Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

How strict is G13?

I'm looking at Draft:Plymouth Tube. It was declined in October 2018 by Bkissin, and not touched by a human until Lapablo tagged it for G13 earlier today. FloridaArmy (the author), then removed the tag and re-submitted it with no changes. Does this really reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• RoySmith I think an edit automatically resets the clock. But i don't think resubmitting without any changes count as it was declined in the first place and abandoned until being tagged for G13. I have seen cases where authors just add a "." then the G13 gets reverted. Lapablo (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Any human edit, no matter how trifling, should reset the clock. But that's only natural: the criterion is content-blind (it applies regardless of quality or potential of the draft), so it needs to be consistently content-blind (it stops applying once any edit is made, regardless of the quality of this edit). And submitting a draft for review is as major an edit as it can get. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that submitting a draft could be a major event, if the submission was at the end of a series of edits. But, if the last that that happened to the article was to decline a previous submission, resubmitting it with no changes seems rather trifling to me. It's not even an edit to the content, just to the metadata guiding it through the AfC process. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of seeing drafts resubmitted without changes either, but my point is that any (re)submission is a major edit: fundamentally, it's a strong statement that the draft is believed to be mainspace worthy. As I see it, it has the same relative weight as a "keep" !vote in an AfD; you wouldn't normally speedy delete an article if it's at AfD and there have been valid "keep" !votes, would you? – Uanfala (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems more like an example of WP:OTHERPARENT to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if it is, the act of asking is a significant edit. If you think the draft should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If you don't think it should be deleted then why are you discussing it here? Speedy deletion is explicitly only for uncontroversial cases where the letter and spirit of the criterion applies, if (as here) one or the other does not then speedy deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to this, if an editor systematically tries to game the system by making minor edits to reset the clock, the editor can still be dealt with. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there should be some.time provided between notification of a G13 and deletion. I'm not a machine. As far as resubmitting Plymouth Tube, why isn't it notable? Take it to a.deletion discussion and let's get a consensus.FloridaArmy (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about drafts with meaningful content, I do wish this took into account the activity of the primary contributor (assuming there's a primary contributor, which is usually the case). If a user creates a draft and does nothing else or if a user hasn't been around in a year, then G13 may make sense. But if the person is still active, there's no benefit to a deletion being speedy. At minimum there should be a message with some lead time before the deletion happens (like a prod, although I seem to recall something like that being proposed and rejected in the past -- can't keep track of all the RfCs throughout the slow erosion of the draft namespace over the last 3-4 years). Eh. Most users don't work in drafts, but there's no good reason to antagonize those who do with pedantry concerning pages that aren't indexed and nobody ever sees other than people looking for maintenance jobs. This isn't a judgment for/against the current topic btw. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this should reset the G13 clock. As long as we allow WP:REFUND/G13, removing the speedy tag/resubmitting without changes avoids going through a completely unnecessary deletion and undeletion, saving time for everyone. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• I genuinely don't understand why G13 isn't actually a PROD. If after six months someone is still around and editing and want to save a draft what's the harm? If it's bad content it can go to MfD but if it's just an imperfect article needing attention why are we acting like we have a deadline? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A PROD system would make more sense, and it would realistically be no extra work, but I think it might not feel as emotionally satisfying to some editors. PROD feels more like "Eh, that's not really wanted", and CSD feels more like "Die, horrible scum!"
    Also, sending contested drafts to AFD (i.e., the place with the most people who are familiar with notability; the place against whose standards the AFC draft acceptance process is supposed to be measured against) would make more sense than sending it to MFD. We don't have an ideal system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

    A PROD would just invite the same sort of nonsense. AfC has enough to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

    I concur. AFC has very large backlog. Getting rid of the drafts that don't get improved, is one way to clean up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a indefinite web hosting website. Of course, promising drafts should be G13 postponed. Masum Reza^📞 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

    User:Kudpung, what exactly is "the same sort of nonsense" that a PROD would invite, and how exactly would slapping {{draft-prod}} on a long-ignored draft, instead of slapping {{db-draft}} on it, increase Articles for Creation's workload? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, perhaps you need to get up to speed on what goes on at NPP and AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, pointing out that I don't (in your opinion) know the information that I asked you to provide does not technically constitute an answer to my questions. Let me repeat them:

1. What exactly is "the same sort of nonsense" that a PROD would invite?
2. How exactly would slapping {{draft-prod}} on a long-ignored draft, instead of slapping {{db-draft}} on it, increase Articles for Creation's workload? (NB: Not NPP's workload: AFC's. And actual "workload", not "pages existing without anyone working on them".)

If you can't provide concrete and specific answers to these questions, I'm going to be forced to conclude that the answers sound a lot like (1) "I guess that since changing anything in the draft resets the db-draft process anyway, someone resetting the clock by removing a prod template isn't very different in practice after all", and (2) "Upon proper reflection, since neither CSD nor PROD tags re-submit drafts to AFC, it probably won't affect AFC very much, after all". I'd be happy to discover that you have different answers to my questions, or even answers that are basically the same but expand upon it in detail, but so far, your non-answer is non-convincing with respect to convincing me that PROD is a worse process than CSD for this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

PROD is worse than CSD because PROD, unlike CSD, is not objective but instead relies on watchlisters. Draftspace doesn’t have watchlisters, and so draftprod amounts to a non-objective CSD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• • WhatamIdoing, after thinking about it for 5 seconds, discussing drafts at AFD actually sounds like not a bad idea. Has this been discussed and shot down before? —Kusma (t·c) 10:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

    • @Kusma: I don't know if this has been discussed before, but in general adding more things to AfD gets shot down because the venue is already too busy for everything currently nominated to get enough attention. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

      Thryduulf, indeed AFD is a bit understaffed, but I don't see why people interested in discussing drafts couldn't be drafted (haha) to go over there and help out, leaving MfD for stuff that really isn't an encyclopaedia article or intending to be one. —Kusma (t·c) 11:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

      I agree. Sending it to MFD doesn't save net effort (unless someone thinks the MFD regulars would invest less effort because they're sloppier, which is an insulting idea). "I spend one hour at AFD" or "I spend one hour at MFD" is ultimately the same amount of effort and the same opportunity cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

      AfD is much more work per page than MfD because MfD doesn’t examine questions of notability. MfD doesn’t consider notability of drafts because that is the whole point of the draft being in draftspace, the question of notability is uncertain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any edit resets the G13 clock. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

How strict is G13? (redux)

In the thread titled How strict is G13?, above, I was told by SmokeyJoe, Any edit resets the G13 clock, which I grudgingly went along with. But, surely there's some lower bound? Back in October 2018 (10 months ago), I restored and draftified Amarachi Orjinma at User:HandsomeBoy's request. At that time, a couple of substantial edits were made to the draft. In December, one more word was changed. That was 8 months ago, so this would be WP:G13-able, were it not for a single edit made in March, which deleted one character of whitespace. Are we really at the point where somebody can keep a draft alive forever just by making single-character whitespace changes every few months? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky one because it's been through AfD. In general if someone is working towards encyclopedic content with a reasonable claim of notability I take a pretty strong NODEADLINE view. However, for content already judged not-notable that does change the equation somewhat. For me, if someone cares enough to keep a draft alive every few months, that's more attention than some of our articles get, and so while the AfD is complicating issue for me not enough to suggest that it overrides the safeguards of a CSD. In the end of it doesn't on Wikipedia there's always MfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• How strict is G13? If anyone needs to ask, tell them "Any edit resets the G13 clock".

Does this include adding the template {{Db-g13}}? No. Does this include a bot removing a non-free image or mainspace category? Probably no. Does this include a failed MfD nomination? Yes, even if the MfD nomination is "keep, leave it for G13".

The driving purpose of G13 was to remove the tens of thousands of ancient forgotten abandoned draftspace pages (mostly authored by IPs), largely motivated by the presence amongst them of BLP and copyright violations. Few *needed* to be deleted, but sorting the offensive from the worthless was properly accepted as a much bigger cost than mass deleting the worthless.

There was supposed to be a bot warning authors of upcoming G13 eligibility, and then doing the G13 deletions, and notifying the author, with nicely wordsmithed language, of the deletion and of how they can freely and automatically get it back via WP:REFUND.

If you find an draft under six months since the last edit, but needing deletion promptly (eg BLP, copyright) then delete it for the reason it needs deletion (eg G10, G12).

Is it annoying you that someone is trying to keep alive a page in draftspace? That is their right, subject to WP:NOT. Advise them of WP:DUD, and the far superior option of using userspace.

Try to not use junk in draftspace as an excuse to create busywork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It annoys me that somebody asked me to expend the effort to undelete and draftify it for them, then never did anything with it. It annoys me that having it exist in draft space also caused User:PeeJay2K3 to do some pointless maintenance work updating the project templates on the talk page. And it annoys me that this then caused it to pop up on my watchlist, leading me to spend time again looking at it to figure out why it looked familiar. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. You are the REFUNDer. Possibilities...

(a) Delete it now, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amarachi Orjinma.

(b) Delete it now, as your personal prerogative to reverse your discretionary undeletion.

(c) Nominate it at MfD, citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amarachi Orjinma, and arguing that it has no reasonable change of being fixed to overcome the reasons for deletion in that AfD.

(d) Offer the author the choice of userfication, with the instruction to keep it blanked during periods of inactivity.

The premise of G13 is that there is no one around who care about the page, no one at all. Keep G13 out of this. This is an issue of overgenerosity of userification or draftification, and what to do when you now consider that the REFUND request was not made in good faith, or if you think the author has given up hope of fixing the deletion reasons and is stubbornly and forlornly trying to preserve their work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Didn't know I was doing anything really wrong. I actually wanted it in my sandbox, which would have lesser bar of existence than a draft article. The footballer in question is still active for Rivers Angels, and there is a chance she may get a call-up for the African Games or Olympics, I didn't want to write from scratch or disturb another admin if it gets deleted again. Please feel free to delete the draft article, as I already have it in my sandbox and apologies once again. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  If I am not mistaken, I must have used "userfy" when I made a request on your talkpage. Not so sure though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so this is a mess. What you've got in your sandbox is a copy-paste of the draft, which is something we don't want because it messes up the attribution history. Should your sandbox page ever get put back into mainspace, it won't have the right history as required by WP:COPYWITHIN. One fix would be to do a history merge of the draft with your sandbox, but I can't even do that because you've re-used your sandbox page for many different articles over the years. The history would be a total mess. What I'm going to do is delete the draft under WP:G7, per your request above. @HandsomeBoy: if your sandbox ever does get promoted back into mainspace, please make sure you find an admin to help you get the attribution history fixed. The best thing at this point would probably be to (re)-undelete the draft, copy-paste your sandbox onto that, and go from there. But please don't do any of that unless there's some real evidence that this person has become notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted with thanks.HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User page of non-existing user account.

Does a page in the User: space, not associated with a registered user account, qualify for speedy deletion? If so, which criteria apply? If not, should it go to RfD process? (Suppose, for example, someone created User:ABC page for a non-existing account ABC.) --CiaPan (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: That would be Criteria U2 :) Sam Walton (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thank you for your help. Despite being an old Wikipedian I'm still not familiar with the criteria list. I've surfed across it but somehow managed to miss U2.
The page which concerns me is User:T2Bean-Public, which is a redirect to a legitimate page of User:T2Bean account, but User:T2Bean-Public is not registered.
I've added {{db-u2}} to it. --CiaPan (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass nomination

I would like to mass-nominate 101 redirects for speedy deletion under WP:G14. Would a nomination here and now be acceptable, or is there another way to mass nominate, or should I tag each page individually?

The pages are "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" where N is every number from 600 to 700: ie Virginia State Route 600 (disambiguation) to Virginia State Route 700 (disambiguation). In every case "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" is a redirect that targets "Virginia State Route N", which in every case says "State Route N (SR N) in the U.S. state of Virginia is a secondary route designation applied to multiple discontinuous road segments ...". There is therefore no ambiguity and no requirement for a redirect "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" to target ""Virginia State Route N" since there is only one Virginia State Route N. These redirects may have had value before @Famartin:'s good work in expanding the target articles, but now they are not required and speedy deletable G14 (the targets are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll go along with this. – Fredddie™ 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I would think people who might want to contest such a thing would be watching those pages not these Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads also seems like a better venue than this for notification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with deletion as long as someone checks to make sure any pages linking to them (there were a few) are corrected. Famartin (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed one of the submodules for {{Jct}} this morning to avoid the dab pages. I think that's where the handful of incoming links were coming from. I did a spot check just now; 600 and 700 were pointing to this discussion while the rest only point to User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation_redirects/004 and User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation_redirects/005. –Fredddie™ 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have just deleted … 700 … and "… 69? …". If nobody screams, I will delete the rest in a couple of days. Even with Special:PrefixIndex and Twinkle's batch delete tool, it is going to be slow work because I have to carefully pick out the (disambiguation) pages from lots of others. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

G11 on Draft: namespace?

re: Draft:Gin Mare

Gin Mare is a brand of high-end gin. It's easily notable (if any modern brand of gin is notable, Gin Mare would meet the same standard). I don't know the state of the draft when it was deleted.

Should G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" ever be used on a recent draft? Isn't this sort of "promotional writing on notable topics" what the Draft namespace is for? Otherwise why do we bother? (It's not as if anything else about Draft works). @Deb: Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should. Drafts are visible and advertising is meant to be excluded from the encyclopedia. COI concerns me equally. But if the guidelines change to allow POV editing, I'll stop enforcing it. Deb (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality third party independent coverage should make it G11-proof. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

But not if it's deleted first. I'm thinking of draft articles on good topics, where a current version is overly promotional, but not unfixable. If Draft: doesn't have a more lenient approach to this than mainspace, then what's the point in Draft:? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think draft articles on good topics should have been written straight into mainspace. I think if anything, AfC reviewers are too cautious with G11. If the sources are all unsuitable, and it is promotion, it should go immediately G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

But they then run the risk of CSD, moments after creation. It's also very BITEy to new editors that way. But at present, new editors simply have no route to article creation 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If it is about a company or product selling now, and the only sources are external links to the company website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, anything short of G11 is wasting their time and your time when they come back again still not understanding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Of course G11 should be used on recent drafts. If a draft requires a fundamental rewrite to become non-promotional, the situation is improved by deleting the draft and waiting for a non-promotional version. If there is promo content plus a few reliable sources, improve the draft by removing all of the promo content, no matter how little is left over. If Draft space is currently broken, we should discuss why and how, but not here. —Kusma (t·c) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. There is still a long distance between "a fundamental rewrite" and "there is nothing here worth saving or re-using". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If the content has zero acceptable sources, it can’t be rewritten. Editing to hide bad sourcing is not helping anyone. The answer is at least WP:TNT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just nuke all the ads if you ask me. If it's spammy now, it was probably done so deliberately and the author is WP:NOTHERE. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. Do some basic WP:BEFORE if there is anything to suggest that it might be notable, regardless of whether those sources are present in the article. If it needs a fundamental rewrite with better sources, then that's fine - it's in draft space not the mainspace. Just leave a note on the talk page with the sources you found and explain what needs to be done - or better still just improve it yourself. Remember to be cautious - especially if there is a likelihood of non-English and/or offline sources then don't just assume that a 2 minute google search is a reliable indication of its notability. If you think it is irredeemably spammy and no sources exist to improve it then take it to MfD if it can't wait for G13. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• what I do is somewhere in between. I consider part of the reason for having G11 is that is is harmful to have advertisements in the encyclopedia, similar to the way it is harmful to have BLP violations or copyvio in the encycopedia, and the advertisements that can't be fixed should be removed. Tho they ae not searchable in google, they are searchable, and we do harm by letting people who reach them think are even provisionally apart of the encyclopedia. I list for G11 or delete if listed recently or even immediately submitted drafts

those that are written as advertisements without any disguise or adjustment to even pretend its an article.

those that have no non-advertising content worth saving.

those that besides being entirely promotional, are for things that also are utterly and hopelessly never possibly going to be notable, for no rewriting cn help them.

those that would need to be completely rewritten and were clearly written with promotional intent, especially if clearly by the subject themselves or an undeclared paid editor.

I do not use G11 for

those that are just "spammy" but not exclusively or almost exclusively promotional.

those that may not have been promotional in intent but good faith efforts at an article, even if they would need substantial rewriting to avoid being promotional

those that can be made less promotional by removing part of it, & are not otherwise obnoxious. I just remove that part.

And I think it very important that admins do not delete G11 singlehanded. It's almost always at least to some extent a matter of judgment. I know I can make errors; I know I have made errors, and I want my work to be confirmed. (That said, I have sometimes--not usually, but nowadays about once a month, gotten so exasperated that I have removed just by myself something really outrageous. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New criterion: P3 (or maybe expansion of P2)

In lieu of an en masse series of nominations at MfD concerning neglected/stillborn portals, I would like to see if there's a consensus for expanding CSD criteria to cover certain portals of this kind (specifically clear-cut failures of WP:POG).

My proposed qualification conditions would be the following:

• The portal must have less than twenty selected articles total (this includes the number of selected bios, if there are any). Of those, at least half must be B-class or lower.
• The last regular maintenance done on the portal must have been done at least five years ago. Additionally, said maintainer must have been inactive for at least one year. (The creator's statistics may be used if there were no other maintainers.) Bot edits, semi-automated edits (such as AWB), and addition and reversion of obvious vandalism do not count towards this condition.
• Average daily pageviews during the last semi-yearly period (in this case, it would be January 1 - June 30, 2019) must make up less than 5% of the corresponding article's average daily pageviews in the exact same time period.

All conditions above would have to be satisfied.

I don't have any strong expectations for how this will mull over, but I think this may be a worthwhile criterion to consider adding, especially considering how many nominations of this kind are at MFD right now. ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• To be honest I think this is far too complicated, and the correct solution to the issue of mass nominations at MfD is simply not to nominate inactive portals for deletion unless they are actively harmful (and I don't recall seeing any evidence that any of them are). I've given up fighting for them though as I don't have the energy to deal with all the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing in the walls of text that inevitably follow from doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Thryduulf on all counts (I find arguing in portal MfDs a rather soul-destroying experience, and have let myself be bullied out of most portal-related discussions). Further, there is absolutely zero reason to make a comparison of article views and portal views a criterion for deletion. (My own portal, Portal:Germany, misses the 5% by a country mile or so [1] but is more popular than most of the articles I have created: [2] (note that these are all pages linked from my user page, including some that I have not created). So what? It doesn't give us any indication that the portal is more or less worthy than any of my substubs). —Kusma (t·c) 20:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CREEP. The MfD process is handling these cases just fine, and Wikipedia benefits from the discussion there. There are less than 700 portals, and the narrow criteria mean this proposed reason would only ever apply to a tine fraction of them. (another problem: what is "regular maintenance"?) It does not make sense to add a new speedy reason that would apply to such a tiny number of pages. 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The multiple RfCs on portals, including their deletions, have failed to develop a consensus. Portal deletion is therefore contentious. In practice, most are experiencing WP:SNOW deletions, but I don't think this is read for a new CSD. WP:POG remains a pariah guideline. WP:POG requires community support well before being reflected in WP:CSD policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeating a challenged CSD?

Extended content

Extended content When is it appropriate to repeat a CSD, when this has already been removed by another editor? When is this appropriate when there is no "additional reason", such as BLP / copyvio etc? See WP:ANI#Template:BMW E24 timeline and {{BMW E24 timeline}}. This template was deleted some years ago. Two editors nominated and supported this at TfD, neither is still active. The template was re-created today, I think by the original author. IMHO, there is good reason to have this template, and the original criticisms were that it was "ugly", which ought to be fixable by editing not deletion. It was G4'ed today, then the ANI thread began (which isn't the right place for a content dispute, but that's where it is) as to whether it should exist or not. So I removed the G4 notice, as there was now an active discussion. It was then deleted anyway. Now as I read CSD, "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 not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. " i.e. once a CSD tag has been validly removed, it shouldn't be re-applied, but XfD etc should be used instead. This is for just the same reason as WP:PROD: we perform deletion by discussion at XfD and both of these accelerated deletions are there for clear, uncontroversial and unchallenged appropriate deletions to which a consensus of editors would be assumed automatically. If one GF editor disagrees, that point fails and they can no longer be applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Andy "forgot" to mention that the re-creating user is the same user who created the original deleted content, that the re-created version is near-identical to the deleted version, and that the user responded to the G4 deletion by creating the exact same content at a different title. He also "forgot" to mention his past history with the original XfD nominator and his past history with the G4 deleting admin. Is the WP:FORUMSHOP open again now? Guy (help!) 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Guy, stop lying. " The template was re-created today, I think by the original author. " Third sentence I posted. You can't have missed it. Now I can't see the creation history, so I don't know this, but it seems likely and minor though it is, worth mentioning. Certainly I'm not trying to hide it. And cut it out with your other personal attacks too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC) I apologise. You merely minimised, rather than "forgetting". However, I am certain you were just about to mention your long-standing grudge against admins in general and me in particular. Weren't you? Because good faith users don't assert "lying" when an honest mistake could explain it. Guy (help!) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Stop, quite literally, making stuff up for yourself to feel aggrieved over and attributing it to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)"A sign" is not "a requirement", and for a removal of a speedy template to be in good faith, the remover has to have a good-faith belief that it's incorrect, not merely that they disagree with the deletion discussion. For a G4, that means that the new page has to be not sufficiently identical; not deleted at its most recent deletion discussion; have a deletion reason that no longer applies; or been moved to user or draftspace for improvement. Which was this? —Cryptic 23:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC) G4 covers substantially identical content. For the most part, only admins can see that. Andy is not an admin. The second recreation at Template:BMW E24 models was byte-for-byte identical to the first, but at a different title. First G4 at 16:04, 18 September 2019, second re-creation 19:23, 18 September 2019. This user has made significant numbers of edits in the four plus years since the original deletion, there is no indication why this is suddenly so urgent as to require re-creation and a second re-creation at a "much better tile". Guy (help!) 23:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Your point is as irrelevant now as when you made it before. No one is questioning the duplication or the validity of the original G4, the point is whether you were right to repeat it once challenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Feel free to suggest how G4 could ever work at all under your idiosyncratic theory of "challenge" when the content is the same. See also WP:LASTWORD. Guy (help!) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) You brought that up earlier in relation to armies of meatpuppets. But then they wouldn't be GF challenges to the CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "A sign" is a good point. For that wording, I'd have to agree that this is advisory then, not binding. The question remains, what is a GF challenge? And specifically here, what is a challenge for G4? I don't believe that deletions are meant to be binding for all time, even if byte-identical. Opinions can shift, we always recognise that as a general principle. For the word of G4, I'd go with pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,, but for the principle of it I'd fall back on the original TfD as having had only two participants and a weak rationale (the better fix is to edit the ugliness, not remove the attempt). The core of my challenge though would be that a discusssion had since started (at ANI) and that CSD is just not appropriate (it being right outside the intended scope of CSD) for cases where there is an ongoing discussion. (Which isn't to exclude discussions which then conclude in a consensus to act speedily). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC) G4 is not about "good faith" or anything else. It's a very simple rule: if it's the same shit, we don't muck about, we just nuke it. You could not see the content. I could. And the fact that the same user created it it yet again at a different title probably tells us all we need to know here. Guy (help!) 00:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC) And yet again, this isn't about whether it's a recreation or not. It's about whether CSD should be applied, and re-applied, when there is already an ongoing GF discussion elsewhere and the first CSD has been challenged. That's no longer about who created the content, who OWNs it or whatever, it's about trying to reach some objective consensus as to whether it's better for the encyclopedia (remember that?) with or without the content. CSD's function is not (and should never be) to supplant discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC) WP:G4 is about deleted pages that have been improperly restored, which is not being undisputed. I agree with Guy that allowing the CSD to be removed due to any other objection is unworkable as it opens up a massive loophole in the AfD process. There are undeletion processes in place, which apply perfectly to the situation with the BMW E24 timeline. Also, having this discussion both here and at ANI smells like WP:FORUMSHOP. It would be much better if the discussion could be all held in one place. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Administrators' behaviours, especially in carrying contested speedy deletions, belongs at ANI. Challenges to the old TfD and disputes about its continuing applicability can be entertained at DRV. Principles of the application of CSD policy should be discussed here on this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) If any editor in good standing presents a reasonable case against deletion, it should not be speedy deleted but should go to XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#Template:BMW E24 timeline is a very weak consensus. If someone wants to talk, take it back to TfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC) I did suggest that at ANI (because it was an old TfD with limited participation), but we need to look at the broader point, which is that a valid G4 cannot be objected to (well it can, but an admin can still delete regardless), and a moments thought will show why. If Editor-in-good-standing-A creates an article and it's deleted at AfD, then they could simply create it again, identically, the next day and get their friend Editor-in-good-standing-B to remove any G4 tag that was applied - at which point it would have to go through another AfD 24 hours later, which is ridiculous, and could theoretically continue forever. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) No. Alternative solutions to that scenario include: Warn then block the disruptive meatpuppets (next day identical re-creation is unlikely to be co-incidence); Make a stronger case for a stronger close in XfD2. I think G4 disputes come from weak ambiguous XfD closes, where it is debateable whether something has changed and overcomes the reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Although the XfD was weak in this case, most G4s aren't; they're usually editors not understanding (or not caring) that they can't just re-create their unsourced / non-notable / promotional article after it is deleted. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC) In that common case, the page is coming back via the creator, who is already specifically excluded from removing the CSD. It's a real problem, I recognise, but we already have plenty of ways to deal with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Arbitrary break A page (regardless of if it's an article or a template, as in this particular case) that is a substantially identical re-creation, under any name (so the re-creation doesn't have to use the same name as the original page that was deleted at XfD, it doesn't have to be created by the original creator either...) of a page that has been deleted at XfD is always eligible for CSD G4 with or without a speedy-deletion tag (so removing a speedy-tag does not in any way make the page ineligible for G4...). If someone feels it shouldn't be deleted because of there being few participants in the XfD-discussion, as in this case, the only way to get it back is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, not Wikipedia:Deletion review, since it's not the speedy deletion that needs to be overturned but the outcome of the XfD, because as long as the outcome of the XfD stands any substantially identical re-creation of the page is automatically eligible for CSD G4. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC) I, for one, oppose the idea that you can do an end-run around a deletion discussion by just re-creating the article and, going "nuh-uh" on a G4 tag, and then expecting an entirely new AfD. Take it to WP:DRV or requests for undeletion instead. Reyk YO! 09:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC) So what if it's not a G4? This point applies to CSD generally, or at least those CSDs where there is no sense of urgency to them, i.e. no BLP / copyvio issue. The point here, at its core, is "Should CSD override discussion?" Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC) The vast majority of all criteria for speedy deletion are unambigious, and not open for discussion (check for yourself at WP:CSD), with CSD A7 ("No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)") one of the few that isn't unambigious, so I suggest you limit your discussion to that one... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Well, I'd say it depends on which speedy criterion it is. There are some speedy criteria that don't require a discussion- attack pages, office actions, copyvios, and the like. Others can be treated more like disputed prods, if there's a genuine disagreement about whether something is, say, genuinely patent nonsense or merely hopelessly inarticulate. G4 doesn't exactly supersede discussion, because there has already been one. Reyk YO! 10:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Nothing is always simply "unambiguous". If one editor says "This is unambiguously one thing" and another says, "No, it is unambiguously the other" then there is an impasse. At which point we have to abandon CSD and revert to our basic mechanism, that of discussion through XfD. CSD (and PROD) is there to short-circuit discussion for speed. For which reason we can only use it outside of any discussion, ambiguity, conflict, opposition or whatever. If the long-form process has started or been requested, we have to fall back to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC) You're once again making the mistake of bunching all speedy-deletion criteria together, and speaking about them as if everything applies equally to all of them. It doesn't, there are multiple speedy-deletion criteria that override any and all deletion discussions, and require pages to which those criteria apply to be deleted immediately. So specify which criteria you're talking about, or you simply can't be taken seriously. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC) I'm talking about all CSD criteria. CSD exists because we delete on the basis on consensus discussion via XfD. However we also recognise that there are some cases, across the criteria, where we might choose to accelerate this because the outcome of such a discussion can be assumed as a pro forma. If something is a copyvio or a BLP problem, we're all (as GF editors sharing the same principles) against it, so we can assume the results of a hypothetical discussion about it, without stopping to hold that discussion. But if we're holding that discussion anyway, that derails CSD. We can no longer assume the result of that discussion, because it's ongoing and clearly not an unambiguous pro forma, if it has got this far. CSD should not supplant discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Just to show why I object to your attempts to bunch all speedy-deletion criteria together I'll give you some examples of CSD that can not be "saved" by a deletion discussion, i.e. where editors have no say in whether the material should be kept or not, provided that the pages in question clearly meet the requirements for the CSD they're tagged as, or deleted under. I don't claim it's a comprehensive list, and some may disagree with me on some of them, but it should give you the more common ones (for more details about each such CSD see WP:CSD): G1 (Patent nonsense), G2 (Test pages), G3 (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes), G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion; if someone feels that the deletion was wrong it should be discussed at the proper venue before recreation...), G6 (Technical deletions), G7 (Author requests deletion; if you feel the article should be kept, start editing it, since that would make G7 no longer apply...), G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page), G9 (Office actions), G10 (Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose), G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement), A1 (No context), A3 (No content), virtually all that apply to files, U1 (User request), U2 (Nonexistent user), U3 (Non-free galleries) and U5 (Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host; there are quite a few users who believe that WP is a social networking site, or LinkedIn, and create elaborate self-glorifying/self-promoting user pages, with their résume, family photos and everything else people post on such sites, without ever posting in article space...). Which doesn't leave much to discuss here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC) All editors will agree that a "bad page" (for any of our agreed reasons) should be deleted. But asking if a particular example of a page is such a "bad page" – that's a lot more complex. As an example (and I'm looking at broad principles here, not narrow examples) We regularly see A7s on highly notable topics. But their failing is that they don't explain any of the context for that page. Editors who already understand that field (often narrow and technical) can't believe that anyone is deleting the next Nobel prize breakthrough, editors who don't understand the background already can't even work out what the words mean. That's a simple example of how two GF editors can interpret the same characters as either well-inside or well-outside some criterion. That sort of disagreement is inevitable with such a complex overall situation as WP and that's why we need to be able to discuss pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Which is why I didn't include A7 (or G11 for that matter) in my list. A discussion about A7 (and G11) could be interesting, but the discussion would need to be clearly labelled as being about those criteria, and not CSD in general. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Agreed. Criterion G4 (and several other CSD criteria, as listed by Thomas above) is quite objective, therefore if someone wishes to contest the CSD, the onus is on them to prove that it fails the CSD criterion in question. This was not the case for the "BMW E24 timeline" template in question. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Once again, you fail to see the point. CSD (all criteria) is only permissible if there is no question of opposition to it. If there is a discussion open, that doesn't apply and so no CSD should override that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Why is this line of argument not being presented at WP:DRV? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Go to WP:DRV if you want to dispute the idea that a repost is not eligible for speedy deletion. If you don't want to go there, write an essay in your userspace, or create a new discussion here that seeks to have major amendments made to the G4 criterion. Don't waste tons more time beating the dead horse of "G4 currently doesn't apply if an editor removes the tag". Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC) This has nothing to do with DRV. It's a general point of policy: Can CSDs be used to over-rule an ongoing discussion? It's not about one specific (and thus largely inconsequential) particular deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Yes. If the CSD criterion applies, it can be used. Reyk YO! 07:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Why? We have no basis to justify that. CSD has never been intended to stop discussions. If we can assume that any discussion would inevitable and unquestionably come to the same conclusion as CSD, then we can use it to save time (and most of the time we will). But if it won't, we can't. If there's discussion ongoing, that would have that effect. CSD is there for "We can save some time here". Not for "Stop the peasants discussing it, I'm an admin, damnit!" Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Article gets nominated at AfD on notability grounds. Soon afterwards someone notices the whole thing is a big copyvio and puts the corresponding CSD tag on it. Obviously, it should be speedily deleted without waiting for the AfD to run its course. Reyk YO! 07:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC) But is the CSD tag correct in the first place? Can it (and CSD is specifically clear that it can be) be challenged by an independent editor and forced to a full XfD? Having a CSD tag applied is no proof that that tag is appropriate - editors may rightly disagree over that. Your claim here simply allows the nominator to re-add the tag until it's gone, over-ruling discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) It's up to administrators to check, and judge, if a page they're deleting meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you feel an admin has made an error, contact him/her/them, if you're not satisfied with the answer you get, or don't get an answer, post a complaint at WP:DRV. And for Christ's sake stop edit-warring! - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC) I just got a bit frustrated at all the irrelevant tangents. The goal posts were being shifted so often and with such vigour that I couldn't keep track. Reyk YO! 12:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Q. "Can CSDs be used to over-rule an ongoing discussion?". A. I often, and always successfully when I do, tag a page with G11 and/or U5 during an MfD discussion, so I thin the simple answer is "yes". However, "over-rule" does not apply, bad word choice, because the discussion is not a rule. The CSD tagging short circuits, cuts short, renders moot, the XfD discussion. If someone doesn't like that, they are instructed to preferably talk to the deleting admin first, and then to take it to DRV if they think the wrong thing was done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again: stop beating a dead horse, or you'll be getting a block for general disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. Despite any differences in opinion, I believe that Andy Dingley should be able to express his views here without the threat of being blocked. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Disapprove of heavy handed threats and unilateral thread collapsing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

G13 question

I recently saw an editor make the case that once a draft survived an MfD, it could never be deleted under G13, even if it was never edited again. This didn't seem right to me, as I think there are other speedy criteria that certainly can apply to pages that survive XfD, and it seems to me an abandoned draft is still an abandoned draft. Who is off base here? If it's me, I suggest the description of the G13 criterion be changed to make clear this exception to G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

At the top of the page: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below." G13 isn't one of the exceptions listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions; ergo, as currently worded, surviving MfD does indeed immunize a draft against G13. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This is correct, however often the consensus (certainly my !vote) has been "leave for G13". I think in these cases it is a fair reading that the page can be deleted per the XfD when it otherwise meets the G13 conditions. If the deleting admin then (auto)logs it as "G13", it is not worth mentioning.

If the CSD is in doubt, go to XfD. If this question arises at MfD enough, it will provide justification to add clarification to the text for G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the Draft space should exempt from MfD honestly. This space is meant for new articles by newer editor to grow their articles to the point of inclusion free of threat from instant deletion tagging. Almost all MfD in the draft space will end with keep, because as long as there is any indication that it may have notability it should be kept and allowed to grow. This leads to us opening up the doors for perpetual drafts that will never go anywhere because they survived a MfD and are no longer candidates for CSD. I would say we either do away with MfD in Draft space or add G13 to the exemption list. This isn't meant to be webhost. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been closing MFDs for a while and I've seen many cases where a MFD said "keep, punt to G13" or where a draft was deleted there because it was unsuitable and editors were gaming the G13 rules. With these points in mind, I would say that G13 should remain applicable regardless of the existence of a past MFD and that draft space should not be exempted from MFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd support adding G13 to the exception list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I support documenting this. I think it is standard practice. G13 applies to any page in draftspace unedited for six months, even if was kept at MfD (over 6 months preceding). If someone wants to keep something longer, they can move it to their userspace, and remove any AFC templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for the thoughtful comments. Since I obviously agree also, do we have the start of a consensus to add G13 as one of the exceptions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there really a need to make a change? If the consensus at MFD is to "leave it for G13", then there is consensus that G13 should apply to this particular draft despite being kept at MFD. If anything, the exceptions list should be amended to include a provision like

If the most recent XFD discussion did not end in deletion but there was consensus that a specific criterion should be applicable anyway, the page can be deleted under this criterion once its requirements are met.

Regards SoWhy 09:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I am more concerned about the cases where the MfD's consensus or closing do not specifically mention G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I continue to think that G13 should be turned into a Draft PROD. If there are webhost issues MfD is more than capable of dealing with it. Otherwise what's our rush to get rid of eventually encyclopedic information? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose DraftProd, like UserspaceProd, for the same reasons as stated consistently since the PROD proposal. PROD relies on watchlisters, and active patrollers. These don’t exist in draftspace. DraftProd would therefore be a pseudo-CSD. As a pseudo-it should be objective, unlike PROD tagging, and WP:NEWCSD applies. No more backdoor speedy deletion. The loose in-practice WP:DRAFTIFY standards are already pretty bad. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    If no one is watching the draft then it should be deleted. If someone cares enough to watch the draft and remove the notice then it's not really an abandoned draft. The objective criteria could be the same as for G13. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

    • If it is the same as G13, and if no one is watching, meaning that no one is doing anything with it, then why not leave it for G13? Have you read the archives on the creation of G13? The quite broad applicability with few conditions, beyond the objective old and unedited, were justified only by the sheer numbers, there being tens of thousands of abandoned useless junk, and intersperse among them were serious BLP and privacy violations, such as something a kid posted about another kid one day, sitting there live, forever. It was not viable to filter the tens of thousands for the few really bad ones that need. There is no similar justification for rushing a G13. If an editor's attention is drawn to it, and if there is a deletion reason (usually CSD G10, G11 or G12), then have it deleted for that reason by the appropriate process and code.

Why default to keep it 6 months? Because drafters are told that is what will happen. It is perfectly reasonable for them to take a few months break, and to come back and resume.

What problem is DraftPROD seeking to solve? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue of active editors having work deleted and having to fill-out REFUND paperwork when they care about something. Incentivizing editors to make stuff in their userspace which doesn't invite collaboration rather than draft space which does in order to avoid summary deletion. It's attempting to do this while not adding a burden for the numerous WEBHOST violations that the current speedy solves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors worthy of incentivizing should be pointed to WP:DUD. Mere NOTWEBHOST violations do little harm in that hidden space called draftspace, and non-objective deletion of false positive does harm. The system is working well, is it not? DraftPROD fails WP:NEWCSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I argue it's not just working. I am suggesting that good faith editors, including myself, are having work needlessly deleted. I don't know why you're asking me to justify a PROD on the basis of Speedy deletion criteria. A PROD is not a speedy deletion and I think we'd all be better off taking 7 days to think about whether or not we want to delete something before doing it - it's sat for six months, what's the rush now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not working? Maybe some examples? PROD without watchlisters or CATPROD patrollers is speedy deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• MfD should not innoculate aganst G13 (and so the exception should be listed).

MfD has three outcomes, not just two: 1. Delete. 2. Keep as a valid article, i.e. it is no longer merely a draft, it is now an active article. 3. Leave as a draft, a draft not yet ready for mainspace. "Leave for G13" is not only pretty explicit in its intention viz G13, it leaves a draft as a draft, i.e. incomplete, per 3.

We should innoculate against G13 in case #2 alone. But if the result of #2 is to immediately move to mainspace, G13 would no longer be applicable for that reason, which is sufficient. In case #3, G13 should still trigger in time. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"2. Keep as a valid article" means "Mainspace". Move it now to mainspace. Notable topics can should be created as stubs, and with an community discussion producing a consensus in support, there is no good reason to hide it in draftspace. Beware extreme meta:Immediatism, that is not how Wikipedia was created, but is how other online encyclopedias failed. In mainspace, mainspace editors will fix things. In draftspace, the drafter works alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Consistency regarding removing tags

We seem to lack a consistent approach to whether templates do or do not contain the text "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" Templates which do not have this text:

• Db-g8
• Db-r2
• Db-r4 (note that Db-r3 DOES contain the warning)
• Db-f5 (note that Db-f1 through Db-f4 and Db-f7 DO contain the warning)
• Db-f8 (note that Db-f9 through Db-f10 DO contain the warning
• Db-f11

The only ones I can see having a clear commonsense rationale for not having the verbiage in question are g7 and u1. I think dB-G13 is overused and admins should be careful about deleting with it, but I'm less positive about omitting the "do not remove" verbiage there. It seems to me that a little more consistency here would be a good thing, or if not, then verbiage stating the creator can remove the tags should possibly be added to either the CSD page or the template, or both. KillerChihuahua 17:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no need for consistency here. They include or do not include the text based on the criteria. G8 and R2 are both technical criteria that a page objectively either does or does not meet. There is no subjective decision making there. F11 is ... not really a speedy deletion, it is explicitly a delayed deletion, and doesn't really matter anyway, because it can always be undeleted when permission is received by OTRS. G13 makes no sense to prevent removal, because if someone wants to remove it, then presumably the draft is not truly abandoned. U1 makes no sense either, because it's user request. So...of course someone can change their mind and remove the template. GMG^talk 17:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps I was unclear. I thought I had stated above that in cases where the original author is allowed to remove the tag, such should be specifically spelled out. Oh, I did say exactly that, you must have missed it. I also specifically called out g7 and u1 as being obvious exceptions, so any defense of them here is tilting at windmills. KillerChihuahua 18:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• U1 having the note sort of makes sense, since anyone can create a page in anyone else's userspace, and simply the author of the page who wants it kept does not override the user to whom the userspace "belongs" who wants it deleted. (To be clearer: User 1 who creates a user subpage of User 2 does not have the authority to force the page to be kept of User 2 wants it deleted.) Granted, most U1 cases are also G7 cases (in which this is irrelevant), but there is definitely a reason for the inclusion. Geolodus (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please explain why each of the criteria you listed should have the "do not remove" bit added. I'll wait. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Who should explain that? Not I, because I didn't suggest that. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Then what is the point of this entire thread, then? To have a look at a bunch of CSD templates that I'm sure we've all already seen before? GMG has summed everything up in what should be common sense. If you were asking a question, then it has been answered for you. If it isn't and it is for something else, then please enlighten me. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I will rephrase for you, and I'll simplify my verbiage to attempt to avoid misunderstandings.

1. We might want to take a look at a few of the templates that don't have "do not remove" - but not the obvious ones like Housekeeping or User request in own space
2. More importantly, we might want to spell out that in those cases, author can remove tag - either on CSD page, or template(s), or both

Hopefully you can grasp my meaning now. If you are still befuddled, feel free to ask questions until you're clear on what I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• The only problem is the blanket statement at the top of WP:CSD, when the actual standard everyone follows it the templates. In practice, everyone just applies WP:COMMONSENSE liberally, probably through sheer weight of habit, and the de facto policy is you can remove the templates from all kinds of things, especially where pages categorically either do or do not objectively qualify. It's the subjective stuff that people shouldn't remove, but that advice is itself mostly aimed at newbies, and no one bothered to update the rest because newbies generally don't deal in U1, or R2, or most of the criteria. (Also, everyone please dial the attitude down 1.7 notches.) GMG^talk 18:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  So you're suggesting editing the blanket statement? Or did I misread that? KillerChihuahua 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes ...somehow... I'd bet most people don't even realize the blanket statement at CSD is really there. All this is 99% done using Twinkle without so much as a second thought. The people who do a lot of tagging can mostly rattle off the nomenclature and criteria by memory anyway. But there is no world where anyone acts like that blanket statement overrides the criteria on something like the C1 template, or any of the rest of them for that matter. GMG^talk 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  LOL @ "there is no world where..." yeah, I'm going to have to say that if there is a way to misread and wikilawyer something, someone will find a way. Was your "yes...." regarding possibly editing the blanket statement? I'm sorry, that still isn't entirely clear to me given the rest of your comment. KillerChihuahua 19:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  The blanket statement should really say "For many of these, the creator of the page should not remove the nomination themselves, but should follow the instructions on the relevant templates in order to contest the deletion." There is no real line you can draw there other than "some do" "some don't". Even then, the template instructions don't always make sense all the time. (e.g., If I accidentally create an A10, someone nominates it, but I think that it could make a plausible redirect anyway, don't come complaining to me if I remove the CSD template and redirect the page.) GMG^talk 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, brilliant! With that verbiage, no need to spell out each difference, or make lists - simply instruct to follow template instructions, and that will automagically instruct editors on correct behavior. Perfect. Start another section on the talk page here for straw polling it? KillerChihuahua 20:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe. Maybe give it a minute to see how many people think my off-the-cuff suggestion is silly. I probably won't be here for it. I'm going to live in a tent for a little while and will have little to no internet access. GMG^talk 00:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think you're good. No one has commented in days. Ping me when you get back, we'll work on updated boilerplate, put it in a new section, and list on CD, and let the masses decide. :=) KillerChihuahua 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Um... it took me a few days to see this, but I don't think any of the above is necessary. The "do not remove" is removed for templates where it can be removed, and it shows on templates where it shouldn't. Per K6ka above, I'm not really sure what this thread is attempting to accomplish. Are you wanting to add "you can remove this if you feel like it"? Primefac (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  And in each of the templates you've mentioned it says: If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. So the templates do already tell people to remove them if the page in question doesn't meet the criteria. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  eh, good point - still leaves out the blanket statement as referenced by GMG above. And IMO it wouldn't hurt to be specific on the templates as well. Better to spell it out clearly rather than trust to implication. KillerChihuahua 18:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

T3 and unused

In the section defining the criteria it doesn't mention anything about whether the template is unused or not. On the other hand the default deletion message seems to be "Unused, redundant template". I think one of these should be changed to avoid further confusion. --Trialpears (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither WP:T3 nor {{db-t3}} state anything about being unused. For the record (and this is specifically pointing at the admins who just care about deleting things), WP:G8 cannot be used for unused templates either. There is currently no CSD criterion that allows for the speedy deletion of unused templates. Primefac (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Then messages such as this should be changed. I don't know what generates it since I don't do deletions so a pointer would be appreciated. --Trialpears (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: |summary=Unused, redundant template in the wikitext of Template:db-t3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary text updated. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Begging Ale jrb's forgiveness, I've made the same change to CSDH. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Should articles created as redirects be deleted under A7?

Or should they point back to their redirect target as initially created? I've seen situations where:

1. A redirect is created from a company to a related topic (such as parent company or industry), or from a product line to its company. (This would not meet any CSD criteria).
2. A user converts the redirect to a (usually promotional) article. This article would be eligible for A7 were it created initially as an article.
3. An editor tags this article for A7 speedy deletion.
4. The article is deleted under A7.

In such a situation, a redirect to an article mentioning the topic is surely more useful to the reader than having no page at all. Surely speedy deletion would not be appropriate here? feminist (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In such an instance, I certainly would see nothing wrong with just recreating the redirect to its original target. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No. And the policy already forbids that when it clearly says A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible. (emphasis added). Such a deletion is most likely the result of sloppy review by the deleting admin who did not check the page history (thoroughly) enough. You might want to remind the admin(s) you have seen doing so that such deletions are not allowed under the policy because a revert to the redirect is a preferable alternative to deletion. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No they should not be deleted per A7 but reverted to redirects. But if article gets deleted in this situation, just recreate the redirect. Redirects are cheap and it does not matter at all if old redirect gets replaced with identical new one. Rules lawyers will tell you to go complaining to deleting admins being sloppy about their work, if they happen to not notice the one valid revision among garbage, but why be a useless complainer when you can correct the situation yourself with much less typing just by re-creating the redirect? (assuming of course you know where it should point. In other case, the deleting admin will happily restore the redirect if by some odd chance someone remembers its existence but not to what article it points to.) jni^{(talk)(delete)} 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think expecting admins to follow the rules makes one a "rules lawyer" or a "useless complainer". Also, your advice is fine when someone like Feminist notices the mistake but in most cases, such mistakes go unnoticed. Hence, it's better for the project, if said admins are reminded to follow the rules and not delete pages ineligible for speedy deletion in the first place. Restoring a mistakenly deleted redirect instead of pointing out the error might be less work in a single case but pointing out the error might save everyone work in the long run if the admin stops making such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 10:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Exactly per both of SoWhy's comments. If the redirect is also problematic then nominate it at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• No. SoWhy and Thryduulf are exactly corect here. jni is correct that such redirects can simply be correct, but IMO is wrong to advise agaisnt "complaining" It is always appropriate to remind admins who have done out-of-process actions that they acted incorrectly. See Process is Important for some reasons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: scope of G4

Sugrammr (talk · contribs) has recently created four categories:

• Category:840s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:930s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:950s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:990s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apart from the error that all of these are inside themselves (and so show up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories), each contains just one or two articles, so is against WP:SMALLCAT so I could send all of them to WP:CFD on that basis. However, I see that two of them (930s and 950s) have been deleted via CFD before, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 4#Early medieval works and books (open up the "more books" collapsy thing). This makes those two eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, but are the other two also eligible? That is, can the 2017 CFD be considered an umbrella decision? Notifying Explicit (talk · contribs) who closed that CFD and deleted the two cats, also Fastily (talk · contribs) who deleted the 990s one under WP:CSD#C1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Book categories

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

While working on several wiki-pages on 9th/10th century literature the requirement to create/extend book date categories arises. Much scholarship has yet to be digitized/wikipedia-ized and it is expected that single items (books) may initiate categories, viz., non-standard categories, where usual criteria are irrelevant. The "Book Year" is a necessary category for research in this field. Sugrammr (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sugrammr: As noted above, some of the categories which you created had previously been deleted under the WP:CFD process. Until there are sufficient articles to justify a finer division, please use the existing century categories, such as Category:10th-century books.

When you do create a category, you must not put it inside itself (see WP:SUPERCAT, the part about closed loops): categories belong inside one or more appropriate parent categories. For example, Category:2019 books is categorised in Category:2019 works, Category:Books by year, Category:2010s books and Category:2019 in literature; similarly Category:2010s books is categorised in Category:21st-century books, Category:2010s works, Category:Books by decade, Category:2010s in literature, and Category:2010s in media. The templates {{book year}} and {{bookdecade}} exist to facilitate this categorisation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The placement error was a simple error. The book decades category is a requirement. Sugrammr (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is it stated that it "is a requirement"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd like some clarification on this as well. I was recently informed that {{Colts2018DraftPicks}} and a few related templates had been recreated, but I left {{Colts2019DraftPicks}} alone because it had not yet been created when the original TFD closed. It's clearly in the same scope as the other templates, so I likely would have been within my rights (and a little bit of IAR) to delete the 2019 template, but I left it out of an overabundance of caution. Would I be justified in deleting it? Primefac (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

To me a reasonable interpretation of a deletion discussion when carrying out G4 is appropriate given WP:NOTBURO. I think G4 deleting the 2019 template would be well with-in your discretion in the same way that a recreated article deleted under G4 after an AfD can differ to some degree in content. The idea of G4, to me, is that community consensus has been established and absent something to suggest that consensus has changed (e.g. passage of time, new precedent or RfC, new sourcing) then requiring further community consensus is not needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That's the direction I was leaning, but I figured erring on the side of caution until a 2O was given wouldn't hurt. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: My question is not so much about the 2019 recreations of the two that were deleted in 2017; it is whether the 2017 CfD may be used to justify a G4 speedy of similar categories that didn't exist prior to their recent creation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, yes I understood but found it easier to express an opinion about a template than categories. I don't dabble enough in categories to know all the ins and outs. That said I do think a category that didn't exist, but if it had would have been part of the same deletion discussion, can be G4 deleted at an administrator's discretion. However, at some point enough time has passed that consensus might have changed. It's this last part especially that I am ill-equipped to give an intelligent answer about here. So my answer to you is yes in theory and I'm not sure in reality for this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

G14 question

Does G14, apply to rediects resulting from page moves from names ending in (disambiguation) to names not so ending? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: If a disambiguation page is moved from "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo", then the redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" does not need to be deleted (WP:INTDAB). I'm not sure if that answers the question! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It does,Shhhnotsoloud. I have seen such pages tagged for G14 deletion. Would anyone object if I edited the CSD page to make this explicit? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel:. We may have misunderstood each other. If there is a disambiguation page at "Foo", the base name, then there needs to be a redirect at "Foo (disambiguation)" to point to it. This is so that intentional links to a disambiguation page pass through a (disambiguation) redirect. This is explained at WP:INTDAB. So, if you have moved "Bar (disambiguation)" to "Bar" then you can leave the resulting redirect alone, with rcat {{R to disambiguation page}} (assuming that "Bar" is a now disambiguation page or a page with a disambiguation-like function). Perhaps you could give an actual example? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, 39th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation) (-> 2018 New Brunswick general election) which included {{R from move}}. You tagged it G14 on 12:33, 6 October 2019 . and I deleted it as peer your tag. The move wqas done on 08:08, 20 January 2016 by Anthony Appleyard. It seems that I should not have deleted this, correct? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Ah yes, I see, thank you. I'm clearly an involved party. 39th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation) should have been deleted because at the time of deletion it did not redirect to a disambiguation page, it redirected to an article 2018 New Brunswick general election which does not perform a disambiguation function. The situation would have been different if the target was 39th New Brunswick general election and that target were a disambiguation page (it may have been at some time but wasn't at the time of deletion). I hope that helps (but I'm not neutral here). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN proposal to limit G13 on submitted unreviewed drafts

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal.

I think it is a bad idea to propose WP:CSD changes in places other than WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree with SmokeyJoe, although the proposal itself is interesting. Can the discussion be moved here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a bad idea (moving discussions in general is a bad idea). Just participate in the discussion where it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: R5: Redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that do not target a disambiguation page

This proposal is similar to the proposal that resulted in the R4 criterion being created by extracting it from the G6 criterion. At the present time, the G14 criterion includes a portion near the end of its description that applies exclusively to redirects:

"G14 also applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)."

I propose that this sentence be extracted from the G14 criterion to create a new "R5" criterion as follows:

R5: Redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that do not target a disambiguation page

This applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

--Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This portion was added to G14 as a result of a discussion which can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Deletion of redundant (disambiguation) redirects, a discussion that concluded on 20 June 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: having G14 apply to these redirects (as currently done) works fine, as they are technically also "disambiguation pages that don't disambiguate". I don't feel particularly strongly about this though, hence my "weak" !vote. Geolodus (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support- I think spinning this out into its own thing would be a good idea. Reyk _YO! 10:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Meh Does it really matter whether this is R5 or part of G14? G14 is a new CSD and I haven't seen any evidence of confusion with its application. Iffy★Chat -- 11:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm very much in favour of splitting overly large criteria like G6, and I cannot see any potential harm from this proposed split, but equally I'm not seeing evidence of problems with the current set-up. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. G6 is a mess and creating a separate R5 would be less confusing to editors and admins. feminist (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  That's why it was pulled out of G6 and into G14, but (like Thryduulf) I'm not sold that G14 is now similarly unwieldy. This seems to fit in with the general oeuvre of G14. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Queston Would this, and does G14, apply to rediects resulting from page moves from names ending in (disambiguation) to names not so ending? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• We should probably keep that discussion to #G14 question. Geolodus (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

New category for T3 nominations during the holding period

When nominating templates for deletion per T3 I've had them deleted before the 7 day holding period and think this could be resolved by adopting the categorization scheme of C1. C1 nomination are categorized as Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion during the hold and as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories after the hold while T3 nominations are categorized as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates both during and after the holding period. I suggest that this is changed so they're categorized as Category:Redundant templates awaiting deletion during the hold to prevent premature deletions in the future.

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates should also be renamed to remove the unused part as it isn't mentioned in the actual criteria. I think this could be done without a CfD as it misrepresent policy and consensus for such changes were shown at #T3 and unused, but since I don't have the technical ability to do it I haven't. --Trialpears (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_14 --Trialpears (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Rule G13 is really not a good idea.

The case against G13:
Why Wikipedia should consider getting rid of Rule G13.

I believe that abandoned draft articles should be kept indefinitely instead of being deleted for the sole reason of being currently abandoned.

Having to ask an administrator for the undeletion (WP:REFUND) of draft articles might be discouraging and even intimidating to very junior editors.

If a new editor encounters an abandoned non-deleted draft article directly, which can even happen after years, he can immediately proceed to keep editing it, and eventually making it mature enough to enter the the main name space.

Additionally, Draft articles are searchable. If a new editor starts to write an article on the same topic, but then notices that an article with that name already exists, that editor can directly proceed with a headstart and a template to edit that article.

If that article is deleted, it does not show up in any search. Not the article name search, nor the text search.

And if the new editor creates the article about the same topic/thing , he will not notice that such an article already existed as a draft that could have given the new editor a head start.

Keeping a draft article indefinitely appears much more logical to me for these reasons.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's assume I died tomorrow in a plane crash, and the draft article Draft:Comparison_of_mobile_phone_cameras will be only discovered by 2024.

If an administrator decided to delete that article due to G13 in the meantime, that compiled information in that article would be buried and possibly withheld from future readers who find it useful, forever.

Draft articles can also be a potential source of information, especially if sourced properly.

Even an abandoned but still existing draft article can encourage an encountering user to keep working on it.

For these reasons, the rule G13 appears purely counter-productive to me.

Rule G13 could cause legitimately good draft articles to fall into oblivion. No one knows how much information the black hole of G13 has already pruned.

Also see:

• Wikipedia:Give_an_article_a_chance
• Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

I hope I could help you and future editors.

 –– Handroid7  【talk】 04:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC) - Note: Proposal author is Ceckuser blocked as a sock. Alsee (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• The critical problem was that amongst the thousands per year new abandoned drafts were WP:BLP and copyrights violating material. More than can be reasonably expected of volunteers to review. It is hard enough to review every submitted draft, let alone every page created and abandoned. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  I fail to see how that is an argument for G13. If a draft is a serious BLP or copyvio violation, it should be removed immediately, not languish around for another six months. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 02:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  User:SoWhy, in the absence of reliable volunteers who will review drafts, to separate minimally into unacceptable and unacceptable (G10, G11, G12) for long term live storage, who is going to remove them immediately or ever? NB. I consider this to have been the one compelling argument for the creation of G13. We’re young involved in the discussions, this page, from 2013?

Personally, I was content for all old unedited drafts to be blanked, forever available in the history but not live at a standard url, but that argument of mine didn’t gather support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have never understood the “new editors might be able to improve the draft” argument for keeping drafts. My experience working with new editors is that they are unlikely to troll through draft space, looking for old drafts to improve... instead, they will simply start a new (fresh) article on the topic. So keeping an abandoned draft in draft space is pointless.

That said, old (seemingly abandoned) drafts in USER space should be kept all but indefinitely (the user might come back and work on it). Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking to both User:SoWhy and User:Blueboar here, there is an apparent inconsistency here, draftspace pages must be be allowed to live forever, but userspace pages may. The answer is that in draftspace, there is a tendency for driveby contributors to write an dump offensive material that is far less the case in userspace. Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another. People tend to not do this so much in userspace, as userspace is the users personal space. People tend not to write graffiti inside their homes, they instead go to a sort of public place to do it, starting from inside storm water drains and under bridges. Draftspace is kind of like open space under a bridge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Then just move it to that user's name space instead of deleting it. Also, promoting anything on the draft namespace is ineffective anyway. It does not benefit the promoted thing. If they really intended to promote something, they could spam Twitter with it, not the Wikipedia draft name space.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 22:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, “Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another.” are already covered by the other rules, not G13 itself.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 22:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You are not presenting a workable solution to Who will do the discrimination. Many drafts are made by IPs, and many by new accounts that become inactive. It is no OK to blindly userfy all drafts without checking whether they are “Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another”, and it is not practical to ask someone to check them. For a time, some were trying to put all through MfD, which was completely ridiculous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Draft articles aren't as searchable as you think, as the Draft space is NOINDEXed by default, meaning the only way to search it is using Wikipedia's own search function. This is by design, for the reasons SmokeyJoe spells out above and because, for the most part, a good chunk of these drafts are written with a promotional bent which in turn makes Wikipedia and the editor(s) working on the draft look bad. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 18:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: If the draft article is written like a promotion, it does hardly benefit the promoted thing at all anyway, and can still be used as a head start for the new editor. Also, draft articles show up in search suggestions and from uncreated articles in the article namespace with the same name. e.g. Comparison_of_mobile_phone_camcorders → “ There is a draft for this article at Draft:Comparison of mobile phone camcorders.”

That's Wikipedia's internal search function. Usually when people complain about "showing up in search" they're usually meaning via Google or other search engines. And the reason for it showing up in the article namespace as it does is because it's common for articles that aren't up to par to be moved back to the draftspace. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• If the topic is truly worthy of an article here someone will eventually create an article on it, with or without a specific draft; this negates the need to keep a stale draft on here for eternity, and possible upsides of doing so are more than outweighed by the hidden policy violations that would be incurred on what are the hidden and less-watched crevices of Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  @John M Wolfson: Policy violations are supposed to be removed immediately. But getting rid of a draft article solely because it is abandoned does not make sense to me. Also, information compilation articles such as Draft:Comparison_of_mobile_phone_camcorders are exempt from eventualism. I doubt that if that article got swallowed by the black hole of G13, it would ever be recreated in that unique form anytime soon. Also, as much as there can be hidden policy violations, there can also be hidden gems, waiting to be discovered.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 02:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  The only thing exempt from eventualism would be BLP and other assorted policy violations that you mention. While it's unfortunate that time-sensitive material like that might be irretrievably deleted in that particular form, it doesn't really matter what form it assumes when it does eventually get created. (And if the particular form was so unique, it might likely be original research or synthesis, although I'll withhold judgment on that.) Notability is not temporary; if something was so time-sensitive that once deleted it could never be recreated, it probably didn't belong on here anyway. I also think you're overstating the perceived threat of REFUND; I see IP addresses there fairly frequently.

  Having said all that, I do see where you are coming from with regards to the utility of G13. I still see arguments of its de facto convenience and keeping junk out in the long run, even though it does seem a bit against the spirit of WP:FINISH. I'll reserve judgment on this question pending comments and insights from other editors. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @John M Wolfson: Even if there is some “junk”, it does not disrupt any Wikipedia reader, because they don't randomly stumble upon it. Also, that page I have mentioned is not original research. Show me one other person that recreates these tables in that sophisticated manner. (Sorry for that arrogant language, but how else do I express it?). All the work I put into that could potentially be erased by WP:G13.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

With respect @Handroid7:, I don't think you've actually ever sorted through any of the draft pages. If you had you'd see that editors frequently review content and give the author an opportunity to fix the page. If the author doesn't take that opportunity (by editing it at least once every 6 months) Wikipedia shouldn't be bothered to keep the page around. Also many of the submitters to Draft space usually come in for one day, drop a load of questionable material, and walk away. No less than any other Spam trap. Because of Wikipedia's good Google score, we're targeted as one of the percieved best paces to get copy on. We don't reach for any of the CSD rules unless it's completely unredeemable. Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Yes, I have. I found draft:List of commercial failures in video hosting. But even if I did not, does not mean everybody else doesn't.

Also, it is possible that some users request the undeletion of a draft article just out of curiosity of the content, which is another argument against G13.

Also, like I said, questionable material is already covered by the other rules, not G13.

Also, Wikipedia's good Google ranking is for the main namespace. Draft articles are not indexed by default.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support completely. G13 simply buries too much useful content. To deal with the inevitable deluge of garbage, however, a draftprod should be instituted to summarily delete bad drafts. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • “The inevitable deluge”. What editor is going to do the DraftProdding? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Anyone who's looking around draftspace that day. PrussianOwl (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe review untouched drafts at 6 months. (Yes but who is going to do it? The same people that do the deletion, perhaps?) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC).
  
• Oppose disruptive Checkuser-blocked-sock. Also oppose per WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because draft space being intended as a productive-workspace with virtually non-existent inclusion criteria. Essentially unlimited quantities of worthless crap can frivolously be dropped in draft, and we require a comparably lightweight cleaned up process for abandoned pages. Human labor is a limited resource, and an infinitely expanding draft space has on-going and expanding maintenance costs. Alsee (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

New suggestion: Separate namespace

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.

---

Another alternative to G13 is:
Instead of deletion, move the article to a new “Graveyard:”, “ExpiredDraft:” or “DraftArchive:” name space. How about that? ––Handroid7 (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

We're not a webhost. The reasons why G13 exist are real and pressing and laid out above by others. I'm in favor of something that's not speedy deletion but absent replacing it with a new kind of PROD, I would be opposed to trying to get rid of G13 completely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

“We're not a webhost.” – I am sure that all draft articles combined just require a fraction of the disk space of mainspace article's version histories.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, like I said, the other arguments such as spam content are already covered by the other rules, not G13 itself.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't link it, but my saying that Wikipedia is not a web host refers to Wikipedia policy on the matter. I think there are elements of this that are a bit... outmoded for 2019 but it remains our policy. SmokeyJoe and I disagree pretty strongly about G13 but we both do agree that we need an easy way to clean-up unencyclopedic content which could otherwise accumulate, with negative external effects. Saying "We have other ways of getting rid of bad content is true" but doesn't address our need to get rid of this bad content in a way that is relatively low in editor effort just in the same way that most of what is being examined is low in encyclopedic content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• You are free to copy all drafts to DeletionPedia.

Wikipedia does not want to host masses of hopeless worthless pages with problem pages interspersed amongst them. A long-live repository of drafts would be the making of a shadow wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: “Wikipedia does not want to host masses of hopeless worthless pages with problem pages interspersed amongst them.” – Then, why not get rid of every main-space article with less than 500 monthly views? Problem pages are already covered by the other rules. G13 means solely removing a draft article for being abandoned, regardless of its content.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 17:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose @Handroid7: Just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. It moves the problem from one space to another that would then require G13 to be ammended lest we have yet annother sinkhole of garbage. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• • @Hasteur: Then, why not get rid of every article with less than 500 monthly views? I am sure that if G13 did not exist in first place, nobody would care. Of course, there will be some useless draft articles. But they don't disrupt anybody's Wikipedia experience.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 17:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeated foolish statements like the above simply highlight your poor understanding of how AfC/G13 work. May I suggest actually participating in AfC and reviewing some drafts before commentating on existing processes? Thanks, FASTILY 03:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see this by Fastily before posting my own reply above but I would second the sentiment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, @Fastily:, but which part of that statement above are you referring to with “foolish”? I am not denying that some draft articles are questionable, and I never did. The problem is that I imagine that if I died tomorrow for any reason (e.g. road accident), and no editor happens to find the well-crafted article Draft:Comparison_of_mobile_phone_cameras within half a year, all that work could potentially be erased solely for the sake of G13, which would make all the time I put into that article wasted. The same also applies to other legitimate draft articles created by other users. I still can't comprehend why erasing a legitimate draft article solely for G13 is a rational idea. You might not be interested in mobile phone video cameras, but many people out there are. -- –– Handroid7  【talk】 12:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We're at a point on Wikipedia where the important stuff will be covered already. If there's a draft that languishes for six months that no one works on, the topic may be Wiki-notable in theory, but not real-world notable enough to have anyone care about it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Thousands of drafts are web-host violations made by users with no to little edits outside of that draft. I'll give some examples I nominated on these drafts: Should Draft:Top 10 Bruv Moments, Draft:Games better than Minecraft, and Draft:Minecraft wheat seed be kept indefinitely? Also, plenty of drafts are highly promotional, which could apply for G11, but could also work for G13. As a community, we need to scout the long abandoned draft list and make a judgement on whether to delete or improve the draft. If the draft has potential but with no editors, why not move to mainspace or find a redirect? Also, let's not forget about userspace drafts, where more web-hosts are common. The policy should cover USD's as well in my opinion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Proposed rewrite of the CSD Criteria

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Blizzard levels of WP:SNOW for all proposed changes except the F9→G12 merger, which should be discussed in a separate RfC. ToThAc (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

---

So, I thought that it might be possible to simplify the CSD criteria, and make it easier for new users to grasp them. So, I am proposing a rewrite of the CSD criteria. Here's a list of the changes I am proposing:

Proposed changes

Merges into new criteria

• G1, A1 → G15 - Pages lacking a clear subject
• F1, A10, T3 → G16 - Redundant
• A3, F2, C1, G14 → G17 - No content

Merges into already existing criteria

• F9 - Unambiguous copyright infringement → G12 - Unambiguous copyright infringement
• U1 - User Request → G7 - Author requests deletion

I believe these changes will make the criteria easier for new users to learn, allowing them to use the criteria better. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Merges into new criteria

G15 - Pages lacking a clear subject

• G1 can probably be deprecated but it shouldn't be combined with A1 because G1 carries the connotation of "nonsense" which would be inappropriate to apply to good faith article creations. Also, the proposed G15 would expand the applicability into namespaces where it does not belong, such as drafts. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Expanding A1 to other namespaces is definitely a bad idea, it would open the door to, say, userspace pages being deleted if they don't make it clear what the subject is. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• This is certainly a bad idea in draft space or user space, and in many cases in project space. And exactly how would this new G15 be worded? I don't think this is a positive idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think "lacking a clear subject" should be more specific. Or else this new criterion can be applied to pages that are simply poorly written and don't make the subject clear. My opinion is that this should be expanded to "pages whose subject cannot be reasonably identified." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• For articles, thsi is already covered by A1, AnUnnamedUser, and it is hard to see how this could usefully apply to most other namespaces, as a G-series criterion would. What is the "subject " of a talk page? Or of many project-space pages? How would this apply in user-space? How many such pages are now going to deletion discussions? This has not been thought out. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Let's go through the namespaces and see what I think is best:

1. Talk namespaces: If the corresponding page exists in whatever namespace, it should not be deleted. If it is patent nonsense, it can just be blanked. Just removes page history and clogs the creation log to have it re-created.
2. Mainspace: This is fuzzy. On one hand, it is fit to delete pages that are only nonsense like "sdfagwaeasfwaegewa". On the other hand, a poorly written article on a notable topic may also be deleted because there are a lack of MoS compliances, which make the exact subject of the article unclear. I think that an "identifiable subject" might be better for mainspace: if there is no way (looking only at the content of the article, not the title) that the subject can be reasonably identified, the article is fit for deletion.
3. Wikipedia, Help, Portal, Draft: Same as mainspace.
4. File: Can't think of any instance where this would help. Sure, you might argue for "I don't know what's in the file; it should be speedily deleted!" But other stuff like abstract art and peculiar sounds recorded from strange occurrences would also fall under this.
5. User: Not a good idea to delete user pages unless they are obvious and pure vandalism, advertising, using Wikipedia as web hosting, etc. This would already fall under other criteria. No need to make a new G15 for this.
6. MediaWiki: This might apply to important files like MediaWiki:Edit. This one only says "edit," so it falls under G15 even with the title. Compare this to an article titled "Edit edit" and whose text is only "edit edit."
7. Template: This actually makes sense: if there's no way you can identify what the template does from its content, you might as well delete it.
8. Category: I could see this applied to a category whose content isn't coherent, but an administrator with limited information might use this reasoning and delete a suitable category.

I think I got all the important ones. These are contradictory, so I might oppose until we find a better solution. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. Per SoWhy and DESiegel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

G16 - Redundant

• A10, F1 and T3 have too many specifics to handle for a combined criterion. A10 only applies to recent creations that cannot be turned into viable redirects. F1 requires a different file to exist but does not care which was there first. T3 has a 7-day-wait-period before a template can be deleted and requires deprecation. Regards SoWhy 15:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with SoWhy, there would be too many caveats. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with SoWhy. Moreover, none of these now apply to draft space, user space, or project space, nor should they. Poor idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Concur with SoWhy and DESiegel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not to pile on, but I also believe that this would be a bad idea per SoWhy and DESiegel. While you could make exceptions with certain namespaces as is done with R2 more and simpler criteria are generally better than fewer and more complex criteria. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

G17 - No content

• These all have caveats e.g. A3 lays out explicitly what the criterion applies to and we'd lose that clarity if we merged them. Also this would make A3 applicable to other namespaces, which isn't a good idea because it could be used to delete drafts in progress for having too little content. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I fully agree with Hut 8.5. There aree good reasons why these have specifics, and the general idea does not apply everywhere. In particular it should not apply in draft or user space. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Merges into already existing criteria

F9 → G12

• The major reason for the existence of F9 is the bit which says Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis will not be released under such a license. This would be possible if that was merged into the G12 wording. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'd actually be okay with this merger. I'm sure G12 can be reworded to emphasize that we don't allow Getty/Corbis/etc. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

U1 → G7

• See my comment below. U1 and G7 have different requirements. Anyone can block a G7 request by contributed significantly to the page but not an U1 request. Regards SoWhy 15:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. G7 applies if the author of the page (the one who wrote it) requests deletion, and U1 applies of the userspace owner (the user with the eponymous user page and its subpages) makes the request. These may be two distinct persons (anyone can create a page in anyone else's userspace), so a merge of the criteria would only make things more confusing. Geolodus (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• These are fundamentally different. At the moment you can request the deletion of pages in your userspace even if other people have contributed to them. This would get rid of that. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the comments of SoWhy, Geolodus, and Hut 8.5. U1 allows the owner of the user space to delete pages (well request their deletion, but such requests are normally be honored pretty much automatically once it is verified that the space owner made them) No matter who has edited them. G7 gives a simialr right in other spaces 'only if the requster isn the sole editoer or the only significant editor. Very different, must not be combined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Concur with SoWhy and DESiegel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Discussion

• Thanks for taking the time to create a proposal but I must respectfully oppose these proposed changes. The criteria need to be "objective" and "uncontestable" which necessitates that some have similar purposes but for different uses. For example, G7 is to request a page to be deleted that you created while U1 is to request a page to be deleted that is in your userspace, regardless of who created it. Oftentimes U1 will be about pages you created yourself but not always and merging G7 and U1 thus conflates two different concepts. Regards SoWhy 15:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I will join SoWhy in thanking Invalid for bringing these forward but must also oppose all of these changes for largely the same reasons. While there is overlap in general ideas for each of the proposed merges, there are enough nuances and differences to merit each remaining distinct. SoWhy's U1 and G7 is a great such example of these. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many of these crtieria are already routinely misapplied (even now, people only read half of the description, e.g. a large percentage of pages tagged for A10 would pass RFD as a redirect), and merging several into "redundant" will lead to a wide extension of speedy deletion to anything considered "redundant". Having many small criteria is a feature, not a bug. —Kusma (t·c) 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all as a solution in search of a problem. The current criteria are not really confusing, citing the existing numbers with a link like WP:CSD#G1 is easy for users to read the criteria and understand them. Creating a whole new list of criteria with new numbers disrupts existing users more than it helps any future users. Criteria that need rewriting because they don't work or are frequently mis-applied are one thing, but this kind of rearranging of the furniture strikes me as pointless. --Jayron32 16:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, the proposal shows a failure to understand the nuance of the different criteria. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merging criteria only makes sense if they really are the same thing in different incarnations, if the criteria have caveats, explanations, special cases etc then a merge no longer makes sense. To take an extreme example we could merge all the criteria into one mega-criterion, with all the others as special cases, but it would be a lot less useful. Most of these proposals have a similar problem. Some of then would also make major changes to the applicability of the criteria, and not in a good way. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose solution in search of a problem. The maximal elimination of redundancy isn't a desirable goal here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Another reason to oppose changes like this is the tremendous confusion that would result. The people who deal with speedy deletion (either by requesting it or implementing it) are reasonably familiar with the current situation and a compelling benefit would be needed to justify the turmoil of changing labels. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - while there is good rational reasoning behind these changes, I find both the justifications for the status quo provided by others to be sufficient, as well as a major disruption as we adjust to the change. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Broadly opposing. The small arguable benefits are heavily outweighed by the cost of breaking long term consistency in practices and logs. CSD criteria do not need to be easily understood in a general audience presentation, they need to consistently understood and respect in the fine details. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no benefit and significant cost to all these proposals.In addition to the specifics mentioned above, it seems as if the proposer has looked only at the bold titles of each criterion. No detailed text for any of the new or revised criteria has been proposed. That detailed text, giving the exact circumstances when a given CSD does or does not apply, matters. Without new/revised detailed text, the proposal has no value. Without considering the current text and how it would be changed, the proposal ignores negative effects. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Pile on Oppose for all the reasons above - detail matters, and for something like CSD clarity regarding applicability is of utmost importance (speedy deleting something that should not be speedily deleted is one of the most harmful things an admin can do), so what we need is a longer list of narrowly defined, simple criteria not a shorter list of broad complicated ones. Indeed some of the current criteria are already too broad (G6 being the worst offender) so we should be looking to split not combine. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggestions made in good faith, but IMO are a solution looking for a problem. CSD criteria may appear complex for the reader or article creator, but by and large, qualified reviewers, and certainly admins, have a good grasp of them. (That said, what we possibly need are additional CSD criteria, but that's another debate). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose except for F9/G12 merger. To rehash what I said above, while it's good to not have too many criteria, more simpler criteria are preferable to fewer more complicated criteria. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advance warning for G13 deletion

I just found May's discussion regarding a 7-day G13 delay (Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Proposal: Apply a 7-day hold to G13). It seems there's general consensus that, given that G13 currently exists, having some form of advance warning when drafts are about to be G13 deleted (or reach G13 eligibility) would be a good thing. (Most of the oppose !votes in that debate were based on technicalities or otherwise irrelevant to the proposal.) Is there any reason (or discussion elsewhere) that we shouldn't be further ironing out a specific approach? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul 012: If we can gain consensus for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14, I can have it start warning page creators at 5 months stale (i.e. 1 month before it becomes eligible for G13). This would mean users get warnings (at least for drafts enrolled in AFC) that their draft will soon be eligible for G13, but not require any policy changes. I'm personally opposed to a 7 day hold as it's an exception to the rule. Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

While there isn't a holding period for most criteria I don't see that as a good argument to dismiss a hold. There are already two where a hold is standard (C1, WP:T3), that said notifying at 5 months would be a step up from the status quo. --Trialpears (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As an editor focused on a WikiProject, I would appreciate if such warnings could also be delivered to a draft's tagged WikiProjects. A common situation I'd like to avoid is where a one-time editor creates a draft, submits it to be declined, and no one else sees it until it's deleted in six months. Rescuing a draft can sometimes be as trivial as adding a few easily located references. Delivering the warning to potentially interested experienced editors would be more useful than to the creator who has long since given up, IMO. This doesn't appear to be within the scope of the BRFA (or the bot's previous functions), though.

Alternatively, the tagging-to-deletion delay scheme would also allow implementation of such warnings through Article Alerts, which would avoid cluttering a project's talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not every draft gets wikiproject-tagged, so I'm not sure how much utility that would be. I wonder about configuring the bot to also post the upcoming G13s to a noticeboard... It would create a log of G13'd titles that people could poke through if they really wanted to see what had been G13'd, and people interested in draft rescue could watchlist the page and check the list all in one spot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think most WikiProjects are inactive. In a WikiProject, inactivity drives inactivity (and vice versa), but I think bot-delivered deletion warning notices of low quality abandoned pages is more "nails in the coffin" than "activity stimulation".

Paul_012, you are active in WP:WikiProject Thailand? What would you say to the suggestion that any Thailand-related articles tagged as being worthy should be moved to subpages of WP:WikiProject Thailand? There, they are not subject to G13, they will be better organised, and hopefully at least someone in the WikiProject will routinely review them.

This is the opposite approach to User:Barkeep49's DRAFTPROD idea that drafts are to be patrolled for marking junk; instead WikiProject members patrol draftspace for things that are not junk.

Unfortunately, WikiProject taggings are near useless, because the tagging is done not by WikiProject members. It kind of devalues the meaning of the tag. However, they do make it easy for WikiProject members to patrol just these drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Right, but I don't mean a WikiProject-specific noticeboard, I mean a general noticeboard for everyone to look at. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO project-specific notifications would be much more useful (at least to me, working on Thailand-related articles). I do patrol the new articles feed for WikiProject Thailand and tag relevant drafts, but I'm probably the only one doing this for the project (which is admittedly not very active, collaboration-wise, so moving pages under the project might create a workload with no one to manage). I don't know how many projects have someone actively tagging new drafts (presumably relatively few), but notifications should benefit those that do, while not affecting the others. For region-specific WikiProjects at least, having a filtered notification would be very helpful in bringing drafts to the attention of editors with foreign-language skills who could much more easily identify and assess sources than the regular AFC reviewer.--Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd certainly support notification at 5 months, I don't think a hold would do any damage, but the notification is preferable and easier Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Good news (Nosebagbear—Paul_012—Premeditated Chaos—SmokeyJoe) The bot is back in action and nagging editors whose page is at least 5 months unedited by anything. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• The proposed Hasteurbot14 at the top of this section is a very good thing, and a improvement over the someone unpredictable earlier versions --Hasteur, is that the one you are running now?

But we also do need subject based notifications. The problem here is that projects are not generally assigned until the drafts are accepted--I do not think there is any real mechanism for doing this otherwise. I'm sure we could figure one out--it would be a matter of adding a project-labelling to the draft-review, when the draft is declined or rejected. review. (we can't really expect it to be added before it gets reviewed by the contributors, who are mostly new editors. We could possibly find a way of adding it optionally when someone comments) We can use keyword-based labelling; I think we have the facility at them moment, if any project wants to use it. it works, but very roughly. ).

The Thailand example is easy. But most of the assigned projects will be no more specific than living people, or companies. each of them is about 40% of the overall number of drafts, biut even geting it down that far will help. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Hasteurbot Task 14 is just the procedural "May I resume running Tasks (Nominate for Deletion), Task 2 (Remind people before the G13 eligibility date), and Task 9 (Inform editors who have edited a page who opt in that a page is coming eligible soon) Hasteur (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

G13 word quantity on this discussion page

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.

---

G13 is causing more trouble than it allegedly takes away. Quantities of text search results on this page (whole words):

•  G1: 0
•  G2: 0
•  G3: 0
•  G4: 9 |||||||||
•  G5: 1 |
•  G6: 4 ||||
•  G7: 3 |||
•  G8: 3 |||
•  G9: 0
• G10: 3 ||
• G11: 5 |||||
• G12: 3 |||
• G13: 121 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
• G14: 17 |||||||||||||||||

This speaks for itself.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 17:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• By that same logic, CSD should be deleted as it causes too much drama. Feel free to can your Reductio ad absurdum argument. Hasteur (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur: CSD is an entire set or category of rules / criterias, while G13 is just one out of the 14 “G” (general) CSD criterias, which is one of the subcategories. But what I meant was that I am certainly not the only one who holds this rational position.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 20:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• No, this shows that G13 currently is more actively discussed. It might even suggest that G13 is more disliked than other criteria, but by no means proves that it's "more trouble than it allegedly takes away." Another way to read it is that, after having a G13/draftprod discussion every few months, the stick has yet to be dropped. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amorymeltzer: The problem is that rule G13 could wipe legitimate work, see #Fastily_reply (anchor to another paragraph on this page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handroid7 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed I am aware, but I wasn't denying that some folks took issue with G13 or that it was 100% positive, rather I was pointing out that the "statistics" above do not show what you were claiming they did. If you want an answer to that, others in the above section like Barkeep49 and Fastily have already done so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Handroid: Considering that the largest proportion of those comments consist of you repeating variations on the same theme, and the second largest proportion of those is of people replying to your repetitive comments, it wouldn't be an issue if you made your point once and then let it be. The loudest voice is not the rightest voice, and repetition does not grant extra weight to consensus. --Jayron32 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G7 for SPI pages?

If an editor creates a sock puppet investigation page, at the proper place and in the proper form, nbut later changes his or her mind and places {{db-self}} (or any similar template that invokes WP:CSD#G7, should the deletion be done (assuming no substantial edits by other users) or should tha tbe considerd a page of administrative value to the project, like a user's primary user talk page, and not subject to G7 speedy deletion. I declined a speedy today on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navawnatherat, but another admin accepted it later, p[erhaps without noticing the earlier decline. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navawnatherat for more info on the instance. I am looking for clearer policy guidance in such cases for the future, not to do a DR on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fair enough to honor the G7 if no actions relating to it have happened. After all it could be a mistake, or based on wrong information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive22#SPI subpage deletions. I think SPI subpage deletions should be left for SPI clerks and above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have once/twice misfilled usernames leading to botched stuff; before I had my pagemover flag, I used to tag them with G7. Policy ain't a substitute for common sense. ∯WBG^converse 03:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Once it appears at MfD, I think it is a sure sign that someone needs help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Who needed help? Nom G7-ed the SPI page and DES declined, pending which nom MFD-ed the page, as a natural re-course and ST47 speedy-deleted. What's the issue? ∯WBG^converse 03:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:WikiWarrior9919 needed help (help, euphemism for attention). SPI page nominated for deletion is a red flag. The username includes "warrior" is a red flag. The user is six weeks old and dabbling with SPI subpages, is a red flag. I count three red flags for potential WP:GAME playing. I did not notice a declined G7 tagging, the nomination did not mention it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• G6 applies when any admin decides that the SPI subpage has no administrative value to the project ("unambiguously created in error" in G6's wording). Honoring G7 here really equals G6. We don't need any more instruction creep for trivial project administration tasks like getting rid of premature or aborted SPI requests. G3 applies to clearly bad faith SPI requests. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Agree in entirety. ∯WBG^converse 08:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Agree. SPI subpages do not need to come to MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Userspace autobiographies and resumes/CVs

Would U5 be appropriate for userspace autobiographies or resumes/CVs, in cases where an editor's only edits are to those pages? Obviously, one should take care to not bite a newbie, but I am thinking of inactive user accounts (no edits for ~1 year or more) that contributed nothing other than an autobiography or resume/CV. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We removed that exclusion.

WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#Remove the résumé exclusion from U5 —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

However, Black Falcon, limited autobiographical information is specifically permitted by Wikipedia:User page#What may I have in my user pages?, and user pages (particularly a user's main user page) should not be deleted for holding information about a user that is not excessively promotional nor excessively long. Particular care should be used on relatively new contributors who may be planning to edit more generally, even if they have not yet done so. Users who created a user page and nothing more long ago, and have (almost) never edited elsewhere, are a bit different, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I argued for the exclusion in the original U5. What if someone were to start their Wikipedian contributions by introducing themselves? So all the non-contributors’ CV userpages came to MfD. It was plainly obvious that they were all drive-by CV drops. Can you point to any valued contributor who began editing by posting their CV? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

DES, I take your point. I am curious—what period of inactivity do you consider to be sufficiently "long ago"? I was thinking a year but am curious to hear others perspectives. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

When this was discussed, in the archives somewhere, the consensus was for the time to be zero. An unacceptable CV is unacceptable the moment it is saved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, Black Falcon, there is a difference between limited autobiographical information and a true CV. Nor have I made any detailed study of how currently active contributors might have styled their user pages when first joining. I would say that a person who has created a fairly extensive user page, but has done no significant article, draft, or project space editing in a year, or say 18 months, is probably not likely to, and fear of WP:BITE is less of an issue. But I would also say that even after such a period, unless the "writings not associated with the encyclopedia" are "extensive" than a U5 deletion, even if technically legitimate, is not justified, serves no real purpose, and provides no serious benefit to the project. Using Wikipedia as a dating service, or a place to play games, or for blatant self-promotion, yes those do not belong an should be deleted, one way or another. Even an experienced, active, and valued user should not have those on a user page. But having a few verses of quoted and attributed song lyrics does not strike me as a danger to the project. Having a full CYV is promotional, and therefor inappropriate. but mentioning three or four employers in a general way might actually be relevant to possibile editing skills and interests, and so should not draw a u5. That is my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, you say that An unacceptable CV is unacceptable the moment it is saved. Perhaps so, if it would be equally unacceptable for an active editor with thousands of mainspace edits. But a user page that would be tolerated albeit frowned on for an active user can be dealt with more gently than an instant U5 for a new user. A note explaining the issue with a request to trim or rework the user page would seem a better choice in many cases, depending on the exact content of the user page in question, and the newer the user the more this would seem to hold true. Do you disagree? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not a criterion for articles with zero verified content?

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.

---

On any Wikipedia article, editors are allowed (even encouraged) to remove any unverified statements (or, preferably, to verify them if they can), and also to remove unreliable sources (which may leave a statement as unverified, and thus free to remove, as per above), and in the case of a statement that is not supported, or even contradicted, by the source cited, to remove both statement and source (or, preferably, to replace the statement with one that reflects the source, if the source is reliable, and the statement useful/notable for the article)
...but what happens when the whole article, consists of nothing but statements that are unverified, "verified" by unreliable source, contradicts the cited source, etc? When it is clearly obvious, that there is absolutely nothing in the article that is verified by a reliable source? Should editors blank the article? WP:BLANK makes it clear, that the answer to that is "no" ...but why is it not included, as a criteria for Speedy Deletion?--85.228.52.251 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Because WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:STUB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How are those, in any way, relevant? I'm not talking about removing topics. I'm talking about removing completely unverified and counter-factual misinformation.--85.228.52.251 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If it's spreading clearly incorrect information, I would think that G3 (hoax/pure vandalism) might apply. Otherwise, a delay of a week for AfD probably isn't the end of the world. creffett (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If the article consists of only misinformation, then it is a hoax and covered by WP:G3. If it is just unverified content, then you could tag as {{unreferenced}}. If you don't believe it can be referenced, then you can take it to WP:AFD. I'd be very much surprised if we are getting lots of articles that cannot be referenced and cannot be deleted by one of the other speedy criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• 85.228.52.251 (talk · contribs), you need to be conversant with Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Verifiability", not "verified" is the policy. The phrase "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" is subjective, what is a "challenge". It being subjective means it is not suitable for speedy deletion, because speedy deletion must be uncontestably objective. If you contest the venerability of some content, then (1) WP:FIXIT and if you can't then consider (2) WP:AfD; or (3) if AfD-deletion is obvious, use WP:PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The rest of what you say (and what Whpq said) is fine and all, and I guess I'll just accept that, but...

I don't really get, how you get the notion that ""Verifiability", not "verified" is the policy". I don't really get that, from Wikipedia:Verifiability. At all.

Here are some bits from Wikipedia:Verifiability (emphasis mine): The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]/.../Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced./.../Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source./.../Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups ...and, from a ref (more like a footnote) used there, this quote from Jimmy Wales (titled "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" ...which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with): "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."--85.228.52.251 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

An article that consists solely of unverified negative information about living persons is already subject to speedy deletion via WP:G10. For other topics, the policy says "may be removed", not has to be removed. While WP:V is an important policy, it does not exist in a vacuum. The editing policy complements it by mandating that surmountable problems in sourcing should be handled by fixing the problems, not removing the material. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"For other topics, the policy says "may be removed", not has to be removed."

I wasn't saying that it does, nor does it have to, for the purposes of what I was arguing there. It does say that it may be removed or fixed (with a clear preference for the latter, certainly ...if that is a viable option), and also that it should not be left, as is.--85.228.52.168 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is terrible for speedy deletion. Articles that are true but do not have any citations can be fixed, and should be fixed. If you want to clean up Wikipedia's first couple of years of growth where citations were optional, you shouldn't do that by deleting everything. You'd end up deleting a lot of articles on mathematics, many of which are written from a mathematician's point of view on verification (which is that directly giving a mathematical proof is preferable to a citation of some "reliable source" containing the statement), not from the accepted standard for most articles on Wikipedia. In practice, this is not usually a problem, unlike statements about living people, currently operating companies, or involving ethnic feuds. Most importantly, when pages that are true and about notable subjects end up at WP:AFD for lack of references, it is not true that the vast majority end up deleted: many of them have sources added, which improves Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 10:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The only case where that criteria makes sense is for BLPPROD, and even then is for a proposed deletion, not a speedy deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Kusma, SmokeyJoe and others above. I particularly agree with SmokeyJoe about the distinction between verifibility and verified. We get too much automatic demand for a cite after every sentence now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions about G4, G13

Hi, I have a couple of questions.

• Is is possible for a non-admin to evaluate whether G4 applies to an article, when they are unable to see what the deleted version of the article looked like for purposes of comparison? Obviously, this would be clear if there was a requested undeletion; it's other cases that I'm thinking about.
• Does G13 apply to userspace drafts which do not have the AfC template? I've sometimes thought about an alternative to the long AfC queue which would involve making a draft and placing a notice on the talk pages of related WikiProjects asking editors to take a look and move it into the mainspace - however this could be disrupted by speedy deletion.

Thanks, and please ping when replying. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It's possible for a non-admin to remember what the previous article looked like. It's also possible that the AFD discussion makes it very clear what the deficiencies with the old article where, and if these are still present in the new article, G4 may seem likely even without knowing the exact text of the old article. In any event, only an actual admin can perform the deletion, so it will be done by someone who can check. If you are unsure, you can always ask an admin to take a look.

For the userspace draft question, such a page would be explicitly excluded from G13, but may be deleted by MfD. This is a plausible outcome if the draft is considered unlikely to ever become a Wikipedia article, though it's an unusual measure to take. I think normally such things would just be ignored. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 and SmokeyJoe: thanks! "If you know what you are doing, do not use AfC" is refreshingly straightforward. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• G4. You can look at the google cache copy of the article, but it is unreliable because it may not be the version that was deleted. You may be looking at a version that was later improved and then deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• G13 does NOT apply to userspace pages unless they have AfC tags. If you know what you are doing, do not use AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• For G4, there's Deletionpedia that preserves the versions of articles deleted on Wikipedia except for certain circumstances, which is what I use when determining whether something is G4-worthy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• It might have some older articles but it stopped importing years ago Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sub pages missed during G6 request

Some requested sub pages were missed during some G6 requests.....see All subpages Portal:Canada/Did You Know

This also happened here...All subpages Portal:Canada/Selected Did you know

This also happened here...All subpages Portal:Canada/Wikiprojects/Selected wikiproject

All subpages linked above are no longer needed as the portal is now using transclusion method.--Moxy 🍁 04:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth, wanna help? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dealt with. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since RHaworth says this is dealt with, I am disabling the help request to prevent other administrators' time being taken up coming here to check this request. If you think the matter is not closed and needs more admin attention then please restore the request and explain what you think is still needed. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

G7 for File: namespace?

Is G7 appropriate for File: ? In particular, not the content of the page, but the image file itself? Where this is a photograph of an artwork, not by the uploader?

See File:Innisfallen(2).jpg @R'n'B:
Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The G criteria apply to all namespaces, except where there are specific exemptions - such as User: space being excluded from G2. G7 has no exemptions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Need Someone Senior To Second My Opinion!

Editors the two drafts Draft:Muhammad_Raza_Ahmed and Draft:Raza_Ahmed have totally irrelevant content on them as per the wikipedia policy. I seriously cannot find any particular reason to even create such pages. I am deleting a page with tag of pure vandalism. I just want to be sure. (HinaBB (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC))

HinaBB In the future you may want to ask a question like this at the Help Desk; this page is for discussing the speedy deletion criteria themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That said, I wouldn't call it 'vandalism' per se, it seems to be more of a test page. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ThankYou so Much! :) (HinaBB (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC))

What is meant by G5?

WP:G5 says that:

To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic. (emphasis mine)

How is this relevant to blocks? I'm lost. All page creations made by sockpuppets (except own user talk page edits) would seem to be a violation of the user's "specific block." Therefore the distinction doesn't seem to make a difference.

If the point is to specify that the period of the block is relevant, this is redundant to the bullet just before this one:

To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

Furthermore, this line received scant discussion. These bullets were added in May 2013 in the early stages of a talk page discussion. Part of the bold edit was reverted: "It is recommended that this criterion be used mostly for pages that are a part of disruptive behavior." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppets are people. Generally, all related socks are one individual. G5 is applicable only if when a blocked sock created the page, the individual was already blocked from before. Thus, when there is a new sock farm, the pages created by the socks are not eligible for G5, but later if more socks are created, those socks' pages are, assuming the other elements of G5 are satisfied.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, I think we agree so far that if an individual that is not blocked creates socks, the articles those socks create before being blocked are not eligible for G5. That's not my issue. The "must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked" bullet point already addresses this. The "violation of the user's specific block or ban" bullet point appears to imply that socks get to brute force their new articles on here as long as they aren't violating the policy that got them blocked in the first place. (example: someone gets indef blocked for legal threats, then creates a string of one-off user accounts to continue writing articles.) We just need to get rid of the words "block or". Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I have trouble following you, but if you want to change the language to "must be a violation of the user's specific ban", that makes no sense as blocks and bans are not the same and are correctly treated differently by G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you then, User:Bbb23. To simplify, the question I'm asking is: Should sock articles created by people who make legal threats be allowed to stand? If your answer is "yes," you would want to keep the language as it is written. If your answer is "no," you should support the minor change I proposed. The next bullet point already clarifies that if the sock master is not blocked at the time the article was created, the article can stay. The wording seems to have been chosen to prop up a line in the next bullet point: "It is recommended that this criterion be used mostly for pages that are a part of disruptive behavior." That line was rightly deleted soon after it was added because it guaranteed socks could go on creating more articles forever if creating articles wasn't what got them banned in the first place. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

TLDR, this is at best an errant bit of stray text that is entirely redundant to the bullet point immediately above it. At worst its giving editors blocked for harassment, legal threats etc. permission to keep creating sock articles indefinitely. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor A is indefinitely blocked for making a legal threat (or anything else for that matter). Editor B is a new account created later and is a sock of Editor A. Editor B creates a page. That page is G5able. The nature of the block of the sockmaster (Editor A) is irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree! That is how it should be. But the bullet point introduced in May 2013 was apparently intended to limit G5 to articles that were created by users whose articles led to them being blocked. We would lose nothing by removing those two words because the bullet point directly above already says: "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I finally got what you're saying. Sorry it took me so long. Part of the problem is I never use G5 for ban-related pages, only for socks. If we're going to change the language, I suggest something a bit more to clarify:

• To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic.

-to-

• To qualify in the case of a ban, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic.

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am OK with that! Glad we understand each other now. I was about to try to pull an Annie Hall and summon User:Ego White Tray, but they are retired. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Good, I'll leave this unchanged so others may comment. I'll also be off-wiki for a few days. No urgency to making the change after all these years.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable clarification · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, the fact that creations by scrutiny-evading socks are not eligible for G5 feels a lot like WP:BURO. As does the resistance to G5 articles created in violation of the Terms of Use. Guy (help!) 09:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I’m more concerned that material that is created by a ban/block evading sock has to be kept because we need the article/the content is good. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

I propose a complete clarification / rewording to simplify the criterion, e. g.:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. This includes pages created by a topic-banned user under that particular topic.

This does not apply to pages created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.

Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 10:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy, that still begs the question: when is a page creation a violation of their ban or block? In my opinion this should make clear that this qualifies for any creation by socks of the user after the original block on the master. IMHO this still leaves the interpretation open that pages unrelated to the reason of the original block are exempt from G5. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how one could arrive at that interpretation (unless the original block expired or was lifted). WilyD 10:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@WilyD: (I agree, but,) my argument could be: An editor is blocked indefinitely for spamming. They create a sock and the sock creates an article on a long forgotten painting by a long dead painter and gets it to a level that is suitable for, say, GA without anyone else adding anything substantial. Not that I have to apply G5, but am I wrong to apply G5 to that article based on these criteria? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You're allowed, the page is also clear it's not required (and really, apart from G10 and G12, I don't think there's ever a strong imperative to delete if you can fix). I suspect it's a highly unusual case, so one might choose to make a highly unusual decision. Overwhelmingly, I expect G5s will have the same problem(s) that got the user blocked/banned, so it'll be straightforward. WilyD 11:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

WilyD, I know, it is unusual. But no, editors can be blocked for completely different reasons than page creations. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. A sock creating a page because their main account is banned or blocked is by definition a creation "in violation of their ban or block". Regards SoWhy 10:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: So, why not (no pun intended):

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users, and that have no substantial edits by others. This includes pages created by a topic-banned user under that particular topic.

This does not apply to pages created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: regarding you edit to CSD-G5: we have here discussed to even cut it down further .. any edit while block (or ban) is in violation of said block (or ban). The clarification that edits that were made before a block (or ban) are not in violation of the block or ban is a more clear (and less ambiguous) way of expressing that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Merge F9 into G12 redux

There is a rough consensus against merging F9 into G12. The primary argument for supporting a merge is that it is redundant to have two "Unambiguous copyright infringement" speedy deletion criteria (one for images and one for text).

The arguments for opposing a merge are best summarized by Thryduulf: "A long list of short, focused criteria is much better than a shorter list of more complicated ones - the latter makes misuse (in good or bad faith) more likely and harder to detect and makes things more confusing. This was split for good reasons, i.e. we deal with text and image copyvios differently: Text may be salvageable by editing and/or reversion to a previous version - none of which is possible with images. On the other hand fair use is possible with images in a way that it is not with text - in some cases it is possible that a valid fair use rationale can be written for an F9 candidate."

Slightly more editors oppose a merge, and the arguments against a merge are more fully explained and more convincing.

Cunard (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2020 (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.

---

Should F9 be merged into G12? (More detailed query below) ToThAc (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This stems from a discussion that I literally closed only minutes ago.

I'm not seeing much policy-based deviation between F9 and G12. The only real difference between them is that F9 explicitly excludes images from Getty/Corbis, which is barely even an argument for keeping them separate (considering the large number of G8 mergers for similar reasons).

Despite the overwhelming opposition in the aforementioned discussion, most users actually supported this particular merger. Pinging SoWhy, DESiegel, Hut 8.5, and John M Wolfson for their input.

Survey (Merge F9 into G12)

• Support as proposer. ToThAc (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as said above, I'm fine with this. (However, if I'm not mistaken only Hut 8.5 and I said anything about this particular merger, though we both supported it.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Why again? No profit in merging them. -- CptViraj (📧) 08:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Because they are very similar, and unlike most of User:InvalidOS' proposed mergers, this one does not do any substantial harm as far as I can see. Geolodus (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support No need for a "stock photo criterion." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy in the section below. A long list of short, focused criteria is much better than a shorter list of more complicated ones - the latter makes misuse (in good or bad faith) more likely and harder to detect and makes things more confusing. This was split for good reasons, i.e. we deal with text and image copyvios differently: Text may be salvageable by editing and/or reversion to a previous version - none of which is possible with images. On the other hand fair use is possible with images in a way that it is not with text - in some cases it is possible that a valid fair use rationale can be written for an F9 candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy/Thryduulf · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose having thought about it I'm not convinced that merging them would make the page clearer. The instructions for dealing with images and text are completely different and merging them would make the resulting criterion less readable. Although there isn't a suggested wording proposed here the version before the introduction of F9 gives an idea of what it would have to look like. Hut 8.5 07:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose since the tweaking to G12 to include F9 criteria would end up with basically the same words as we have now. Collecting F based criteria together is logical and works. Guy (help!) 09:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Having two "unambiguous copyright infringement" criteria seems redundant. SemiHypercube 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @SemiHypercube: it has been explained multiple times in this and linked discussions why the two criteria are not redundant to each other. As always at CSD you need to read more than just the title. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Inclined to oppose. This is one of those "warring consistencies" issues. If we have one kind of consistency in which similar criteria are grouped/merged based on their rationales, and another kind of consistency in which they're grouped based on what content they apply to and where people are going to look for them, and neither kind of consistency is objectively and unquestionably "better", then we gain nothing by changing the already-stable wording, just to have little if any concision boost, and also at the cost of leaving another "dead" number in the list. (I do so wish we had not numbered these things ....)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per SoWhy and others. The possibility of editing and RevDel, or finding a clean version and Revdel exists for text but not for files, so the workflow and thus the criteria are different. And I see no benefit to counter the disruption in tools, scripts, and work habits, even if the criteria were compatible, which they are not. A solution in search of a problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  FYI, RevDel does exist for files. See, for example, File:Voyager-Golden-Record-Pictures-115.png. Whether we often use it here in preference to deletion of old file versions, though, I don't know. Anomie⚔ 16:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, if there have been multiple different versions of a file uploaded, RevDel can remove some and leave others. But file, at least an image file, is usually either a total copyright infringement or else celar. While text often invclude some infringing text and soem copyvio text, and frequently a prior version is free of infringemetns. Even where there is no good prior version, it is often possible to remove the copyvio by relativly simple editing, posisbly reducing an article mto a stub, and then use RevDel toleave only a clean version. Noen of this is possible for msot image files. So the normnal workflow is significantly different, as are the details of the criterion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC),

• Support I don't think that there is a reason to keep two criteria as similar as those set apart. Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Oppose per SoWhy. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support as proposer (Sort of). I believe these are ones that definitely can be merged, as the one no stock clause can just be added to G12 and it covers everything F9 does. Most F9 deletions could easily be G12 deletions. Invalid^OS (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read the full explanation above for why these are actually more different than that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Separate seems better, since we do treat images differently. I'd worry that combining the two would lead to a muddling, and we'd just get every image G12-deleted without any nuance. Laying it all out with "if this is not blatant and an image consider FfD but if it is not blatant and not an image consider CP" is likely to just be unwieldy and something that would be better served by splitting out. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Merge F9 into G12)

You're going to need to propose wording for us to pick apart first. In particular, the real difference between text and image copyvio speedy deletion has nothing to do with stock images. —Cryptic 04:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cryptic: The first sentence of the G12 section reads the following:

• "This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving."

The sentence in Template:Db-f9 isn't too different at all:

• "...because it appears to have been copied from [URL domain], which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert fair use or make a credible claim of permission."

Notice how the similarities don't stop at "copyright infringement", but also includes mention of compatible licenses and lack of fair use. The "Getty/Corbis" argument I made was taken from the detailed section on F9. ToThAc (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• F9 (then I9) was created in September 2007 based on this discussion. Main reasons for the split were that G12 was too convoluted and difficult to read and that copyvio text can only result in a page deletion if there is nothing to salvage while image copyvio should basically always result in deletion. I find the latter a compelling argument actually and I am wary whether re-combining the two criteria will make it easier for people to follow the criteria. Regards SoWhy 13:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• I suggested this a few years ago. That discussion might be worth a read. Adam9007 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of possible interest on user drafts

See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for a discussion of an issue possibly of interest to readers of this page, particularly since U5 issues may be involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What to do with pages like this?

I don't think it is useful to let a page like (Redacted) linger any longer than necessary (and certainly not for 6 months), but it doesn't seem to match any CSD criteria either. Is MfD the way to go or is there an acceptable faster reason to get rid of it? It's not a G10, but we should perhaps some speedy cat for "hopeless pages with too much info on minors"... Fram (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed some of the material that was excessive and managed to accidentally patrol the draft as well. I think the "excessive info about minors" thing is handled under G6, usually... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the birth date as WP:BLPPRIVACY AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually I saw the statement prior to our edits that would render it an attack page so I am flagging it as CSD G10. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me like a G2 assuming good faith, and a G10 assuming bad faith. --Bsherr (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I have suppressed this page in accordance with the oversight policy—in the future, please direct pages like this that reveal too much personal information to the oversight team via WP:RFO. Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mz7, should they be CSD G10'ed in the meantime or does the Oversight team take care of it pretty quickly? I just saw another one pop up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The thing about G10 is that it is explicitly for pages that "disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"; a minor posting too much info about themselves doesn't really fall under this category. The "summary deletion" authorized by WP:BLPDELETE would fit the best—an admin could simply put "WP:BLPDELETE" in their delete reason. However, in general, I would say oversight responds very quickly; at the time I'm writing this, on the English Wikipedia we have 36 oversighters, so we can typically get really good coverage during the day. There may be some delay at night in the US, but it's usually not severe. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Mz7, sounds good. It appears the Oversight team cleaned it up already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. I wasn't aware that this was considered serious enough to be sent to oversight, but I'm glad it does. Does this happen often enough to add some guidance to the intro of this page? "In cases of personal information about non notable minors, please contact Oversight" or something like that? Needs tweaking to avoid deletion of user pages where someone says "Hi, I'm John and I'm 17 years old" or some such of course... Fram (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me.  Done [3] – I went ahead and boldly did it. Feel free to tweak the wording as necessary—instead of "minor" I used the word "child". Mz7 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Fram (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That "instead" at the end is important and bears emphasizing. If you're an admin, deleting a page pending oversight can make sense; most everything in WP:REVDEL#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight is broadly applicable to normal deletion too. If you're not, though, tagging the page for speedy is a really bad idea even if you simultaneously mail oversight - there's mirrors that preferentially scrape CAT:CSD, not to mention users and admins here who actively patrol it without necessarily deleting or untagging everything they see. —Cryptic 10:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Cryptic, good point Guy (help!) 11:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)