Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


G13 for userspace drafts[edit]

Where was the consensus for including userspace subpages in G13? I think this a very dangerous practice. For AfCs and Draft space we have a system for checking beforehand, and for warning people, but we do not have it here. The proper procedure is to move them to draft space, which enters them into the review system, and then they will be deletable by G13 in due course. If there is need for hurry, there's still MfD, which has been doing these deletions since time immemorial. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 49#G13 - The discussion for the official criterion, point 4 in the closure box. It seems that G13 can be used for any page (in any namespace) which has AfC templates. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
As Stefan2 says, all these G13 have been declined at AfC first - that's how they are found. After 6 months they go into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions, where they get manually reviewed and manually tagged as G13. Every user gets a warning message on their talk page before deletion, complete with instructions on how to re-claim the page post deletion if they still want it. See also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem with AfC subpages was that there were tens of thousands of abandoned low quality drafts produced by IPs or accounts of short activity. This problem was not demonstrated to generalise into userspace. One of the ways to rescue or save a draft is to move it into userspace.
Yes, speedy deletion in userspace is dangerous. Userspace is workspace for users, and includes things other than drafts. Speedy deletion of usersubpages would go largely unnoticed, as these pages are rarely watched by more than the user, and deletion on one's notes and records is extremely unwelcoming to a returning user.
The presence of an AfC template to define an AfC page is a potentially over-broad loophole. I think it reasonable if the AfC template were added by the author of the page, but unreasonable if the AfC template were mass-added bot-like well afterwards.
I see that I !voted against Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_49#Support_anywhere_there_is_an_AFC_submission_template. The rationale of the three objections there would seem to be well accommodated by the following understandings:
  • A user may remove the AfC template from their userpace draft to avoid G13.
  • Active editors may do the above, or several other things, to prevent or reverse deletion of their apparently abandoned draft.
  • The intention of this G13 policy section is that it applies to abandoned Articles for creation pages. Somebody mass applying AfC templates to non-AfC pages, activating the G13 mechanism, would be grossly violating the intention of the agreed policy, and this person should be stopped. But we can worry about this should it ever happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I too think that G13 deletion of userspace subpages is draconian and unnecessary, in most cases. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You have invented a non-existent problem. Don't use the AfC-templates in your userpage notes and other draft materials, if potential G13-deletion, which is easily refunded besides, is such a problem. And SmokeyJoe's worry about someone maliciously adding AfC templates to innocent victim's userpages and waiting for 6 months for their incorrect deletion is very fanciful fiction! This has never happened, and is unlikely to ever happen, and is trivially corrected if we ever see it in practise. jni (delete)...just not interested
First, these templates can appear if someone other than the original editor has placed them, and several people have have placed them on a considerable number of pages, with or without justification. Second, several administrators have been deleting user space pages under G13 even when no template appears. This is a very real problem. I only came here because I have been encountering dozens of such pages of both sorts, not all of which were in the least appropriate for deletion. (& I've encountered them in most cases by the extremely tedious process of checking in the deltion log after they have been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My first thoughts on that are; if you don't have your own draft on your watchlist, and you don't notice that your {{Userspace draft}} template's submit button has had your draft submitted for review by someone else (logically because they thought it was worthy of mainspace), and you don't notice the declined template on your talk page or the edit to decline the submission, and you don't notice that Hasteur's HasteurBot has placed a warning notice of impending doom on your talk page, and you don't notice that yet again the page has been edited to place the G13 csd template, and you don't notice right away your draft has been deleted, and you're too lazy to click a button and request a REFUND, then apparently the draft couldn't have been that important to you. As to your second issue, administrators are deleting under this criteria out of process. My thoughts to that are, those administrators need to be warned that this is inappropriate and there needs to be a discussion brought up about those administrators misusing tools which should likely go through ARBCOM, allowing them to do what we nominated them for and work with the administrator to make sure it won't happen again and do what is needed to fix the situation. Whether that be a stern warning or desysoping really should be the final decision of the committee. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13 I think there may be a misunderstanding. HasteurBot is 100% excluded from operating in User space by convention and configuration ([1] and [2]), so the warning notice that a Userspace page has become eligible for G13 is never sent by HasteurBot. If there is consensus here, at AFC, and at BotReq (though I suspect BotReq will rubber stamp whatever the other 2 endorse) then I'll be happy to extend the skirts over userspace. Before I start enrolling userspace pages we may want to decide how to have the bot go about handling the userspace efforts. I'm only putting options on the table, not making any particular endorsements any which way. Hasteur (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple points (as the resident G13 guru and operator of HasteurBot which was authorized to go through a process of giving notices/warnings/deletions).

I have read the text of G13 to imply that any page that bears the banner of AFC and has remained unedited for 6 months is eligible regardless of what namespace the page is in. That being the case I see a few potential ways of working with pages that are eligible for G13. In Draft namespace and the previous home of AFC (WT:AFC/) I consider it appropriate and right for G13 nominations to proceed as they are well aware of the requirements of AFC. In Userspace, I think rather than G13ing user pages, it would be better to remove the AFC banner (thereby removing the page from the AFC tracking categories) and letting ones that aren't causing problems lie.
As the operator of the bot I take the narrow interpertation (Only operate in Draft and WT:AFC) in addition to giving a notice to the creating user that their submission has become eligible for deletion by G13. If the page is still around 30 days after the G13 eligibility notice, then the bot takes the action of nominating for speedy deletion (including putting the warning about G13 speedy nomination).
As to the underlying issue, I think it comes down to the "rules as written" vs "rules as implemented through common practice" Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I mirror the thoughts of Jni, to "save" a draft in User space, simply remove any {{Afc submission}} templates. This make it no longer eligible based on the G13 wording. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 19:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please see my comment above on how these templates have been getting there. And in any rate the problem is knowing about them to remove them before they get deleted--for other G13 we have a warning system. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • At one time any page submitted to AfC was moved into AfC space, so this problem didn't arise. Now, sometimes new editors remove the AfC templates for their pages because (1) they don't realize that they will later need the template to resubmit, or (2) in edit mode they can't tell what they are. AfC reviewers often replace the deleted templates along with an edit summary such as "You will need this template later, please don't remove it until the article is accepted" or something like that. However, there's no way really to tell, without asking, if the user has removed the template because they intend to keep the material in user space and remove it from review, especially if it's already in user space. I wish we could agree to move all of the AfC submissions to Draft space, except those with little or no content (blank or almost blank/no context); if those ones were later deleted there would be no loss anyway. Then any submissions which were removed from the review process could be "userfied" and have their AfC tags removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • AfC submissions are given extra leeway in the area of promotionalism, since it's expected that they will be improved and that the offending NPOV problems will be edited out before acceptance. Just removing tags and leaving this spamlike material in user space may not be a good idea. When would one of these become a WP:FAKEARTICLE? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User pages with AfC templates show up as eligible for db-g13, and are listed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Hasteur says that the Hasteurbot is not involved in this, but still, since they are on the list, and have the G13 pink banner, they are being nominated for deletion and deleted on a regular basis. The fact that it's real live editors doing it has nothing to do with the need for a consensus about whether this deletion is appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • This really is making an issue out of something that isn't an issue... Take for example User:Technical 13/Drafts/MWML. Now, this draft was in WT:AfC space when I received the notification from HasteurBot. This notification very clearly explained to me how to USERFY my draft (had I not already knows) and explained to me how to request a REFUND had the draft gotten deleted quicker than expected. I didn't think much of it. Two weeks later, I got another notification about this draft notifying me that JMHamo had nominated it for deletion using Twinkle. This allowed me to thank JMHamo for the notification, and move the draft to my userspace and remove the WPAfC tags. As long as there is a note in the edit summary saying that the user is userfying it or otherwise intentionally removing it from the AfC radar, there is no reason that we really should be talking about this anymore and wasting time better spent elsewhere.
I am, however, very concerned with DGG's claim that several administrators have been deleting user space pages under G13 even when no template appears. This may be extremely inappropriate and these administrators' actions need to be looked into as there is a much greater issue here than a few trashy promotional advertisements being deleted that the OP copied from the products own website (most of which would be valid CSD criterion to use to delete these without just slapping a G13 note on them). I'm wondering why this is happening and hoping that we can get a couple names of administrators doing this. Now, I'm not asking their names to be thrown out here so we can beat on them and desysop them and make a big deal about it, and I would be very happy if they would voluntarily come to discuss the issue. I want to know why specifically they are doing that. Is it because one of the templates is unclear, is there a deletion script for administrators they are using that isn't working well and they are just slapping that on it because it should be deleted under all these other reasons anyways? Is it because there is a lack of space on the edit summary line with the deletion reason (and the drop down isn't inclusive enough)? Would a new userscript with the ability to use a custom decline reason and skip the dropdown that allows listing multiple reasons be helpful? Is it some other technical reason I've not thought of or kept to myself for BEANS concerns? Is it a non-technical reason? Is one of the policies or guidelines not clear enough about this? I am willing to accept private communications, and have listed many ways on wiki to get a hold of me if one of those administrators prefers that to posting here. I want to make the process easier for you, not bash or berate you. Help me help you... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about others - but since I read this, I thought I would just re-check my deletions. In the last three months, within the hundreds of G13's deleted by myself, I've actually deleted 120 user space drafts, all which had an AfC banner present and added by the user. None of those 120 pages has been restored.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll be glad of your help in explaining it to them. Examples forthcoming by email. I was planning to do so myself, either directly or via Deletion Review, and came here primarily to establish clearly there was a consensus they should not be doing this before I approached them over it. I do not think the problem is a technical one with the script.
more broadly, each time we change deletion practices, either by actually changing the rules or by a gradual change in practice, there is inevitably a delay of a year or two until everyone comes to accept & use the new standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Any consensus on what to do about these, then? I don't like it either; should we just remove the AfC templates, then? WilyD 09:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry to bring this up again, but here's a userspace draft that has never been submitted, doesn't have a grey "unsubmitted" template, but instead a "work in progrss" template, which does appear to have a submit button on it. Should this be deleted under G13 as an unsubmitted draft? Lots of pages all over Wikipedia could be classified as "unsubmitted". Shouldn't it go to MfD as a promotional fake article instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, Anne, it does not qualify for G13. It is not in Draft: or WP:AfC/ space and it does not have a {{AFC submission}} template on it. It's unfortunately not eligible for A11 either because it is not in article mainspace. It may be deletable under G11 or U5 however. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought not. This is an example, though, of the problem mentioned earlier in this thread. Pages like this with a "submit" button on the template could be misconstrued as "unsubmitted" drafts. Thanks, Ronhjones for removing the deletion template. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I think that's the first one I've seen with a G13 and no AfC banner! Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A7.and GNG[edit]

A7 was developed before we had WP:GNG. A7 has always ignored sourcing. But, what if you have an article that doesn't have a claim of importance, but actually meets WP:GNG. Maybe the article is well sourced, but it hasn't been worded to properly explain why the subject is important. The importance may be described in a source that's listed, or the notability comes simply from the quality and quantity of sources (which is what WP:GNG allows). For example, you could have a singer, and somebody makes an article with ample sources proving GNG, but doesn't mention chart success, or being on a major label. In the bulk of A7 cases, this rule change would make no difference, because usually if there's no claim of importance, there's no substantial reliable independent sources either. In principal it's better to have a well sourced article with small claims of importance, than the reverse. --Rob (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I figure that if there are several independent and reliable sources cited that cover the subject to reasonable depth, that is not only a claim of notability, but the ultimate claim. All the rest of our metrics just exist to answer the question "Are sufficient sources to sustain this article likely to exist?" If that's already clearly demonstrated by actual use and citation of said sources, the article clearly makes a strong claim toward notability sufficient to preclude A7 deletion. That does not, of course, apply if the sources are unreliable or primary, as those do not help toward claiming or establishing notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Wording it slightly differently, but saying the same thing fundamentally as Seraphimblade, the point of speedy is to remove the articles that have no chance of staying in the encyclopedia. That an article does not presently show notability int a reason for speedy, because during the course of a prod or an afd other people may well add the necessary material. And if the article has anything approaching usable sources, then there is certainly a good chance it might be approved at afd, and it is inappropriate for a single admin to make the decision at speedy. (I extend that to articles with corresponding articles in other language WPs--they may sometimes not meet the enWP requirements, but there needs to be a chance to discuss them.) To be eligible for speedy A7, the subject of the article has to be so unimportant that there is no reasonable chance it will meet the GNG or any other criterion even if people work further on it. If all the sources are utterly & obviously unusable, that doesn't imply that there will be decent sources--but of course it doesn't prove there won't be. It's the same as if there were no sources at all--that by itself is not reason for speedy, but it does give reason to consider if there would ever conceivably be any) . DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
So, how is it exactly that a topic would be notable but the article make no claim of importance. Are you talking about Barack is the coolest kid ever born in Hawai'i as the article or something? Is there some real example in mind? This seems so rare that it doesn't matter. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would simply consider any good-faith sourcing as an inherent claim of notability in and of itself. After all, if a secondary source has written about an article subject, it is implicitly notable enough to have been written about. VanIsaacWScont 06:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go quite that far. If the source is something that is never going to be considered evidence of notability, such as a Facebook page, then I would ignore it for the purposes of determining whether the article meets A7. But if the article cites coverage that might possibly be evidence of notability then it shouldn't qualify for A7. A7 is meant to be a lower standard than notability, and notability is meant to be judged through AFD and PROD, so anything remotely ambiguous should be sent through these processes instead. Hut 8.5 06:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You consider a facebook page to be a good-faith secondary source? Hmm. VanIsaacWScont 07:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well it would be secondary if it wasn't written by the subject, and I can easily imagine a new editor adding a citation like that in good faith. The main problem with it as a source is that it isn't reliable. Hut 8.5 18:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable or not is a discussion that needs to happen, though, and a CSD doesn't do that. If you are talking about an actual, good faith attempt at citing a secondary source that just so happens to be a facebook page or blog, that is still an implicit claim on its notability - the editor has found someone else that has taken the time to write about the subject and has published it in some way. Remember that we are not talking about actually meeting any standard of sourcing or even trying to meet GNG, this is about making some claim of notability, and an actual secondary source, even one meeting absolutely no conditions of WP:RS is still an attempt at showing some kind of notability. VanIsaacWScont 00:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"Someone else that has taken the time to write about the subject and has published it in some way" is an incredibly low standard to meet. A forum post saying "Fred is cool" would meet that standard, and I certainly wouldn't consider a citation to it to be an assertion of significance. By that standard I could probably get an article about you past A7 by citing this comment as a source. A lot of what you're saying is applicable to primary sources as well, although you concede that they shouldn't get an article past A7. We have discussions over whether sources are primary or not as well as whether they are reliable or not. A citation to any source at all can be considered an attempt at showing that the subject meets the GNG and thus an attempt at showing some kind of notability. I'm not saying that sourcing needs to meet certain standards in order to get past A7. Anything which has the slightest chance of showing that the subject meets the GNG should render an article ineligible. I just don't think we should do the same for sources that unambiguously fail to meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 07:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you've completely ignored the part about it being a good faith attempt at sourcing in order to develop your convoluted hypothetical here. But in the end, we're talking about CSD, where the false positive rate needs to be pretty damn close to 0%, and the false negative rate really doesn't matter. So I'll say again: If an article has a good faith source, even if the source doesn't come anywhere near RS, nor the article subject GNG, it absolutely is not appropriate for A7. Citing a secondary source that actually talks about the article subject in any way is an inherent claim of notability for the A7 criteria. Period. VanIsaacWScont 09:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think your "good faith" clause should apply at all. Whether articles meet speedy deletion criteria is determined on the basis of the article's content, not the identities or motives of the authors. But even if it apply it would make little difference. If an article is written by a new editor who knows nothing about our sourcing standards but is still aware at some level that articles are supposed to have references then any source at all would be a good faith attempt at sourcing. Furthermore this is the kind of editor that speedy deletion is typically concerned with. Hut 8.5 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would go as far as VanIsaac, but more clearly stating that there is at least one source that is all off:
1) Independent
2) Secondary source (contains tranformed information, such as comment, and is not a report of facts)
3) Reliable (any facts contained are reliable). Some secondary sources can be loose with facts.
4) Reputable (not a random persons blog, not crowd sourced, the opinions/analysis that makes it a secondary source are from someone of some reputation.
Most commercial products are sourced from the owners/managers/distributors website, and won't count. Facebook and personal websites should be ignored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how 3 and 4 can be evaluated objectively as necessary for evaluating for CSD eligibility. VanIsaacWScont 09:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think they can be evaluated objectively at the level of zero versus non-zero. If a source has zero reliability (is not a reliable source), or the publication/author has zero reputation (no one has ever heard of it/him, or it is regarded as negative), and that's the only "source". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree with a common sense evaluation of sources to determine significance. Whether a source or content was added in good faith or not is irrelevant. Either the text of the article should make a credible claim of significance or the article's references should support notability per any of our established notability guidelines. Social network pages, IMDB, self-published sources, press releases, and many blogs and closely connected sources establish neither significance, nor notability for purposes of speedy deletion eligibility.- MrX 10:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done a lot of re-reviewing A7s to see if they are correct, and I now take the line that if the article gives you sufficient information that you might be able to search for sources, or you think sources might exist, it's not a speedy. If you think finding sources to meet notability is pretty much impossible, it's a speedy. So, to give examples (assume all these are completely unsourced):

  • "Mr Greenjeans is the principal at De Boise Junior High. He likes baseball and Pearl Jam." is a clear A7.
  • "Mr Greenjeans is the democrat candidate for the 2014 De Boise Mayorship candidate" is a "probably A7" for now (though he might meet WP:POLITICIAN later)
  • "Mr Greenjeans is Professor Emeritus of Literature at De Boise University" is a "probably not"
  • "Mr Greenjeans is a hip-hop singer. His first album, Jiggin with ma' Greenjeans was released in June 2014 and reached number 2 in the iTunes Modern Rap Charts" is a "no".

(please note these Mr Greenjeans are fictious and a disambiguation page should not be created!)

The other thing to take extra care, is unlike quite a few articles that meet a speedy criteria (particularly G3 and G10), A7s are frequently created by new users in good faith without any real evidence they are "spamming" or using Wikipedia as a promotional device, and I always advise to go easy on them. A possible A7 that does not also qualify for one of the more urgent criteria such as G10 (attack) or G12 (blatant copyvio) will probably not hurt too much to sit it out at AfD for a week.

Finally, I'd remind people that "merge" and "redirect" are valid options at AfD, and a legitimate speedy means you would not even consider that as an option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC) "

for these examples, though I agree with Ritchie333's approach, I interpret his hypothetical examples differently. Tthe first is A7 because nobody who understands WP to be an encyclopedia would think the person appropriate--there is no rational claim to importance. The second is not "probably an A7," but on the contrary not even conceivably an A7, because there is a real possibility of an article--such people are indeed usually not notable, but some are for various reasons, and the afds are almost always contested in good faith. An article that will be contested in good faith at afd needs to go to afd, not to speedy. The third is not merely "probably not A7", but certainly not--most such people are notable. It's just like the 4th.example. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

G10 and advertising illegal products[edit]

I just noticed an article tagged as A7 and G11 that seemed to be an advert for cracked Sony Playstation software, and tagged it for G10. It doesn't appear to meet the letter of an attack page, but I think anything whose sole existing is to advertise illegal products should be deleted without hesitation. Does anyone agree? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Disagree - I don't see advertising illegal products as an attack page. I see advertising an illegal product as advertising, and so G11 would make the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see why being about illegal content should make any difference. If its sole purpose is to advertise something then it's a G11 candidate. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having an article about something illegal, although we might have to take precautions such as not linking to it. Hut 8.5 16:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What if it were a well-written, non-promotional, well-sourced article about a notable web site that hosted illegal-in-America cracked Sony Playstation software? Don't laugh this off - there's a country in the Caribbean (Aruba?) that has sued the US in some UN-type "trade court" and they have "permission" to allow their locals to violate US copyright laws - it's possible a company or web site in that country could get enough reliable-source coverage to qualify for an article. This would be a case of "The topic markets in things illegal in the USA." We already accept articles on companies that market things that are illegal in other countries. As a hypothetical, if there were a well-known US company with a neo-Nazi product line, their marketing would likely violate German law, but we would still allow the article if it were otherwise okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

So what criterion do I use if the subject of the article exists, but is never referred to by the name being used as its title? (e.g. Pano (chemistry)) Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject exists, you say, and the article is sourced, so why do you want to speedy-delete the article? If it's not called "pano", it needs a different title. Move it, or use the WP:RM process to request a move. Or suggest a merge with Nonmetal#Polyatomic_nonmetals. PamD 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
But on closer looking, the article is indeed vandalism - the two paragraphs of Nonmetal#Polyatomic_nonmetals, and between them a chunk clearly copied from an article about a single substance. Needs to be deleted. PamD 08:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You move it to a better name or use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Not everything that should be deleted needs to be deleted speedily. —Kusma (t·c) 08:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
In your example, the content was entirely copied from Nonmetal (and its footnotes) and has been deleted. I used WP:CSD#A10 as a deletion reason; while splits are allowed, they should use the correct attribution procedure as in Wikipedia:Splitting. —Kusma (t·c) 09:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all your replies. (Yes, I should have mentioned that the content already existed somewhere else.) Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

U1 for user sub-talk pages[edit]

I've had this question for some time now. What is the consensus on applying CSD:U1 to user talk subpages with no substantial content, such as a soft redirect, since U1 specifies that it cannot be applied to main talk pages? Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If no messages for the user were left there by other users, and it isn't an archive created by moving the root talk page, then it qualifies for U1. Otherwise, it doesn't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a hunch that that would be the case, but wanted to make certain. Thanks, Jack. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • CSD:U1 only applies if the user places the request. You can not place any other user's page for U1. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I was asking if U1 could be appropriately self-applied by the page's user (it can't in cases where there had been discussion). Apologies if I wasn't clear. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The wording is "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages)", which to me is somewhat unclear. Are "user subpage talk pages" "user talk pages" or aren't they? I think it does in fact mean that subpage talk pages can be subject to U1, but the main user talk page that is where the main business goes on can't be U1ed. Any page that fits G7 (nothing of real interest by any other editor - I paraphrase here...) can be G7ed anyway. Even a user talk page, if only edited by the 'owner' or the creator (usually by mistake). Peridon (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)