borderline or out-of-scope (this is likely a longstanding problem, though). For instance, there seems to be confusion with {{db-event}}, which as I understand should only apply to organized events and not breaking news. Perhaps also a rehash of "credible claim of significance" – we have an essay on this, yet there still seems to be room for interpretation. ComplexRational (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
In order to clearly state what is "non-controversial" maintenance, there has to be consensus on that question. I think the underlying source of what Thryduulf calls G6 abuse is a lack of said consensus; watchers of this page like me tend to believe that the enumerated subcriteria are exhaustive or nearly exhaustive, but participants in other subareas of Wikipedia tend to tack on their own ideas of what is "non-controversial maintenance". Below is a nowhere near complete list of three examples. I've attempted to format these in ways that are sufficiently objective they could in theory be added as new CSD criteria, but am not formally proposing adding them:
  1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations thinks that [E]mpty "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example" or "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example" categories. and sometimes subpages of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or user pages containing only {{sockpuppet}} tags that have been deemed frivolous by a SPI clerk or checkuser can be speedy deleted under G6. I attempted to add the former criterion to the G6 list using that exact wording in Special:Diff/1094064896 and was reverted.
  2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion thinks that pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates can be speedy deleted as G6
  3. Wikipedia:Good articles thinks that roughly incorrectly filed /GA<number> pages (unfortunately not objective enough to make a CSD criterion) can be speedied per G6. See, for example, Talk:Möbius strip/GA2. This happens despite Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 having a clear consensus not to delete the page in question.
This pattern is at times hard to make out because of a lack of transparency; hundreds of pages are deleted with the sole deletion summary being G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup with no further detail. I'm half-tempted to suggest an edit filter should be created to ban deletions with that exact summary, although I'm sure the EFR folks would turn me down.
Finally, the fact that no one other than me has been willing to trawl the deletion log and produce a summary like what I've just written has created a culture of fait accomplis which effectively makes admins above the law and allowed this diversion in expectations to develop. And yes, I know that in theory No one should have to supervise admin[s] on the assumption that they don't know what they're doing but in practice that aspiration has not borne out. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
While I realize that changing wording halfway down on a policy page is unlikely to have a pronounced and immediate effect on the behavior of admins patrolling CSD categories or those editors who tag pages for speedy deletion, the reason this thought came to me and I brought it to the talk page here is because I just saw an admin talk to another admin on a page deletion they had made and the first admin referenced Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria in their argument. Of course I've read over this page many times but I never thought about citing these commonly used "non-criteria" when I untag a page that has been mistakenly tagged for CSD. I mean, I have good reasons for why a page isn't eligible for speedy deletion but I never considered citing this section of the policy page. So, when I thought, "What other incorrect taggings do I frequently see?", CSD G6 came to me. There are others as well (we can all think of ways pages have been incorrectly tagged CSD) but I had run into these CSD G6-tagged pages in the last 2 or 3 days so they were on my mind.
I'm less clear on the process of adding or changing content on a policy or guideline page. It seems like it shouldn't require an RFC unless it's a major change in wording or orientation but I didn't want to make any content changes without some discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes, Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
On the subject of drafts that duplicate mainspace articles, there's an existing guideline (WP:SRE) that such drafts should be replaced with redirects to the mainspace article (unless the mainspace article is being AfDed), rather than using speedy deletion or MfD; a sort of "speedy redirect" rather than "speedy delete". It would make sense to mention that in the non-criteria section. --ais523 20:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've now added "drafts that duplicate mainspace articles" as a non-criterion – nobody has yet objected to this, and some people (including me) are in support (and there's also an existing guideline that suggests replacing with a redirect rather than deleting, further evidence that there isn't a consensus to delete these speedily). There are of course other G6 abuses that may also do with documenting (and I have no objection to people adding those if they think it will help), but it seemed to make sense to add a particularly common and clear case to the list. --ais523 20:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that addition. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Now, does anyone intend to actually enforce this consensus by challenging A10 deletions outside of mainspace, or will it become yet another example of the dilemma I mentioned above?:

Page Deleting admin Edit summary Timestamp
Wikipedia:Khati Caste Writ Keeper A10: Duplicates Khati (article created in mainspace then moved to project space 20220720141103
Draft:Christmas in Miami (2021) Deb A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Christmas in Miami 20220719181035
Draft:Juan Pedro López Pérez Iridescent A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, [[:Juan Pedro López]] 20220530113904
Draft:List of soccer competitions Jayron32 WP:CSD#A10 20220504132422
Talk:Inumwa CambridgeBayWeather A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Talk:Inumwa 20220310081332
User:Mukt/sandbox Nthep WP:A10 Thanjavur student suicide case 20220306173215
Draft:Zara Rutherford (1) Amortias A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Zara Rutherford 20220121171807

* Pppery * it has begun... 14:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: I agree with the consensus above, but what exactly do you mean by challenge? Anyone can remove an incorrectly applied CSD tag, but the majority of users (including myself) are in no position to directly "supervise", so at best can invoke WP:REFUND or WP:ADMINACCT as deemed appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
My point was that there is a lot of effort here deciding what pages should be speedy deleted, but next to zero effort spent by anyone other than me patrolling the deletion log to enforce the results of said decisions. And yes, invok[ing] WP:REFUND or WP:ADMINACCT as deemed appropriate, if what I meant by challenge, although I would also have included WP:DRV in that list. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, I should have also mentioned DRV. I would be willing to lend a hand with this; I'm just unsure how much I can effectively examine aside from, say, noticing the application of A- criteria to pages other than articles or trying to avert such deletions before they occur. Moreover, is there an efficient way to go through the deletion log, maybe using a tool or script? I don't see a way to filter by namespace or criterion in the log, which would be extremely helpful. ComplexRational (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm personally using complicated database queries on Quarry to produce tables like the above. But I agree that's not a sustainable solution, and there should be a better way. Maybe ask at WP:VPT? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Defining G6

A lot of posts seem to be concerned about what G6 isn't (with the best meta analysis being this "taxonomy" discussion), so I think it's time we actually sort out what is suitable for G6. This might allow us to make it less of a catch-all by providing more specific wording to indicate when it should and shouldn't be used. Currently, the following are explicitly allowed:

* Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past

  • Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves. Administrators should be aware of the proper procedures where a redirect or page holding up a page move has a non-trivial page history. An administrator who deletes a page that is blocking a move should ensure that the move is completed after deleting it.
  • Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace.
  • Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

However, the lead-in to this section says it is for uncontroversial maintenance, including:, implying that these are not the only acceptable uses. In pppery's taxonomy linked above, the "other" category seems to be a good third of the deletions, which also seem to be the contentious ones. Should we consider expanding the above list and make it an "only" instead of an "including"? Primefac (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The last time we tried to do that was an unmitigated disaster; people were too fond of a criterion they could interpret as "anything I want to delete that I don't think anyone with influence will object to". (Much like U5 in practice, but I digress.)
We might be more successful in hashing out some things that G6 isn't - not along the lines of specific cases like "No, of course deleting a redirect created as a part of a merge isn't G6", but things like "absolutely no deletion of content" and "if there's another criterion that's even vaguely similar but specifically excludes this, then you can't use G6 to get around it". —Cryptic 13:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I do see where you're coming from, but then you get into the issues around things like this clarification request, where "we don't usually do this" turned into a G6. I feel like of the nearly 3k G6s that didn't fall into one of the other categories will all have this sort of cowboy justification, and we really cannot specifically exclude all of them. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Why don't you skim through that list and see for yourself? Looking at it, I do see some cowboy deletions, but also a bunch of things that should have used other criteria (often G8 or U1), and a large number of what appears to be former-WP:PMRC#10 cases deleted with no edit summary. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
While I doubt an "only" list could be exhaustive, as some noted in the unsuccessful 2018 proposal, since there most likely are rare cases that would technically fall under G6 and nobody would question, it would definitely help to have a longer list of what is and isn't a valid G6, i.e., add common cases to G6 and common misuses to non-criteria. Per points 1 and 2 at the top of this page, criteria must be objective and uncontestable; the taxonomy suggests that this may not be the case.
Another idea might be to identify and codify the most clear-cut cases – to be discussed exactly, for instance: dated empty maintenance categories, XfDs closed as delete, pages blocking moves, pages unambiguously created in error, etc. – and require separate tagging and deletion for other cases (just as non-admin taggings must be reviewed for obvious reasons). With this, other cases – presumably those that are too infrequent to justify writing into the criteria (point 3, and also WP:CREEP) – would always be reviewed by at least two admins, and keeping tagging and deletion separate would also offer non-admins the opportunity to contest a potentially controversial deletion before it occurs. Complex/Rational 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
As the initiator of the last attempt I wholeheartedly support efforts to reign in the misuse of G6. Perhaps we should try and sort it out incrementally by moving some of the existing uses to new criteria. My first thought would be "pages unambiguously created in error or in the wrong namespace" as this would allow space to more clearly define what is and isn't included, e.g. redirects created when fixing the errors are included but not mentioned but pages that don't conform to naming conventions but are useful search terms should be explicitly excluded.
I also like the idea of adding common misuses to non-criteria, and if there's another criterion that [...] specifically excludes this, then you can't use G6 to get around it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
db-move and perhaps db-error seem like the best bet to spin out. Both should be R-series criteria and are usually abuses if not used on redirects; both would benefit from spelling out that they should only be used for minor histories; "uncontroversial maintenance" doesn't really fit either; and db-move (but not db-error!) is very, very common.
While deletions of dated maintenance categories are the most common G6s, and they too should be outside the G-series, "uncontroversial maintenance" does fit them well. And while I continue to think that {{db-xfd}} and its default deletion log comment shouldn't mention G6 at all, just the tfd link (even if it continues to categorize into CAT:CSD as a convenience), it's not worth arguing about. —Cryptic 03:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, here's a recent db-error I performed that wouldn't meet that criteria: a user accidentally created a category in the mainspace, walked away from it, and then correctly created the category. Since there was no move involved, it wouldn't qualify in the R series—but it was obviously an error. - Eureka Lott 04:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
yes db-error does need to be a G series criterion. While redirects from fixing mistakes are the most common, they are not the only valid use. I'm not certain about db-move being restricted to redirects - the current criterion explicitly says "or other pages", is that part ever used validly? If we do restrict it to redirects only, we'd need to guard against abuse in the form of turn a page into a redirect then move another page over it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Railway stations in Austria opened in 1859 was an A3, was even tagged as one, and deleting with that rationale would have made for a clearer deletion log - no need for nonadmins to wonder if this was an attempt at a list that was abusively speedied.
Turning a page into a redirect to delete it as a db-move isn't a trivial history, and is very unlikely to currently be a good G6. Usually it's better to move the page out of the way in such cases. —Cryptic 12:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
the current criterion explicitly says "or other pages", is that part ever used validly? Maybe disambiguation pages, where the move removes the need for disambiguation? E.g. a WP:2DAB where it's decided one of them actually is the primary topic. – Joe (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

New taxonomy

It would probably be helpful to the discussion above to get a more up-to-date picture, so I re-ran the taxonomy queries looking at G6 deletions since May 2022 (7604 total deletions):

  1. 1748 are dated maintenance categories
  2. 1322 are deletions to make way for moves (using the default summary for that)
  3. 638 are deletions per a deletion discussion
  4. 441 are deletions of WikiProject Assessment categories
  5. 314 are of subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets or Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets
  6. 265 are per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 15#Template:S-line/ARZC left/main and 1,132 other untranscluded subpages of Template:S-line (the deletions here don't appear in the previous category because the edit summary uses a non-standard format, and note an October deletion discussion is being referenced as recently as June)
  7. 301 are by Tassedethe (with the same context as in the previous taxonomy)
  8. 124 are per User talk:Taivo#Sock tagging
  9. 117 are by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5
  10. 190 are G6 cleanup from rename, the relevant rename being *Treker to StarTrekker
  11. 90 are manual deletions to make way for a move (using slight variations on the default summary)
  12. 85 are deletions of redirects created by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 74, usually because the redirect they correspond to was deleted (User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8)
  13. 63 use the default deletion summary from {{db-error}}
  14. 61 are of subpages of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
  15. 52 are per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 17#All templates in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates - see also Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 26#Making Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates G6
  16. 14 are of subpages of Draft:Move
  17. 2 in ClueBot III's userspace (User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Blanchey/Archive 1, User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Abyssinia, Henry), the person doing most of the CSD taggings that previously ended up here appears to have stopped doing so in March
  18. 1 (File:Tappu Chesi Pappu Koodu poster.jpg) references WP:PMRC#10, even though the criterion was removed from Wikipedia:Page mover several weeks before the deletion took place.
  19. 1995 don't fall into any of the above criteria.

I've omitted a few categories that were used in the previous taxonomy but turned up zero results in this one, and added a few new ones. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The liberal use of G6 really is appalling. To get it back under control, G6 should be hard restricted to pages without any non-trivial creative history. Further, pages that don’t need deletion should not be deleted, deletion for the sake of convenience is a reason for the lack of discipline with G6. Deletions for simplifying page moves squarely fit that second point. Even though a redirect is not creative, it is still content history, and there is no good reason why the old redirect edits should not remain accessible at the beginning of the history at that title.
G6 for sockpuppet deletions might sometimes be justifiable for hiding information by bland logging, but this is very poor practice. As I’ve mentioned at WT:SPI and WT:LTA, sockpuppet deletions should be restricted to subpages of WP:SPI and WP:LTA, and deletions restricted to checkusers and SPI admin clerks. For simplifying the transition, I suggest the new code “6s”.
Deletions authorised by consensus at a deletion discussion should not be logged as speedy deletion, but logged to the deletion discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Primefac, you are a leader in misuse of G6 to delete unnecessarily, and you are putting back quite bad G6 sub points. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I am more than happy to follow policy and the consensus of the community. Currently, the policy says that a redirect holding up a page move can be deleted, and until that consensus changes I will continue to do so. You cannot unilaterally change a policy and then be upset that I'm not following it. Given that I started the section that led to this section being started, I find it hard to believe that you think I don't want to see G6 reigned in (I do), but I also know that consensus is required to do so. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Primefac, I am not "upset", but instead want to challenge you on returning to policy some lines that I don't believe have consensus. I believe that they have been slipped in with no one really engaging. I could be wrong, its work to trawl the archives, but I suspect this.
I do see inconsistency in your position. You claim to be happy to follow consensus, while ignoring the fact that you are leading consensus. You also appear to advocate unthinkingly following the words as written: if the policy says that it can be speedily deleted, you write that it is "perfectly acceptable to do so"[1]. If this is how it is to be done, then let's remind ourselves that a CSD criterion means not just that it may be deleted, but it should be deleted.
I do not believe that old pages turned to redirects should be deleted on acceptance of a draft on the same topic. And if they should, then more detail on the criterion is needed than what has been slipping in under G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
old pages turned to redirects - we have not been discussing that, we have been discussing redirects that have never been anything but redirects. As far as me leading consensus, I have said multiple times on this page and elsewhere that I am happy to discuss changes to policy, splitting off things like moves into new criteria to avoid them being in G6. So yes, I might be the primary one leading consensus, but I am also perfectly willing to be involved with changing that consensus and, as a result, changing how I edit. If you want to call me out on my administrative behaviour I am happy to start a full review at AN, but for now I am going to leave this line of thinking as it is not directly relevant to the discussion of overhauling the G6 system. Primefac (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Easy deletion of simple redirects is a small problem, but old pages turned to redirects can be caught up in the same process.
So, we are agreed that CSDs for move-related processes should be spun out of G6? Good.
I don't criticise your administrative behaviour, but note that what you do is considered evidence for consensus, and so to a degree, you connecting what you do to consensus becomes a circular argument. Let's drop this line of thinking, the focus should be making G6 simpler, tighter, less easily misused. I don't think you should be deleting these redirects "per G6". SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: What do you propose to replace using G6 to delete redirects in the way of moves with? Round robin moves? History merges? I can't see how it's logically possible for the old redirect edits [to] remain accessible at the beginning of the history at that title when (as in the vast majority of cases) there are pages with overlapping histories. – Joe (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
If it’s an old redirect and new draft, then history merge. Overlapping histories prevent history merges, so there’s a problem, but G6 deletion is a sloppy answer. Can you give an example? Why are there two pages, with parallel editing, on the same topic? Overzealous PrimaryTopic practices? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Half of the Marvel films were moved to the Draft space for improvement (or created there in a bid to be "first"), with a redirect pointing to Marvel or the franchise or what have you. These redirects would often get updated, as would the pages and there was more information about the film. Thus, parallel histories, one that is relevant to the article and one that is just a bunch of redirects. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC) And yes, you are welcome to double-check me, but I will give two concrete examples anyway: Draft:Captain America: New World Order and Draft:Blade (2023 film)
Thanks for concrete examples. Your point is that Blade (2023 film) and Draft:Blade (2023 film) have parallel histories and are unsuitable for history merging?
In this case, Blade (2023 film) has a long history, but not a creative history (nothing in the history could be required for attribution). But suppose it did. Does WP:G6 distinguish such a difference?
I suppose your argument is that if it can't be history merged, or even if it has less value than the work of history merging, then it should be deleted because there are no other options? Was this properly considered when
  • {{Db-afc-move|Draft:page to be moved}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move as a result of an Articles for creation (AFC) review, typically for articles in draft space.
because written into policy? It certainly doesn't look like the sort of thing that would be approved following a NEWCSD examination. It looks like bloat. Someone thought it useful to record common templates on the CSD policy page itself, and then the intended use of the policy turns into a CSD justification in its own right? Sloppy.
One idea for a WP:ATD. Move the old mainspace page to draft, and let it live forever as a redirect to the mainspace title. Wikiarchiologists can find it from logs, and WhatLinksHere, and its authors don't have their past edits hidden from them. In draftspace, if disambiguation is needed due to content forks, disambiguate by creation date. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
{{db-move}} isn't just for drafts moving to mainspace, that's actually quite rare. Say Foo is created in 2015, then Bar as a redirect to Foo in 2017, then it's decided that Bar is actually the common name and we need to move it over the redirect. AFAIK you can't history merge those and there's no way to preserve the edit history of the old redirect at Bar without moving it to another title. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The people (including me) arguing above that redirects shouldn't be speedied as "G6" aren't saying they shouldn't be speedied. We're saying that lumping them in with "consensus for non-speedy deletion at TFD" and "this category for articles tagged as orphans in 2003 is finally empty" and "I doubt this four-edit user is going to complain if I speedy the article they created in the Wikipedia namespace instead of main or draft" is harmful. Deletion of redirects with trivial histories so something else move to their title have been accepted as speedy-deletable for like forever; it's even baked into the move-a-page interface. But pretending they're the same thing as a dozen other things, in a criterion that was originally just for temporary deletions for history merges, makes people lose sight of the "trivial histories" part. —Cryptic 14:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Can't argue with that. I think the primary benefit of this taxonomy is to figure out what needs spinning out (moves and XfDs being two of the big/obvious ones) so that we can turn them into specific criteria. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
As the author, the primary reason I wrote this taxonomy (and re-ran it on two different occasions) was to help people understand what was being deleted, not to advocate for any specific outcome. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-trivial creative history

Spinning this out from the above discussion: SmokeyJoe suggested G6 should be hard restricted to pages without any non-trivial creative history, which got lost in the arguing over redirects. Does anyone disagree with that? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: Is this (roughly) equivalent to the cases when a non-admin can move a page over a trivial redirect? Complex/Rational 15:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
No, at least as I would interpret that phrase it is slightly broader and is more analogous to the criteria at WP:RMCI#Edit history of destination page. But I guess that's already linked in the section about G6s for moves, and isn't really relevant for most of the other G6 subcriteria, so may not be necessary to add as a general rule. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
It... actually is. With db-error in particular, which can and has been misread as "ha ha, it was an obvious error for you to think you could write an autobiographical draft!", this is still helpful. (I'm not aware of admins deleting even terrible content as G6s, but I've certainly declined taggings on that basis.) I suggested much the same thing above, and have for years in the archives here, worded as "absolutely no deletion of content". —Cryptic 13:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"Deletions as a result of a deletion discussion"

It has been mentioned a few times about how G6 being used for XfDs doesn't really fit with either "speedy" deletions or the other items permitted in G6. Maybe this is so simple that it's not valid, but could we solve this "issue" by just removing [[WP:CSD#G6|G6]]: from the default message of {{db-xfd}} and Twinkle menus? It would still be a valid deletion but avoid the implication that it's a true "speedy" deletion. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. If a deletion is done as a result of a deletion discussion it isn't speedy deletion. It's not uncommon to get deletion discussions that conclude a speedy deletion is appropriate (e.g. someone nominates a redirect for deletion and the creator comments in agreement with the deletion) but these should be closed with reference to the deletion discussion AND speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
If we do this, it probably would be wise to add it as an option at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, as well. - Eureka Lott 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to - we want the deletion log to point to at least a daily TFD page, and preferably (though less critically) to right section of that page. Example of best practice. The template can do that, especially since the tagger has to be able to point at the discussion to fill out the required votepage parameter anyway. Deletions for AFD, RFD, and CFD aren't in the dropdown either, for exactly the same reason. —Cryptic 23:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
My suggestion wasn't to remove the entire reason for deletion, literally just the G6 link - it would still say "deleted as a result of a deletion discussion" with a link to said discussion. And yes, this would be for all XfD. Primefac (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Right. I was responding solely to the suggestion to add it to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown. —Cryptic 07:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A thought or two

First, I considered asking for a REFUND of some really bad G6 deletions (User:Flyingidiot/monobook.js, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IAmNotHereToBuildAnEncyclopedia, User:AnnyLL). I felt that would be a little too WP:POINTy. Discouraging cowboy-style deletion would improve the encyclopedia, but it still feels too POINTy. Second: what if there was an explicit criterion for IAR? Admins can already do it by policy, and are doing it in practice. A separate criterion would allow for better scrutiny of said deletions, and would carry with it the "weight" of IAR. This might just be me, but explicitly stating that I am evoking IAR is "harder" than just doing it. When I cite IAR, I know that I will be scrutinized for doing so, and thus am especially careful with whatever action I am taking. HouseBlastertalk 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

First, a rule codifying IAR is circular reasoning. Second, I would only consider the first of those to be really bad, as RfA used to explicitly recommend G6 deletions of doomed proposals, before that was boldly removed by SmokeyJoe in Special:Diff/1051359784 and the third one looks like it might be a U5 given the deletion summary. Finally, although I seem to have linked it above in my sarcastic opening comment, I've been producing reports of deletions that don't cite any standard deletion process over at User:Pppery/deletions. Or, at least, I was doing so until everyone seemed to lose interest in the project. And a minor technical detail; you would need to go to WP:IANB rather than WP:REFUND to request undeletion of the first page since only interface admins can do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and the second example could have been speedy deleted as vandalism IMO, given that (according to the page creation log), the page content was I want to be an admin so I can disrupt Wikipedia more. --~~~~. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I’m not sure it really is “bold” to remove CSD authorising text found on pages other than this one. Whoever added it might be pointed to the opening words of this policy and ask whether they were being disruptive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)IAR would fit in as a speedy deletion criterion even worse than G9 does. If you're deleting something while consciously thinking "IAR", then you shouldn't lie and put a speedy deletion criterion next to it. You don't even have to link to IAR, either, just say why you're deleting - the deletion log for that user page could've easily been just "13-year old garbage page in violation of WP:POLEMIC".
It also could've been a U5, and the RFA could've been speedied as vandalism. Having a criterion so broad and poorly-defined that admins treat it as IAR and get away with it, when they don't even have to because there are other, better-defined criteria that the pages they're deleting meet, is a big part of the problem here.
The javascript page deletion was really, really bad, though. It was nominally deleted because it had lines like addButton('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Button_exclamation.png','delete your own user page','{{','}}','subst:user:flyingidiot/2','mw-editbutton-media'); in it, which made Template:',' (and a number of others) show up at Special:WantedTemplates. The right way to fix it was to get an interface admin to add //</nowiki> at the end, so that the already-present, commented-out <nowiki> at the start worked. —Cryptic 04:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Salted with another title

Do we have a Speedy criterion that applies to "subject is salted with another title"? E.g. Rashid Ali Ghazipuri - Rashid Ali was just created, but the strange title is because Rashid Ali Ghazipuri is salted (and there is Draft:Rashid Ali Ghazipuri as well, so draftifying isn't really an option). This happens quite regularly, but it's not clear what the current approach is. Perhaps a new speedy criterion? Fram (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The current approach is to speedy it under the same criteria it would be deleteable for at the original title (the same as a purported G4 for a page that's only ever been speedy-deleted). The strange title is itself a tell that we may need to consider other tools than salting, typically the title blacklist. This doesn't seem to be quite at that point yet, though. —Cryptic 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Just delete it under G4 (if it was via an XfD discussion) or the same criterion it was previously speedied under. Expanding the blacklist to include partial title matches of salted articles would impact way too many legitimate articles on notable topics. Glades12 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) G4 explicitly applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. (emphasis mine). If it isn't sufficiently identical that G4 applies, and it isn't speedily deletable under any other criterion on its own merits, then it should not be speedily deleted and should go via Prod or XfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The original page - at least in this case - was never deleted at AFD, only speedied as an A7. —Cryptic 17:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
In which case the title is basically irrelevant and G4 completely is. If it isn't speedily deletable on its own merits its not speedily deletable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Could a draft be deleted as a test page?

I want to WP:SALT the page Draft:N as repeatedly recreated. What's the best way of getting rid of the rubbish presently sitting there? Might it be a G2? If it were in mainspace, I'm sure that WP:CSD#A1 would apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'd personally G3 and to heck with the bureaucracy — that content won't be missed — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted, salted. I know it when I see it. — xaosflux Talk 20:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Pages created in error

Pages created in error, "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" is probably the worst line currently in the policy. It implies "pages created in error by someone else that I am fixing" because if it was the one editor involved, then G7 should be used. If there are multiple editors in its history, then all should be consulted, and if just one of them does not agree that the page should be deleted, then it should go via a deletion discussion not CSD. The wording is far too undefined. What is "in error"? Does that include the other editor editing while rushing? Why should a different editor be fixing it for them, using administrative tools. This line should go. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed here.
This is not objective, nor a good idea. Just sloppy. Use G7, or a defined criterion, or talk to the one making the errors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I halfway agree with you. Something misspelled in the article space and then corrected by someone else a year or two down the line probably should be considered through one of the R-criteria or at RFD. However, if a new editor starts a page in the Wikipedia space, and a patroller moves it to the Draft or Article space (as appropriate), the WP-space edit was clearly made in error and there is zero reason why it should not be deleted (see Wikipedia:Fawwaz Rafif/Masashi Yokoi and Wikipedia:Masashi Yokoi for two that I deleted recently). And to echo one of my statements earlier, I wholeheartedly agree that these use cases should not be in G6, but we have no other suitable criteria at the moment to cover these pages; until we do, it should continue to be deleted under G6. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Meeting halfway?
If the page is moved, it is not deleted. The trailing redirect is created by the page mover, it meets G7, and possibly R2 and R3. If a patroller moves the page, there is no use for a "Page created in error" criterion. Also note, pagemovers, including yourself, can suppress the creation of the trailing redirect. Your examples show you mistagging. You should use the most specific criterion (a rule I know elsewhere, is it a written Wikipedia rule?). You should be deleting your own creations with logged reference to G7.
but we have no other suitable criteria at the moment to cover these pages? Am I communicating poorly? Eg "Use G7"? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry, User:Fawwaz_Rafif and User:Clovermoss did the pagemoves, not you. You should ask User:Clovermoss to tag these unwanted trailing redirects with G7, or request pagemover permission. The first, User:Fawwaz_Rafif, with 181 edits, should he be doing new page patrol? If yes, then as per Clovermoss. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I think, by using G6 for quick cleanup, you are cleaning up behind others who don't know they are making the mess. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Having the page mover tag something with G7 is an invalid use of G7, per its own wording (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move). There is no R-cat for redirects moved in this manner, otherwise I obviously would have used it. Primefac (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. G7 does say that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe and Primefac: I'm a bit of a loss about what we're talking about? Could we narrow it down to anything in here? I don't think I've ever nominated something for G6 unless you're counting these [2]. My best guess is that someone saw one of my R2s and that's what prompted this discussion? I've mostly been patrolling redirects in the new pages feed because I'm a relatively new page patroller. Is there any advice you have for me going forward or is this satisifactorily resolved? Clovermoss (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You moved the Yokoi page, and GeoffreyT2000 nominated it for deletion; I don't think anyone here did anything incorrectly, though next time you could probably tag the page with {{db-error}} yourself. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: I was a bit confused because I saw this [3] and it seemed to suggest I'm not the one who moved the page, as it shows two page moves started by Fawwaz Rafif. It doesn't mention me in any of the logged actions. But going through my recent page moves, I think I get what happened? [4] Yeah, I would tag typically tag something like that with {{db-error}}, I guess I just forgot in this case. Clovermoss (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Although, I guess not, looking at that template specifically. I don't think I've ever used it since that mentions G6. My bad. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'm going to go to sleep now, it's been a long night. Clovermoss (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Clovermoss, I am attempting to engage in the arcanery of CSD tags and logging, and how it might be better done. Please excuse the ping. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: It's okay. I've been doing CSD-related stuff in NPP school lately so it's kind of cool to see that a new criteria may or may not be established. I still don't quite get what you meant by "per Clovermoss" earlier, though? Was it something I did? Clovermoss (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with this. While these deletions could be handled through G7 (assuming the editor who created the page is around and understands what G7 is), I don't see any particular reason why we should insist on it, it would add petty bureaucracy, and people would likely continue to use G6 for these pages anyway. Furthermore "This could be handled through G7" is true for any speedy deletion criterion. Hut 8.5 17:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed R5: Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in error

There are two situations where speedy deletion relating to unambiguous errors is definitely uncontroversial:

  1. Redirects created as a result of moving a page with an unambiguous error in page naming or namespacing, whether moved by the original author or not (and the page may have had multiple authors before the move)
  2. Pages created with an unambiguous error in the page name or in the wrong namespace where the correctly titled/located page was created directly, by the same editor, rather than the first page being moved. The creator may or may not be the one marking the erroneous page for deletion.

These are both currently part of G6 but they don't have to be and they don't necessarily have to be part of the same criterion. If split, the first should be an R-series criterion, the second would need to be a G criterion and so would a new combined criterion. I'm unsure however whether the second is common enough to meet WP:NEWCSD point 3, especially as some instances will fall under G7 and/or U1 (if it's in somebody else's userspace just ignore it). Accordingly perhaps the first could be moved out of G6 to R5 as

Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in the wrong namespace and/or with an incorrect title a short time after creation. This criterion does not apply if the redirect:
  • Is a plausible search term
  • Has a non-trivial history
  • Has been the subject of a discussion in which one or more editors did not support deletion or moving away from this title.
  • Has incoming links intended for the redirect target
This criterion applies to redirects in all namespaces except:
  • Redirects in the user: or user talk: namespaces (use criterion U1 for redirects in your own userspace)
  • Redirects from the draft: namespace to any other namespace.

The "short time after creation" is intended to mirror language in R3 about recent creation, as it is quite common for these not be discovered until months or years later. The draftspace restriction is to prevent redirects to drafts accepted at a different title being deleted as errors but allowing draft:fooo → draft:foo redirects to be in scope. The userspace restriction is to prevent unnecessary deletions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. As one of the few people who patrols niche namespaces, the vast majority of the content delete-able under G6 tends to have the issue that it either is a near-duplicate of something that the user has created elsewhere (either their userpage or an article/draft), or that it would be eligible for CSD as an article. I don't see any benefit to redefining this to be much more narrow while ignoring how it actually gets used in practice (if there would be a benefit to moving the page to the correct namespace, that is almost always what is done). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not replacing all of G6, including basically none of what you mention, but separating one of the many aspects of G6 into a separate criterion. Redirects like this cover pretty much everything I personally delete under G6. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
For the record, of the 7600 deletions listed in #New taxonomy above, only 63 (<1%) were deleted as db-error (i.e. this new R5 proposal). Primefac (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Does this make any sense to make a part of R3? —Cryptic 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think putting something in the wrong namespace would count as implausible typos or misnomers after it was moved. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If this is not common enough to justify a new criterion, it could be added to an existing criterion. However, I feel that R2 might be a better choice because it already deals with inappropriate cross-namespace redirects, which would be the case when moving pages created in the wrong namespace to draft space—IMO a closer fit than "implausible typos" (R3). Perhaps amend R2 to include "redirects to the Draft: namespace from any namespace except the User: namespace" and "redirects to the User: namespace from any namespace except the Template: namespace where the target is a userbox, the Wikipedia: namespace when the target is an essay, and the Draft: namespace". Are there any other instances when cross-namespace redirects to user/draft namespace are appropriate? Complex/Rational 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I mean, we could just expand R2 a little. Criteria 1: invalid XNRs from main to elsewhere. Criteria 2: invalid or obviously incorrect XNRs from any other namespace (e.g. drafts created in the Template or WP spaces). Primefac (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The most common examples of incorrect namespaces I come across are pages being moved to Wikipedia: space when attempting to move them to article space (maybe most commonly originally from user:) and then being moved correctly to the article namespace. The second most common are pages being created in the article namespace because the editor typoed "Wikipedia" or "Template". However incorrect namespaces are a small proportion of the errors I see, which are most commonly typos within the same namespace, so this would be a very significant expansion of R2. As these are often discovered months or years after creation, R3 is inappropriate. 63 deletions in three months seems more than enough to justify a speed deletion criterion imo, and it would be much simpler than trying to shoehorn it in to an existing one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
As a good example of the thing this is intended to cover, see RAchel Costello and the history of Rachel Costello. This was created with a typo and moved to the correct title a minute later by a different editor. This happened in 2010 so R3 is not applicable. G7 does not apply since the creator and page mover are not the same (and they haven't edited since 2010 and 2015 respectively). Only the article namespace was involved so R2 is not relevant, leaving only G6. However it would be clearer for everyone involved if it were R5. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Surely we don't want the workflow to be Q1:"Is an implausible typo or misnomer?": A1:"Yes"→Q2:"Is it recently-created?": A2:"Yes"→{{db-r3}}; A2:"No"→{{db-r5}}. —Cryptic 22:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Well no, because that would defeat the point of the time limit in R3. The workflow here was Q1: "Is this an implausible typo or misnomer?": A1: "Yes", Q2: "was it recently created?": A2: "No". Q3: "Was it unambiguously created in error?": A3: "yes". Q4: "Are there relevant incoming internal links?": A4: "No". Q5: "Are there likely to be incoming links from elsewhere?": A5: "No, because it was moved a minute after creation many years ago". Q6: "Is there any other reason why it might be useful?": A6: "No." → G6 (R5). Q3 is particularly important, if it might or might not be an accidental creation then it's not G6 and wouldn't be R5 but could be R3. Typos are also only one type of error - others include moves from the wrong namespace, moves to the wrong namespace, moves of the wrong page, misclicks, misunderstandings, etc.
Nothing in this proposal adds to what can be speedily deleted, only under what criterion it is speedily deleted. The two final bullets reduce what can theoretically be speedily deleted slightly, but in practice they shouldn't be being deleted currently. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I could get behind this. There's no point in sending things like the example you cited above to RfD, and bad typos of that sort actively make navigation more difficult because they add extraneous predictive text to searches. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
We should either create R5 as proposed or clarify G6 to include the above. In particular, although I agree strongly that case 1. above (redirect left by certain moves) should allow speedy deletion, I'm not convinced that the current wording of G6 explicitly includes it. Certes (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Support Makes sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Should A11 be expanded to drafts?

WITHDRAWN
Clearly consensus is not going to change. Therefore I withdraw this proposal. 2601:647:5800:4D2:A992:EED2:B96D:F5AE (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2022 (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.

Often, there are many draft articles on made-up topics or that are bad fiction that don't stand a WP:SNOW chance of becoming an article. Should A11 be expanded to cover these drafts? Two recent examples are Draft:Lysikratum and Draft:Jeremiah_butlers_universal_reset_theory. 2601:647:5800:4D2:6516:28DA:636:8A8A (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there some reason these can't just be left for G13? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it’s the purpose of draftspace to host stuff without administrative overheads. However, BLPPROD should be expanded to draftspace and all namespaces. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This has been suggested multiple times previously, and nobody has yet explained how it is compatible with the ethos of draftspace and not redundant to G13. If a particular draft is so problematic it needs to be deleted sooner than 6 months and doesn't meet one of the G speedy deletion criteria then it can be taken to MfD. There is currently only 1 live MfD of a draftspace page and the concerns with that are unrelated to A11, so I looked through all the MfDs of draft space pages since July and found 3 that clearly or arguably would fall under this criterion:
Four discussions in just over 3 months is nowhere remotely close to frequent enough, that not all of them resulted in delete shows it also fails the uncontestable requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This is compatible with the ethos of draftspace because drafts that meet A11 will almost certainly never become proper articles and are instead likely to be declined or even rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." Draftspace is not a storehouse for a bunch of pages that will never become proper articles, but a place for future articles to be developed. This criterion is not redundant to G13 because drafts that have not a WP:SNOW's chance of becoming articles should be able to be deleted sooner than 6 months. Probably not immediately, but sooner than 6 months. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1C06:7B6A:933D:A228 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
"Almost certainly deleted" is not good enough for speedy deletion, it needs to be "always deleted, baring very occasional exceptions" and the evidence above shows that only a third of those discussed were deleted. In other MfD discussions about drafts there was a very strong sentiment that drafts, no matter how badly written or how likely they were to be accepted, should only be nominated if there was an actual problem (most commonly this was BLP issues or tendentious resubmission). You need to explain why they should be deleted sooner than 6 months - i.e. what problem is this solving? Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I have abusively deleted the "reset theory" incoherent essay thing. Feel free to undelete it you believe that helps to improve Wikipedia, but please make sure it can't be used to attack the individual named in the title. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I suspect that if this was done then it would be widely abused to delete poor quality drafts which somebody doesn't like the look of. Standards like "don't stand a WP:SNOW chance of becoming an article" aren't objective enough for a CSD criterion. Hut 8.5 12:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
To reduce abuse, we should restrict the criterion to cases where A11 already applies. A11 is already a pretty strong and clear criterion, which should make the use of this criterion objective. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1C06:7B6A:933D:A228 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
No. The main purpose of draftspace is to let editors work on an article at their own pace without having to establish notability immediately. Deleting a draft just because its topic doesn't look important goes against this fundamental purpose and will dishearten and/or anger newcomers. Enwiki's practices are already very intimidating to outsiders, so the last thing we should do is scare off new editors even more. Glades12 (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This criterion is intended to be stricter than what I just mentioned above. It would be about drafts on topics made up one day, or pages that use Wikipedia as a webhost. As for biting the newcomers, that could be solved by creating a very gentle deletion notice that at the same time points new users to relevant guidelines such as WP:NOT. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1C06:7B6A:933D:A228 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know you want to expand A11 to include drafts. You don't need to repeat the section title. The problem is that such an expansion would defeat the purpose of drafts by making the standards for them excessively strict, something a nicely worded message is frankly not enough to solve. Glades12 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Much of the most blatant, most problematic made-up stuff can already be speedy deleted under G3. The "no credible claim of significance" part is the issue with an expansion of A11: won't work in draftspace because it would block a lot of potentially valid articles in their early stages of development, and it could very easily result in A7 covering drafts as well, which would then defeat the purpose of draftspace. If they're not in mainspace and not problematic enough to fall under a G criterion, there's generally not much harm in letting them sit around. Complex/Rational 02:43, 5 October 2022 (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.

Whether CSD tags are edits for the purposes of G13

For those who did not see the discussion that was temporarily moved here, it is at AN. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_83&oldid=1156238175"