This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 87 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
[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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( d c̄) 00:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Added a footnote in Special:Diff/1094064144 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
formal consensusis 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)
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)
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)
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 ( U T C)
a dependent page of a page which ... has been deleted.Primefac ( talk) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
posting on the talk page. Thincat ( talk) 15:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Added to the list at the top. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 abuseis 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:
[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 checkusercan 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.
pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templatescan be speedy deleted as G6
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.
G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanupwith 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 doingbut in practice that aspiration has not borne out. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
objectiveand
uncontestable; the taxonomy suggests that this may not be the case.
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)
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)
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):
G6 cleanup from rename, the relevant rename being *Treker to StarTrekker
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)
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)
the old redirect edits [to] remain accessible at the beginning of the history at that titlewhen (as in the vast majority of cases) there are pages with overlapping histories. – Joe ( talk) 13:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. House Blaster talk 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
I want to be an admin so I can disrupt Wikipedia more. --~~~~
.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
db-error}}
, I guess I just forgot in this case.
Clovermoss
(talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)There are two situations where speedy deletion relating to unambiguous errors is definitely uncontroversial:
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
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)
implausible typos or misnomersafter it was moved. Primefac ( talk) 13:21, 1 September 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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 87 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
[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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( d c̄) 00:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Added a footnote in Special:Diff/1094064144 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
formal consensusis 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)
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)
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)
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 ( U T C)
a dependent page of a page which ... has been deleted.Primefac ( talk) 20:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
posting on the talk page. Thincat ( talk) 15:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Added to the list at the top. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 abuseis 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:
[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 checkusercan 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.
pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templatescan be speedy deleted as G6
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.
G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanupwith 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 doingbut in practice that aspiration has not borne out. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
objectiveand
uncontestable; the taxonomy suggests that this may not be the case.
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)
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)
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):
G6 cleanup from rename, the relevant rename being *Treker to StarTrekker
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)
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)
the old redirect edits [to] remain accessible at the beginning of the history at that titlewhen (as in the vast majority of cases) there are pages with overlapping histories. – Joe ( talk) 13:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. House Blaster talk 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
I want to be an admin so I can disrupt Wikipedia more. --~~~~
.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 04:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
db-error}}
, I guess I just forgot in this case.
Clovermoss
(talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)There are two situations where speedy deletion relating to unambiguous errors is definitely uncontroversial:
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
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)
implausible typos or misnomersafter it was moved. Primefac ( talk) 13:21, 1 September 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)
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)