Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Proposal to update R2 criterion for "Special talk:" redirects

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114 § Creation of the "Special talk:" namespace

Contesting the CSD

In case of articles created by WP:AfC, can the editor who approve the article and moved it to mainspace, contest speedy deletion?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• It depends. Is that user an experienced user that has no other relation to the article other than approving it as an AfC draft or is that user a new editor who's appears to be a WP:SPA for the purpose of approving that article? There is a guideline at AfC that says drafts should have at least a 50% chance of surviving an AfD before it can be approved and if the user is an established AfC editor, then by all means they have a reasonable justification to contest a speedy delete. In those cases, it is probably better to just send it to AfD if you feel strongly it should be deleted and doesn't belong. There, of course, are exceptions such as the possibility of a G12 that the reviewer may have missed (it's really hard to catch them all). Hope this helps. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 07:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I will send the article to AfD. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I usually leave it to somebody else, but that's not really necessary . True, if I approved it , I thought it was likely to pass afd. But it is very difficult to get expert opinion at afd, and it 's perfectly reasonable to say something like I just can't tell, what do others thing? I've been doing that at nPP since my first year here, and afc is similar. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New deletion log proposal

I am proposing for a new deletion log under WP:ACSD. Similar to both WP:A7 and WP:A9, this deletion log will clarify topics such as (item/items/object/objects, product/products, ideal/ideals, phrase/phrases such as slang words, popular sayings, etc.) via "Unremarkable thing" — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My original ideal was to have two separate proposals, but I think both combined under "Unremarkable thing" would be better:

• Unremarkable thing (item/items/object/objects, product/products, ideal/ideals)
• Unremarkable phrase (phrase/phrases such as slang words, popular sayings, etc.)

— JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm, what? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean a new speedy deletion criterion? I oppose the suggestion as many things are unremarkable and yet notable. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are proposing a new speedy deletion criterion, please read the box at the top of this page first and ensure that your proposal is all of objective, uncontestable, frequent and non-redundant. Unless the proposal clearly addresses all four points (and at present it doesn't address any of them) then there is not a snowball's chance in hell of it gaining consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal is far tpo broad.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The reason we do not have these criteria is that no single admin is really qualified to judge whether there is sufficient significance to provide the possibility of an article. Judging phrases requires a wide understanding of the field, and none of us have a wide understanding of all fields. Products also--it is very difficult to tell if a product is likely to be significant outside one's specialty.
  The existing A7 limitations are to things that usually anyoen can judge, for at least some submissions. Fior everythign else, there's PROD and AFD, bith of which work very nicely. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Would the proposer please clarify exactly what is being proposed? Stifle (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Side comment: DGG's quote, with a couple of word changes to broaden the scope, makes the exact point I have been trying to emphasize for years here:

"no single admin is really qualified to judge whether there is sufficient significance to provide the possibility of an article. Judging (anything) requires a wide understanding of the field, and none of us have a wide understanding of all fields. . . .It is very difficult to tell if (anything) is likely to be significant outside one's specialty.

— ' DGG

In other words, if you don't know what you are talking about, butt out. Trackinfo (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. There are exceptions, such as those detailed in criteria A7 and A9, where it is possible for a non-specialist to determine whether a claim of significance has been made, and the comment does not apply at all to most AfDs. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is A6 ?

HI, I didn't find A6, is it removed or merged or what ? --Ibrahim.ID »» 23:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Ibrahim.ID: See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deprecated criteria. Steel1943 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Steel1943: thanks --Ibrahim.ID »» 02:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion without placing a CSD tag first

Is it appropriate for an admin to delete a page directly, without the page having been CSD tagged by another user and without the admin in question CSD tagging the page first? If yes, does the deleting admin still need to specify in the deletion log under which CSD criterion the page is being deleted? My own opinion is that the answer to the first question is "no", and that the deleting admin must always specify under which CSD provision a page is being deleted (if it is being deleted on CSD grounds), but I'd like to know what others think. The reason I am asking is because there is a particular admin who, as far as I can tell, deletes a large number of pages without these pages having been CSD tagged by this admin or anybody else, without the pages in question being prodded or XfDed and without specifying under which Wikipedia:Deletion process rubric the page is being deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the deleting admin only needs to provide enough information to show that the deletion rationale is valid. This information could either be provided in the text on the page, or in the deletion log summary. That said, if the person who created the page isn't notified, then this person might be confused and might not understand what is going on and might not realise that there is a deletion process which the user might wish to object to, in particular if the user is a new user who doesn't know how the deletion process or user's watchlist work.

For example, if the deleting admin uses the log summary G12: some url, then I see no need in also putting a {{db-g12}} template on the page. However, if it only says G12 in the log summary, then I think that the URL needs to be provided somewhere else, for example in the {{db-g12}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes as to self-deleting (I've seen the argument a few times that deleting ourselves bypasses a first review, and think that's mostly nonsense); no, it's never appropriate to delete a page without supplying a clear basis, unless it's something like an office action that needs suppression to avoid a BLP outing, or similar, where the deletion is being hidden intentionally. And it's always good practice to inform the user as well using the "basis-warn-deletion" template series (e.g. {{nothanks-warn-deletion}}, {{spam-warn-deletion}}, etc.) which are directed at the situation where you have deleted where a tagging never occurred.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Setting aside for the moment the issues of self-deleting and of notifications, what would constitute a sufficiently clear deletion summary? In particular, should the deletion summary expressly specify that the deletion is being made under WP:CSD (as apposed under some other deletion process rubric, such as PROD or XfD) and mention the specific CSD criterion being applies (such as A7, G12, etc)? The admin in question usually uses pretty semantic deletion summaries, such as "notability not asserted", "overly promotional", "inappropriate use of userpage", "unverifiable", "for user's own good", "regrettably, this is not an appropriate use of a userpage. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for your organization", etc. As far as I can tell, all of these are sort-of-kind-of WP:CSD deletions (because the pages in question do not seem to have been PRODDed or XfDed and there was no notification of the pages' creators), but the deletion summaries almost never mention WP:CSD at all. This seems problematic to me, particularly in terms of trying to contest the deletion at DRV and in terms of trying to understand which WP:CSD criterion, if any, was applied and if it was applied correctly. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • To me (as an experienced user), some of those rationales sound like A7/A9 and U3/U5. However, I think that the rationales would be more clear if the CSD criterion were explicitly stated (e.g. "U3: inappropriate use of userpage" or "U5: inappropriate use of userpage"). An unexperienced user might not understand what is going on and would not be able to identify the CSD criterion, and I think that the administrator should be extra careful to ascertain that an unexperienced user understands why the user's page has been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The tag is to get the attention or an admin, an admin can delete anything that meets CSD on sight. Chillum 00:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'd argue that an administrator that deletes something outright without notifying the creator of the page or having had the page tagged by another editor is seen by many as a bad faith attempt to avoid having any accountability and I would say classifies that particular admin as a senior member of the cabal of rouge admins. There are certain obvious cases where there can be no contest to the deletion, but I believe that there can be absolutely zero chance that a reasonable objection can be made for such deletions to be valid. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I could imagine performing rouge bulk speedy deletions of multiple vandalism only-pages, and there is no way the "creator" would get a notification for each. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A rationale should always be provided, but otherwise tagging isn't necessary, but may be a good idea, or a bad idea. A G10 page should always be killed on sight, waiting for discussion is a bad idea. A biography of a soldier who died 100+ years ago, even if A7, tagging and a bit of time to show that it can be improved to meet WP:N. A new user whose article gets speedy deleted is probably lost to the project forever - if they just don't understand our customs, losing them rather than teaching them is a bad idea. WilyD 12:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the rationales are problematic in themselves. "notability not asserted" clearly suggests WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#A9 (and the deletions may be valid under one of these criteria) but the misstatement of the criterion may mislead the person who created the article and may suggest to other people that the deletion has been inappropriate. Thincat (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Notability is NOT a criterion for speedy deletion. Lack of credible indicated significance is. To judge by the admin tagged things I see, most of the admins I see around (including myself here) do not delete without tagging first. Other than mass deletes of banned users' work, exceptions can be unmistakable attack pages, or user pages that is a straight copy of something else that has been tagged and deleted as spam or copyvio. There is no reason for any of those to survive. Other things should be tagged as they are not direct threats to the encyclopaedia. Having said that, an admin does have the power to delete untagged material, but the reason for deletion should always be given to safeguard the admin concerned. If an admin is deleting masses of stuff without reasons given, or deleting untagged material incorrectly (with inappropriate reasons), this should be looked into. (Sometimes it's possible to forget to set the reason when deleting the talk page of a deleted page, but that's minor.) Peridon (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, I prefer to tag, but it's not required. If it's something like an A1 or A7, I would like to give the article creator at least a bit of time to address the concern or note that they intend to. Something like G10 or G12, on the other hand (BLP attack/copyvio), I shoot on sight, tagged or not. That's especially true when one article has been tagged G12, and on going to look I find that the author has put in copypasta all over the place. (Similar occurrences happen with G11, you find that they've put ads at a whole bunch of slightly different titles, etc.). I'm not going to tag all those and write individual warnings, I'm going to write one saying "The pages you wrote were deleted, for this reason. Here's why it's not acceptable, here's what you can do to correct it." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for the responses above. My initial posted was promoted by looking at the deletion log of the admin User:DragonflySixtyseven, whom I will notify about this discussion thread shortly. I did discuss the issue of deletion summaries with him in the past, see User talk:Nsk92#Explanations, but I did not seem to have been able to get my point across. I find most of DragonflySixtyseven's deletion summaries inadequate because they do not (with rare exceptions) mention at all that a page was deleted under the WP:CSD deletion process. In his response at my user talk page, DF67 summarizes his position as follows: "I'm always willing to explain any of my deletion rationales upon request. I use plain language rather than cryptic codes because they're easier for people to understand without learning a full set of cryptic codes. (G4! A6! C11! Bingo!)". That's all well and good but I think it is also necessary, in addition to providing a plain language deletion rationale, to explicitly specify that the WP:CSD rubric of the deletion process was used to delete a page. Otherwise, a user (especially an inexperienced user), will be very confused as to what exactly happened and where and how the user may appeal the deletion in question. Many of DF67's deletions, while certainly well-intentioned and probably necessary, appear to me to be procedurally problematic in other respects as well. For example, one of DF67's frequently used deletion summaries is "notability not asserted". Even if construed as a CSD A7 deletion, "notability not asserted" is NEVER a sufficient rationale for an A7 deletion. All that an article need do to survive A7 is to provide a plausible evidence of notability. It is not necessary for the page to actually assert notability by saying that the subject is a well-known/prominent/famous artist/music group/writer/singer/organization/etc. Also, DF67 frequently deletes user pages with rationales like "inappropriate use of user page", "for user's own good", etc. Some of these probably qualify as G11 deletions, while others are motivated by the desire to protect the user's privacy and to delete some overly sensitive personal information. However, WP:UP provides a significant degree of latitude to users in terms of what they can put on their webpage, and I feel that less drastic options such as a warning at the user's talk page, blanking of the user page, rev-del-ing the user page, or listing it at WP:MFD, are often preferable to an outright deletion without prior warning. In fact, it is not clear to me that a summary deletiion (without an MfD) of a user page on the grounds that it is done "for user's own good" can be justified by our current deletion policy, except perhaps in rare cases on IAR grounds. At least I don't see any current CSD criteria that allow for such summary deletions. In any case, I'd like for other users, preferably admins, to take a look at DF67's deletion log and see what's going on there and if some of the recently deleted pages perhaps deserve to be listed at WP:DRV for a more extended review. I also hope that somebody other than myself can convince DF67 to use more precise deletion summaries and to include both an informal verbal explanation AND an explicit reference to WP:CSD in these summaries (as seems to be the norm for other admins). Nsk92 (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics above, in some cases it's best to be oblique about deletion reasons. The most obvious cases are those of minors who have revealed identifying information about themselves, we obviously don't want to broadcast that in a deletion summary. There's also some other really bizarre stuff you find that simply needs to be deleted without a trace, especially in userspace (I'm not going to give examples per WP:BEANS, but I'm pretty sure every admin has seen such things). Sometimes WP:DENY applies as well, on a couple occasions I've deleted articles copying attack sites that are better off not linked to. So yes, in some specific instances less clarity is better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Granted that there are occasional situations where it is best to be oblique in the deletion summary, that can't be the norm. In DF67's deletion log, for the last 500 deletion entries (since November 20, 2014), only about 15 mention that they are being made under WP:CSD provisions. Of the remaining entries in the log, the overwhelming majority (I'd say well over 400) appear to be CSD-like deletions that don't actually mention CSD (or any other rubric of the deletion process) as the deletion process being applied. That seems rather problematic to me. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven has deleted close to 66,000 articles pages and is number 21 on the list of admins with most deletions, counting through the entire history of Wikipedia. This is 66000 more deletions than you have performed. DragonflySixtyseven clearly knows how to delete stuff, you perhaps don't. May I kindly suggest you perform at least 1000 speedy deletions, to get some real-life experience, how does it actually feel to apply the rules day in, day out? There has never been a requirement to use the cryptic codes for the deletion log entry. It should be self-evident for everyone, that "notability not asserted" is A7. And for "inappropriate use of user page", what difference does it make, if it is U5, G3, G10 or G11 (or something else)? Also, using a wrong code does not anyhow make the deletion invalid, as long as it satisfies some of the criteria. I have reviewed few of DF67's recent deletions, and did not spot anything problematic there. Some examples:

(del/undel) 18:54, 25 December 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) deleted page User:Richardcrawshay (for user's own good) (view/restore)

This was an inane attack page, disparaging the user himself (we don't know this vandal-only account holder's real name of course, it likely is not the one implicated by username.)

(del/undel) 16:39, 24 December 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) deleted page User:JesusGodSmacker/sandbox (strongly, strongly inappropriate) (view/restore)

Like it says in deletion log, this was extremely racist hate speech (and blasphemy, if you are offended by such thing).

(del/undel) 19:08, 25 December 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) deleted page User:Ladys fashion inappropriate use of userpage) (view/restore)

This was a single spammy external link, no real content at all.

(del/undel) 16:31, 25 December 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) deleted page NSQ (software) (notability not asserted) (view/restore)

Like it says, non-notable software product.

(del/undel) 18:57, 25 December 2014 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs | block) deleted page User:Ilovenudebabes (inappropriate use of userpage) (view/restore)

This is not as clear-cut as the rest and I leave it to others to argue, what cryptic code this falls under, but IMHO we don't need this kind of useless drivel in userspace. Full text:

This is a lesson on how to get those breasts ready for that big date.

1. buy a victory secret bra one size smaller than you would normally use.

2. oil up those breasts with what ever works for you.

3. put on a dress that highlights your breasts.

there you go you're ready for that big date.

I reviewed ramdon sample of 10 deletions from his last 100, and did not find anything even borderline worthy of taking to DRV. Especially the userpage deletions look ok. Maybe some of the A7s could be salvaged, if anyone puts enough effort for sifting through the crap to find the few ones that can be improved after undeletion. Someone else could perhaps check the remaining 65965 deletions :) jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"May I kindly suggest you perform at least 1000 speedy deletions, to get some real-life experience, how does it actually feel to apply the rules day in, day out?" Really? You know full well that I am not an admin and that I can't delete pages and can't view deleted content. But that does not disqualify me from questioning the actions of users who do have the admin bit. The fact that someone performed over 66000 deletions does not and should not make them immune from scrutiny. There are good reasons to insist that deletion summaries make a clear reference to which rubric of the deletion process (CSD, prod, AfD, whatever) is being used, especially when a page is deleted with no prior warning and without any notifications. For one thing, a more precise deletion summary makes it much easier for inexperienced users to understand what happened and where and how to appeal the deletion if they want to do so. Also, having to give a reasonably precise deletion summary serves as a necessary self-check for the deleting admin to make sure that there does indeed exist a provision of the deletion process that allows the page to be deleted with no discussion. Admins are given substantial power here, but this power is not absolute and does not include the right to delete a page unilaterally whenever they feel that it deserves to be deleted (even if they page does in fact absolutely deserve to be deleted). We have a WP:CSD process for a reason, and it specifies a fairly limited and precisely defined set of circumstances under which a page can be deleted by an admin without listing it for XfD. It is an often repeated during RfAs that CSD is a high precision process, requiring clarity and transparency. It is not too much to ask to expect an admin, especially one who is routinely deleting large numbers of pages, to indicate in his deletion summaries that he is actually using the WP:CSD process rather than, say, applying IAR en masse (as admins did in the Wild West days of Wikipedia about 10-12 years ago). Nsk92 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you don't have the bit, but that does not mean anything. Simply put, anyone who hasn't performed at least some speedy deletions, irregardless of reason like not having the technical ability to do so in this very wiki, is someone who does not know how to do the job. You are not merely "questioning the actions of users", you are trying to tell users who know how the job is done, and who have done it for years, how the job should be done in your uninformed opinion. This is like telling Muhammad Ali how to box, but never step in the ring yourself. It is very easy to see if CSD process was used: if there is no mention of expired PROD or any XfD, then it is CSD (or CSD+IAR really in some cases). It was not really Wild West about a decade ago, but in many ways a more pleasant and much smaller wiki. Less stupid rules to limit reasonable editors, therefore less need for IAR. CSD was well established 10 years ago but the cryptic codes were a new thing. I was there then and opposed introduction of the CSD codes. Still not convinced that they are a good idea. I certainly had no problems understanding DF67's plain and clear deletion log entries. Deletion is not about rigid adherance to arbitrary, detailed rules (often made by people who don't know how to actually do the job). Deletion is about consensus. If consensus says something does not belong here, then deleted it shall be. The processes are really just scaffolding and teaching tool for new admins. Once you can gauge what the consensus is, then you can (carefully) start cutting the corners, perhaps first showball closing XfD's were the outcome is obvious, then adding small dozes or IAR here and there. There are other sources of leeway than IAR; for example G6 leaves its applicability domain to admin's discretion, then there is the fact that DRV does not deal with technicalities (does not restore articles, if some rule was broken, but the outcome was otherwise good). In Dreyfus model of skill acquisition, "rigid adherence to taught rules or plans" and "no exercise of discretionary judgment" are characteristics of a novice, not master. Someone who is on DF67's skill level, can immediately recognize without much conscious thought, how a given article should be processed simply because they have done it thousands of time before ("intuitive grasp of situations based on deep, tacit understanding [of what the consensus is]"). And only way to achieve that kind of advanced skill level, is via sufficient firsthand practice. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally concur with jni. I've only deleted a paltry 5,600 pages (but there have never been any comebacks). I probably delete 10 - 15% summariy on sight, but I do a lot of NPP so there is little point in not doing so. Nevertheless, with exception of the more egregious rubbish and COPYVIO, I generally tag for another admin to do the rest. Apart from being a fail-safe, it's an unwritten customary courtesy which most admins observe. When summarily deleting it is of course essential to manually inform the creator. Several appropriate template messages exist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize for not having responded sooner; I was away all weekend. Second, many points have already been addressed by other users, but I'd like to clarify that I don't think it's really useful to leave a templated "SORRY I DELETED YOUR USERPAGE" notice for someone whose only edits were to create a blatantly inappropriate userpage / promo spam stub a month earlier. (Yes, I usually patrol pages when they're a month old, if not older. I know, I know; the backlog is huge.) I'll leave a note if someone is still active. I've also got a personal policy that if someone asks me why I deleted their page, I will respond and explain (or I'll get another admin to do it for me); that's only right. DS (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but why not at least indicate in the deletion summary that a page is being deleted via the WP:CSD process? As far as I can tell, all other admins generally include this info in their deletion summaries. Why don't you? I hope you do understand that an admin (including yourself) does not have an authority to summarily delete a non-notable article on notability grounds, without a prod or an AfD, unless the article satisfies the A7 criterion of CSD. And that, similarly, an admin does not have the authority to summarily delete a user page on the grounds of it being promotional (even if it is in fact promotional and would probably not survive an MfD), unless that user page clearly satisfies the G11 criterion of CSD. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with most above that any admin can delete a page without it first having a CSD tag. I do think it is best practice for pages which are non-urgent deletions (eg not attack pages) and not totally obvious deletion candidates to be tagged to allow a second opinion. That DragonflySixtyseven appears to have a low rate of challenges at DRV indicates that he is sufficiently cautious with his speedy deletions.

It seems rather bizarre to criticise someone for using plain English rather than acronyms. I suppose this might be a problem for someone with limited understanding of English, but Nsk92 seems to have excellent comprehension of English otherwise.-gadfium 01:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While I personally prefer to use a link to the relevant section of deletion policy such as "WP:CSD#G10 attack page" there is nothing wrong with using plain english to describe the rational for a deletion as long as that rational is consistent with our deletion standards. We are not a bureaucracy and we don't need to quote the specific policy every time we act, we just need to act consistently with the expectations of the community.

I have looked through the deletion logs of D67 and I see reasoning that has a basis in policy. I am sure this admin will respond to anyone seeking clarification. Chillum 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

About A7 deletions in particular, this discussion seems relevant. I've been meaning to bring it here anyway but now seems a good time to point out that there is some disagreement over whether "no assertion of notability" is better or worse than "no credible assertion of notability". ekips39 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• I consider it more than best practice: I think it should be required for all actions that are not utterly routine or emergencies. For some sorts of file delete (e.g. after moving to commons) or cleanup after moves or removing duplicates there's n orison to havcethe extra step--there's nothing to judge. And really clear sorts of defamation or the like should be hidden immediately, but I would;t anatto make a blanket exception of G10, because there're some things that fall there which are not truly emergencies. In any case, the CSD list is very actively monitored by many admins, and for years now all such really problem material are removed very quickly.

I myself confess I have sometimes in exasperation removed the most blatant advertisements or the like unilaterally, but frankly, I've been affected by other people's bad examples. It should be prohibited absolutely for A7 or G11, at least, because they both take judgment. I have learned over the years to absolutely trust nobody's judgement here, including my own. (There are a few people whose judgment I tentatively trust, but I have noticed they never use it unilaterally. Anyone with good judgment will be aware of their limitations.) Without reflecting on anyone, I have indeed seen a very few unilateral deletions or deletions without specified reason that may have been done as such in order to stretch the limits a little. I've seen many more of them in the last--practice has been steadily improving for the last 5 or 6 years at least.

As for giving reasons, sometimes it's simpler to use English. There is sometimes a short phrase that is more exactly descriptive.

I don't want to comment here about individual examples. but I will take a look at anything anyone asked me to. I gave as my primary reason for becoming an admin 7 years ago to examine deleted articles to see which should not have been deleted. I've been doing that on and off ever since. There are some technical improvements in the deletion log that would make it easier--it is not possible to automatically limit to article space as distinct from file or user space. (I've done the filtering off line, but it would be easy to include the capability directly). DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My take: User:DragonflySixtyseven is absolutely right that plain English explanation are a very good thing. But, you gotta provide a link in the deletion summary so new users can see that it's based on a clear rule and fair, and so they understand how to avoid this a second time. Also, the plain English explanations need to match the criteria. No indication of notability is unacceptable, since the real standard is significance, which has nothing to do with notability. Finally, delete-on-sight should only be applied to something that puts us at serious risk, meaning copyright violations and attack pages. Everything else can wait for a second administrator. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: DS67 has asked me to comment on this issue, so here is my $0.02. This whole debate strikes me as something excessively process-oriented, something that always raises a red flag for me. The OP's comment feels suggestive that anything can only be deleted outright iff it meets a clear-cut CSD rationale. This is simply not the case - after reflecting on WP:DEL#REASON for a bit, I embrace the idea that admins are trusted to make decisions on what is worth including in a free encyclopedia and what is not. In other words, this discussion would have more merit if someone was able to point out actual questionable judgement (something I fail to see in this thread), for other admins to review. Being meticulous with deletion summaries is also a matter of choice (do now vs. explain later, I personally prefer a brief summary in English rather than cryptic letters and number) - like it was said above, application of wrong CSD doesn't make the deletion invalid, and if you're confused by a particular deletion, I encourage you to raise that particular case with the admin who, I'm sure, will be responsive to a reasonable query. —Миша13 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Suneris, Inc.

I briefly saw the article Suneris, Inc. yesterday. I did not realize it was on the chopping block, or I would have looked at it closer. I am just wondering what was the hurry in removing it from Wikipedia -- shouldn't a deletion tag be allowed to be posted for enough time to allow objectors to see it? Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can always pester someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. The A7 is obviously invalid, and G11 is probably not applicable either, so one might consider DRV. WilyD 15:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Di-no source

Does anyone know why the headlined template, which appears specific to F4, provides an automatic two-day window for deletion after tagging if the file has a fair use rationale but the source field is blank (invoked in the template by placing |non-free=yes), and only provides the seven-day window F4 requires when it has no FUR (invoked in the template by placing |non-free=no)? I don't do much image tagging and deletion. This relates specifically to File:LudwigLogo.jpg. You can see my puzzlement in my edit summaries.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only two-day window for file deletion is F7's third bullet: "Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{rfu}}", which is not the same as the conditions that you have discovered produce it, which are indeed F4 candidates and so require seven days tagging. I can't help with why this is the case, but pinging @Stefan2: who I know does a lot of image work and @Magog the Ogre: whose name appears several times in the template's history. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• There appears to be a discrepancy between WP:NFCCE, WP:CSD and deletion templates.

WP:NFCCE

• A file which violates WP:NFCC should be deleted after 48 hours, unless the violation is fixed before then. If the file was uploaded a long time ago, this is extended to a whole week. This is regardless of which NFCC criterion the file violates.
• A file which is not in use is to be deleted after one week. This contradicts the above as a file which violates any NFCC criterion (such as WP:NFCC#7) apparently already is to be deleted after 48 hours.

WP:CSD

• Files which violate WP:NFCC#1 are to be deleded after 48 hours. No separate number of hours is given for old uploads, implying that they also are to be deleted after 48 hours.
• Files which violate other criteria are subject to other delays, for example no delay for WP:NFCC#2 violations (under WP:CSD#F7) or seven days for WP:NFCC#10a violations (under WP:CSD#F4). Note that WP:CSD#F4 also may be used for free files.

Deletion templates

• {{Di-replaceable fair use}} has an old image=yes parameter for files uploaded a long time ago. Depending on whether this is used, the term is set to two or seven days, according to the rules given at WP:NFCCE.
• {{Di-no source}}, {{di-no source no license}} and {{di-dw no source}} have a non-free=yes parameter. Interestingly, {{di-dw no source no license}} doesn't have this parameter. If the non-free=yes parameter is used, then the delay is set to two days instead of seven. It is unclear if the non-free=yes parameter only is to be used for recent uploads according to the rules at WP:NFCCE, or if it can be used for any uploads.
• Other templates, such as {{db-f7}} and {{di-no fair use rationale}}, do not use the two-day rule at WP:NFCCE. All of these templates seem to follow the rules given at WP:CSD.
• In practice, many violations are tagged with {{ffd}} instead of a speedy deletion template. The default minimum period at FFD is one week.

---

I think that these discrepancies should be fixed by changing policies and/or deletion templates. Files tagged with {{subst:rfu}} and {{db-f7}} can typically not be repaired, so deleting them quickly should typically not be a problem. Files tagged with {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:orfud}} can often be repaired by simply providing a source or by adding the file to an article, so it makes sense to give people a bit extra time to fix this. The WP:CSD policy seems to take these points into account, so I suggest that we update WP:NFCCE and deletion templates to be consistent with this, but maybe the old image=yes part from WP:NFCCE should be preseved. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes, some type of round up to address contradictions seems needed. I often volunteer to do what's necessary but as I said, this is really not my area. Anyway, the internal contradiction in this template, at least, is plain to me. It provides a two-day window for deletion, then places a link to delete it at expiration of that time period with an automatic edit summary that points only to F4, when that criterion says expressly that the required time period after nomination is seven days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone can provide me with the tl;dr, I will happily fix it. Pardon me if this sounds lazy, but I am astoundingly slow reader, and I have an astoundingly low amount of free time. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

F7 - split into sub-criteria to improve clarity

Looking at criteria F7 there are several bullets, each with different requirements, different templates and different tagging periods. I think this could be meaningfully and usefully simplified by splitting into sub-criteria F7a, etc. similar to how criterion C2 is organised.

My proposed organisation would be (criteria abbreviated for clarity):

• F7a Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag [immediate deletion]
• F7b Non-free images or media from a commercial source, where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary [immediate deletion]
• F7c Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image [deletion after 2 days]
• F7d Invalid fair-use claims [deletion after 7 days]

Note that I am not proposing to change any of the criteria, only clarify the presentation of them so that they are easier to refer to and easier for people to understand what requirements apply to which images. Particularly it should make it clearer to uploaders why their image has been tagged for deletion.

I will link to this proposal from the talk pages of the relevant image deletion pages. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• When a file is tagged for deletion under "F7a" and "F7b", the same deletion template is used in both cases. Also, "F7a", "F7b" and "F7d" all tend to get the same deletion summary in the log message. I think that it would be a good idea to use separate templates and different variations of the default deletion summaries. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Separating them to give more concrete reasons is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of CSD G13

Proposal

This conversation is the grouping of multiple disputes which can be found at the administrators noticeboard (main conversation), my personal talk page (where it all began), and a brief topic at Articles for Creation's talk page. Please do not post at any of them and instead converse here. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This request if for a changing of CSD:G13's rules. They currently cover:

"Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months."

It is requested that be changed to specify what edits do not reset the 6 month count. Minor edits such as bots adding categories and other bot edits should not reset the 6 month count.^{This is all up for change and modification.} A bot adding categories does not make the article any less abandoned, therefore should not stop the article from being tagged as abandoned and deleted. This issue spouts from the recently populated Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. This category was filled by a bot in December, but most of the articles within it haven't been edited by a human in a year or so. These therefore should be deleted. Any changes or additions to this request are happily welcomed. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

^{Pinging all involved in previous debates @Salvidrim!: @Tikuko: @Hasteur: @DGG: @JohnCD: @Ronhjones: @Chris troutman: @A fluffernutter is a sandwich!: @Anne Delong: @Tokyogirl79:}

• Repinging (Salvidrim!—Tikuko—Hasteur—DGG—JohnCD—Ronhjones—Chris troutman—A fluffernutter is a sandwich!—Anne Delong—Tokyogirl79) for goodness because you need a signature so the ping will work Hasteur (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The precise wording should be:TBD

Comments

• For speedy deletion, we shouldn't ask people to make judgements. Making it automatic as possible is ideal. While I'd be okay with excluding bot edits, anything else puts too much doubt in the process. There is minimal harm in a draft hanging around for 8 months instead of 6. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• I disagree and think the straight interpretation of 6 months un-edited from the current date is the safest and most expedient interpretation to make. As pointed out sometimes pages get lost or forgotten about. Perhaps a new user (which is why we have AFC in the first place) accidenally removes the AFC submission template, and the user thinks that they're done with it but because it's not in any of the monitored workflows it sits there untill someone finds it lying there If a automated process comes along to tag the article for one reason or annother with a maintenance category, that means that within 6 months of that edit there could be someone uses that maintance category to drill down a specific type of gnoming (hunting for badly wikified articles, hunting for some sort of article). It should also be noted that the foundation has said at many times that disk space is cheap (despite the doom and gloom fundraising headers). I would have seen a case for this back two years ago when the community authorized G13 and we had approximately 250 thousand drafts that were over the 6 month window, but as of this writing we're only sitting on 4 thousand drafts that are 100% eligible for G13 under the stright "as it's printed" interpertation. That's approximately 120 drafts that would be nominated for G13 a day, which is much more reasonable and encourages editors to take a look and in fact there is Category:AfC_postponed_G13 which indicates that an editor looked at the potential G13 nomination and saw a possibility in it.
  • TL:DR Oppose changing the rule as we are not under a deadline to get these potential articles deleted from wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'm torn -- on one hand, my eventualist tendencies make me agree with Hasteur's view that "there is no deadline", there is no rush to delete these articles, and whether it takes 6 or 12 months is of little concern. On the other hand, it seems to me that the spirit under which G13 was established (deleting drafts that have not been actively improved in some time, which is to say "abandoned") would lead to the conclusion that miscellaneous bot edits shouldn't be considered relevant in determining whether a draft is abandoned or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I like your reasoning here. I completely agree we are in no rush, but little bot edits shouldn't really affect the status of abandoned. If an article is abandoned, its abandoned. And because this is G:13 they can easily be restored by request. More importantly the articles I was trying to delete were never going to make it through AfD anyway (since Hasteur has got them undeleted see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adler bug. I had deleted this article per G:13, he restored it, submitted it and now has it up for deletion again. There was no purpose to that.) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Want to put the Bad faith away? I've already made some improvements to those pages, but when you have a tree stump protruding from your eye, any sliver in someone else's eye is fair game for attempting to extract. Plus using G13 only causes burecratic problems down the road if these editors come back and ask for them. If you had spent the proper time in reviewing these, you might have tagged them correctly as user blanked, or other things besides G13. Hasteur (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I tagged them as G13 so if they ever wanted it back they could, something you're all for. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 05:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Some were user blankings, some were outright hopeless ones, some actually have references in them and references have been found. Hasteur (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

• • • Also, as far as I know there's only a handful of bots that actively traverse the AfC project pages so it doesn't mean we're going to end up with hordes of pages stuck in almost-G13 limbo. But if you wanted to go on a G13 binge, the category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has plenty to knock yourself out on that have either languished as a "AFC draft" with no change for at least 6 months or have been declined without any improvement for 6 months. These are prime targets for G13 nomination, but as mentioned by Anne, some volunteers run drogue on these "just became eligible" drafts to look for ones that could be saved. In short, you spent time nominating for shoddy reasons, I requested refunds because it's clear your reasons were questionable at best, and I'm dealing with the drafts so as to give those that have potential a 3rd set of eyes for consideration. Hasteur (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• At the time that the db-g13 criteria was established, there was considerable discussion about how it would be applied. The consensus at the time was that when drafts were found to be abandoned:

1. the draft creators would be notified,
2. then a time delay would be applied to give the original editors time to begin editing again or ask for help
3. then still-unedited drafts would be placed in a category and other editors would be invited to improve and submit them for approval, or manually tagged for copyvio, historymerge, etc.
4. after a further delay to give time for the previous step, any remaining drafts would be nominated for deletion under db-g13.

I would agree that automatic edits such as bot tagging or dating should not count as real edits, but only if the above process has been followed. In my opinion, editors finding abandoned pages that are not labelled as such but which have in fact not been edited by a real person for more than six months should not delete them under db-g13 until the above process has taken place. The fact that there is no process for facilitating this at the present time only means that one should be developed. I agree with Hasteur that there is no rush on this because the drafts are all not picked up by search engines. I also ask that any action that would result in the deletion of these drafts be delayed for a few months, because the draft rescuers are fully occupied right now with the tail end of the giant project to check through 50,000 old drafts, which have been whittled down to about 7,000 left now in the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation area. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)