User talk:Deranged bulbasaur

Caroline Bridgeman

I disagree with your assertions that Caroline Bridgeman's page is unencyclopaedic.

Caroline Bridgeman was a governor of the BBC as well as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (a category on Wikipedia containing many names).

I also think you should have contacted me directly before putting up a tag as WP:AFG. Jill Teed 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere did I imply bad faith on your part. Furthermore, nowhere did I imply that the whole article is unencyclopedic. When a tag is put under a specific section, and it says it can apply to either a section or an article, it applies to the section. Just because she's notable doesn't necessarily mean her children are, or that a list thereof should be in an encyclopedia.

Actually when I referred to good faith I was referring to your not having, again, contacted me directly before putting an undeserved and ugly tag on a page I created.Jill Teed 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In any event if you check the page now, you will see why it was not only acceptable, but necessary to include her children (3/4 of whom are important in their own right and have their own pages on Wikipedia). Also, her husband's page lists the same four children and you did not tag that page. Please try to be consistent.Jill Teed 16:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you persist in this harassment just because I tagged a page of yours, I will seek administrator intervention. Furthermore, I highly suspect you're just adding your genaeology to wikipedia, which poses a conflict of interest.

This claim of "harassment" is ridiculous--all I am doing is responding to your erroneously tagging my page and showing why you were in error. It seems you simply don't want to acknowledge your mistake.

The tag was not a mistake when it was created. I'm glad you addressed the issue and rendered it irrelevant, but a list of random descendents without any indication in sight as to what the significance might be *is* {{unencyclopedic}}. If you think that kind of tagging is personal effrontery, you're being far too sensitive. In any case, I don't see the problem. Seems like standard operating procedure to me. You fixed the issue, and I let the tag lapse. Coming here to gloat over how you were right all along and how I shouldn't dare to tag your articles is, frankly, juvenile. Deranged bulbasaur 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Contact an admin if you want, I've done nothing wrong. And I am in no way related to the Bridegemans or any other English family; also your meaningless and unfounded accusation goes against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

If you retag my page, I will regard it as harrassment and contact an Admin. myself.Jill Teed 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Page "regagged." Contact an admin if you want.

Just so you know, DB, the idea behind WP:PROD is that anyone can remove the tag. If you still want it deleted, you're not supposed to keep restoring the prod tag, but rather nominate for deletion. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've done no such thing. I have not once restored the PROD tag. In fact, I repudiated my own rationale. He's creating all this fuss over what was a simple {{unencyclopedic}} tag on some random list of names. He's since fleshed out the list of names, so I let that tag drop as well.

If you don't believe me, consult the history of the article in question. In any case, I'm in danger of letting my anger get the better of me, so I'll just drop it. I regret having proposed the article for deletion.

Chasemcc

I did not realize that was against the rules i will delete it immediately. can you provide my with another alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasemcc (talk • contribs)

Not really. You could conceivably add mention of this commercial activity to your userpage as something you're involved in. Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Chasemcc 12:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Fanuzzi

DB, Please jot over to the Fanuzzi Talk page and see if it passes muster. Thanks, Pepto gecko 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I was just wondering why the article on Joe McKnight hadn't drawn the

"WP:SPEEDY" redirects here. For the guideline discussing when to end deletion debates early as "keep", see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. For the list of current candidates for speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. For the speedy renaming of categories, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. For speedy moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

"WP:SD" redirects here. For the shortcut directory, see Wikipedia:Shortcut directory. For information on short descriptions, see Wikipedia:Short description. For WikiProject South Dakota, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota.

The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other deletions occur only after discussion, unless they are proposed deletions. Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates, but only administrators may actually delete.

Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion). A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors. If a page needs to be removed from Wikipedia for privacy reasons (e.g. non-public personal information, a child disclosing their age, possible libel), request oversight instead.

For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, C1, C4 or U1.

Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. 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. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.

Besides speedy deletion, there are the following methods of deletion:

• Wikipedia:Deletion discussions (AfD, CfD, FfD, MfD, RfD, TfD), the normal method of carrying out deletion.
• Wikipedia:Proposed deletions, for nominating articles and files for uncontroversial deletion.
• Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, for articles on living persons without sources.

Nomenclature

Letter-number abbreviations (G12, A3...) are often used to refer to these criteria, and are given in each section. For example, "CSD G12" refers to criterion 12 under general (copyright infringement) and "CSD U1" refers to criterion 1 under user (user request). Some in-between numbers are skipped, as abbreviations denoting obsolete criteria remain unused. These abbreviations can be confusing to new editors or anyone else unfamiliar with this page; in many situations a plain-English explanation of why a specific page was or should be deleted is preferable.

Requesting speedy deletion

Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media files for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. To alert administrators to the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (but see § Pages that need to be tagged in a special manner below). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as Db-X with Db standing for 'delete because'. A list of the Db-X templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates.

If a page falls under more than one of the criteria, instead of adding multiple tags it is possible to add a single {{Db-multiple}} tag to cover them all. For example, if an article seems both to be blatantly promotional (G11) and also to fail to indicate the significance of its subject (A7) then the tag {{Db-multiple|G11|A7}} can be used to indicate both of these concerns. The article can then be speedily deleted if an administrator assesses it and decides that either or both of the criteria apply.

There is a strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination (or of the deletion if not informed before). All speedy deletion templates (using criteria other than U1, G5, G6, G7, and G8) thus contain in their body a pre-formatted, suggested warning template to notify the relevant party or parties of the nomination for speedy deletion under the criterion used. You can copy and paste such warnings to the talk pages of the creators and major contributors, choose from others listed at Category:CSD warning templates, or place the unified warning template, {{subst:CSD-warn|csd|Page name}}, which allows you to tailor your warning under any particular criterion by replacing csd with the associated criterion abbreviation (e.g. g4, a7).

Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria.

Pages that need to be tagged in a special manner

Some pages either cannot or should not be tagged for speedy deletion in the normal manner:

• Pages that you cannot edit (e.g., due to protection), or JSON pages: place the template on the corresponding Talk page instead, along with an explanation of which page to delete.
• Template: pages: place the template within a noinclude tag, like this: <noinclude>{{Db-x}}</noinclude>
• Module: pages (except for /doc pages): place the template with Module:Module wikitext, like this: require('Module:Module wikitext')._addText('{{Db-x}}')
• CSS (including sanitized CSS) or JavaScript pages: place the template in a comment, like this: /* {{Db-x}} */

Pages that have survived deletion discussions

For general principles of how deletion processes interact, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Process interaction.

As an exception to the norm that a page surviving its most recent deletion discussion means that it should not be speedily deleted, the following criteria apply also to those pages, with or without any specified limitations:

• § G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, or in violation of general sanctions – subject to the strict condition that the XfD participants were unaware that the page would have met this criterion
• § G6. Technical deletions – only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed
• § G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page
• § G9. Office actions
• § G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement
• § G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions – if 6 months have passed since the deletion discussion and any subsequent human edits
• § F8. Files available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons – if the image did not exist on Commons at the time of the FfD
• § F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement
• § U1. User request

These criteria may only be used in such cases when no controversy exists; in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion. However, newly discovered copyright violations should be tagged for G12 if the violation existed in all previous revisions of the article. G5 may be also used at discretion, subject to meeting the criterion outlined above.

General

These apply to every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc. Read the specifics for each criterion to see where and how they apply.

G1. Patent nonsense

Further information: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense

This applies to pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism, hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply. It also does not apply to pages in the user namespace.

• {{Db-g1}}, {{Db-nonsense}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as nonsense pages (0)

G2. Test pages

This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself, pages in the user namespace, or valid but unused or duplicate templates.

• {{Db-g2}}, {{Db-test}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as test pages (0)

G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes

Further information: Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes

This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax.

• {{Db-g3}}, {{Db-vandalism}} – for vandalism
• {{Db-hoax}} – for hoaxes
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as vandalism (0), Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as hoaxes (1)

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion

This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review, or that was only deleted via proposed deletion (including deletion discussions closed as "soft delete") or speedy deletion.

• {{Db-g4}}, {{Db-repost}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as pages previously deleted via deletion discussion (0)

G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, or in violation of general sanctions

Further information: WP:BANREVERT

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of general sanctions, and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions.

• To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, 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.
• For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
• For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction, and the remedies must specifically permit deletion as an enforcement measure.
• When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
• G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.
• {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}}, {{Db-gs|contentious topic code}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users (0), Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions (0)

G6. Technical deletions

See also: Wikipedia:What G6 is not

This is for uncontroversial maintenance, including:

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

• {{Db-g6|rationale=reason}} – If none of the special tags below applies, this tag should be used with a reason specified in the |rationale= parameter.
• {{Db-copypaste|page to be moved}} – for cut-and-paste page moves that need to be temporarily deleted to make room for a clean page move.
• {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move.
• {{Db-moved}} – for pages that were holding up a page move, until they were moved out of the way by a page mover.
• {{Db-afc-move|Draft:page to be moved}} – for pages that are currently holding up a non-controversial or consensual page move as a result of an Articles for creation (AFC) review, typically for articles in draft space.
• {{Db-xfd|fullvotepage=link to closed deletion discussion}} – for pages where a consensus to delete has been previously reached via deletion discussion, but which were not deleted.
• {{Db-error}} – for pages obviously created in error.
• Category:Candidates for technical speedy deletion (0)

G7. Author requests deletion

If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request. If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale.

• {{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user (1) (same category as U1)

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Talk pages with no corresponding subject page
• Subpages with no parent page
• TimedText pages without a corresponding file (or when the file has been moved to Commons)
• Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted
• Editnotices of non-existent or unsalted deleted pages

This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular:

• Deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere
• User talk pages
• Talk page archives (except article talk page archives where the corresponding article and main talk page have been deleted and the page is not otherwise useful to Wikipedia – check for page-moves and merges before using G8 on article-talk-page-archives; the parent article might still exist under a different name)
• Redirects that were broken as a result of a page move or retargeting (these should instead be retargeted to their target's new name), except where R2 speedy deletion would then immediately apply if they were fixed (e.g., redirects to articles that have been draftified)
• Plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets
• User subpages
• Talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons
• Pages that should be moved to a different location

Exceptions may be sign-posted with the template {{G8-exempt}}.

• {{Db-g8}} – for cases not covered by any of the special tags below
• {{Db-redirnone}} – for pages that redirect to nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion
• {{Db-subpage}} – for subpages of nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion
• {{Db-talk}} – for talk pages of nonexistent/deleted pages, or pages currently flagged for speedy deletion
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page (0), Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as broken redirects (0)

G9. Office actions

Main page: Wikipedia:Office actions

In exceptional circumstances, the Wikimedia Foundation office reserves the right to speedy-delete a page. Deletions of this type must not be reversed without permission from the Foundation.

G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose

Main page: Wikipedia:Attack page

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Other pages violating the Biographies of living persons policy might be eligible for deletion under the conditions stipulated at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead.

Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL.

• {{Db-g10}}, {{Db-attack}}, {{Db-attackorg}}, {{Db-personal attack}}
• {{Db-negublp}} – for articles about living persons that are unsourced, entirely negative in tone, and have no neutral version to revert to
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages (0)

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Main page: Wikipedia:Spam

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

• {{Db-g11}}, {{Db-promo}}, {{Db-spam}}
• {{Db-spamuser}} – for userpages used only for publicity and promotion, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam (1)

G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement

Main page: Wikipedia:Copyright violations

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. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section here, which has more specific instructions.

• {{Db-g12|url=source URL}}, {{Db-copyvio|url=source URL}}

Note: If other criteria apply in addition to G12, the template {{Db-multiple}} should be used instead, so we do not waste time seeking copyright permission after deleting the page.

• {{Db-multiple|g12|url=source URL|other criteria}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations (0) (same category as F9)

G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions

Further information: Wikipedia:Articles for creation

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

1. Draft namespace,
2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Adding a CSD template to a page does not reset the six-month clock, but removing a CSD template does. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

• {{Db-g13}}, {{Db-afc}}, {{db-blankdraft}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions (0)

G14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages

This applies to the following disambiguation pages and redirects:

• Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
• Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
• A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page.

• {{Db-g14}}, {{Db-disambig}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages (0)

Articles

These criteria apply only to pages in the article (main) namespace. They do not apply to redirects. For any articles that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

A1. No context

This applies to articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." It applies only to very short articles. Note that context is different from content, treated in A3. This excludes coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created.

• {{Db-a1}}, {{Db-nocontext}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as lacking context (0)

A2. Foreign-language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project

This applies to articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project. If the article is not the same as an article on another project, use the template {{Not English}} instead, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation.

• {{Db-a2}}, {{Db-foreign}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as existing on foreign Wikimedia projects (0)

A3. No content

This applies to articles consisting only of external links, category tags or "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, questions that should have been asked at a noticeboard, chat-like comments, template tags, or images. This may also apply to articles consisting entirely of the framework of the Article wizard with no additional content, or no content at all. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet another speedy deletion criterion. This criterion excludes poor writing, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Do not tag under this criterion in the first few minutes after a new article is created.

• {{Db-a3}}, {{Db-nocontent}}, {{Db-contact}}
• {{Db-empty}} – context-specific version: calls {{Db-c1}} for categories, and {{Db-a3}} everywhere else.
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty articles (0)

A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)

Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

• {{Db-a7}}
• {{Db-person}} – for people
• {{Db-band}} – for bands
• {{Db-club}} – for clubs, societies and groups
• {{Db-inc}} – for commercial and non-commercial organizations
• {{Db-web}} – for web content
• {{Db-animal}} – for individual animals
• {{Db-event}} – for events
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted (0) (same as A9)

A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)

Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles.

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

• {{Db-a9}}, {{Db-album}}, {{Db-song}}, {{Db-discog}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted (0) (same as A7)

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic

This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia article, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. It also does not include disambiguation pages.

• {{Db-a10|article=Existing article title}}, {{Db-same|article=Existing article title}}

The title chosen for the vast majority of duplicate articles will be a plausible misspelling of, or alternative name for, the existing article, and a redirect should be created instead of deletion. This criterion should, accordingly, only be used rarely, and only for pages whose titles are not plausible redirects.

• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as duplicate articles (0)

A11. Obviously invented

Main page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day

Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: This is not intended for hoaxes (see CSD G3).

• {{Db-a11}}, {{Db-invented}}, {{Db-madeup}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as obviously invented (0)

Redirects

These criteria apply to redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace, with exclusions listed for specific criteria. For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

R2. Cross-namespace redirects

This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.

See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, Category:Cross-namespace redirects, and MOS:LINKSTYLE.

• {{Db-r2}}, {{Db-rediruser}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects (0)

R3. Recently created, implausible typos

This applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are some redirects in other languages. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless nothing was at the title until recently. It also does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects, including redirects created by merges, or to redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page.

• {{Db-r3}}, {{Db-redirtypo}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as implausible redirects (0)

R4. File namespace redirects with names that match Wikimedia Commons pages

This applies to redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons, provided the redirect on Wikipedia has no file links (unless the links are obviously intended for the file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons).

• {{Db-r4}}, {{Db-redircom}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as file redirects shadowing Wikimedia Commons files (0)

Other issues with redirects

• For redirects to deleted or non-existent pages, see G8.
• For redirects that end in "(disambiguation)", see G14.
• For redirects without a space before a parenthetical disambiguation, see X3.
• For redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedily deleted. In some cases it may be possible to make a useful redirect by changing the target instead of deleting it. Redirects that do not work because of software limitations, such as redirects to special pages or to pages on other wikis, may be converted to soft redirects if they have a non-trivial history or other valid uses.

For reversal of redirects, use {{Db-move}}, a special case of {{Db-g6}}.

Files

These apply to files, images, and other media.

Note: These criteria formerly began with I (e.g. I1, I6, I9) but have since been replaced with F, without the actual criteria being changed. This was because the file namespace was formerly known as the image namespace.

For any images and other media that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

F1. Redundant

This applies to unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format. This excludes images in the Wikimedia Commons; for these, see criterion F8.

• {{Db-f1|replacement file name.ext}}, {{Db-redundantfile|replacement file name.ext}}, {{Isd|replacement file name.ext}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redundant files (0)

F2. Corrupt, missing, or empty file

This applies to files that are corrupt, missing, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also applies to file description pages that lack a corresponding file or correspond to Commons files and do not include information that is specific to English Wikipedia (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).

• {{Db-f2}}, {{Db-nofile}}, {{Db-fpcfail}}
• {{Db-imagepage}} – for file description pages with no corresponding file
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as missing files (0)

F3. Improper license

This criterion is used to flag media licensed as "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". These may be deleted, unless they comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. Files uploaded after 1 August 2021 licensed under versions of the GFDL earlier than 1.3, without allowing for later versions or other licenses, may be deleted.

• {{Db-f3}}, {{Db-noncom}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with unacceptable licenses (0)

F4. Lack of licensing information

This applies to media files lacking the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status after being identified as such for seven days. Administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself for a source before deleting under this criterion.

• {{subst:Di-no source}}, {{subst:Nsd}} – no source
• {{subst:Di-no license}}, {{subst:Nld}} – no license
• {{subst:Di-no source no license}}, {{subst:Nsdnld}} – neither source nor license
• {{subst:Di-dw no source}}, {{subst:Dw-nsd}} – derivative work with no source for the incorporated work
• {{subst:Di-dw no license}}, {{subst:Dw-nld}} – derivative work with no license for the incorporated work
• {{subst:Di-dw no source no license}}, {{subst:Dw-nsdnld}} – derivative work with neither source nor license for the incorporated work
• Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source, Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

F5. Orphaned non-free use files

This applies to images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain and that are not used in any article. These may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. This includes previous revisions of the image or files overwritten by copyright violations. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.

• {{Db-f5}} – for immediate F5 deletions
• {{subst:Di-orphaned non-free use}}, {{subst:Orfud}} – for files
• {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}, {{subst:Orfurrev}} – for revisions only
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free use files (0)

F6. Missing non-free use rationale

This applies to non-free files claiming fair use but without a use rationale. These may be deleted after being identified as such for seven days. The boilerplate copyright tags setting out fair use criteria does not constitute a rationale. This criterion does not apply to situations where a use rationale is provided but is disputed.

• {{Di-no non-free use rationale}}, {{subst:Nrd}} – no non-free use rationale
• {{Di-missing article links}} – missing non-free use rationale for one or more articles
• Category:All Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale (2)

F7. Invalid fair-use claim

2. Non-free images or media from a press agency or photo agency (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and may be deleted immediately.
3. Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{Rnfu}} may be deleted after Two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability. If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image.
4. Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{Dnfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

• {{Db-f7}}, {{Db-badfairuse}} – for immediate F7 deletions
• {{subst:Di-replaceable non-free use}}, {{subst:Rnfu}} – replaceable with free images
• {{subst:Di-disputed non-free use rationale}}, {{subst:Dnfu}} – disputed non-free use rationales
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as files with clearly invalid fair-use claims (0)

F8. Files available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons

Provided the following conditions are met:

• The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution.
• The file's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons. To avoid deletion at Commons, please ensure the Commons page description has all of the following:
  • Name and date of death of the creator of the artistic work represented by the file, or else clear evidence that a free license was given. If anonymous, ensure the page description provides evidence that establishes the anonymous status.
  • Country where the artistic work represented by the file was situated, or where it was first published.
  • Date when the artistic work represented by the file was created or first published, depending on the copyright law of the origin country.
  • All file revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.
• The file is not marked as {{Do not move to Commons}} or as {{Keep local}}.
• All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages (the upload history is not necessary if the file's license does not require it, although it is still recommended).
  • If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the file description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion.
• If the file is available on Commons under a different name than locally, all local references to the image must be updated to point to the title used at Commons.
• The file is not protected. Do not delete protected images, even if there is an identical copy on Commons, unless the image is no longer in use (check what links here). They are usually locally uploaded and protected here since they are used in the interface or in some widely used high-risk templates. Deleting the local copy of an image used in the interface does break things. More about high-risk images.
• {{C-uploaded}} images and other files may be speedily deleted as soon as they are off the Main Page.
• {{Db-f8}}, {{Now Commons}}, {{Now Commons|File:name of file on Commons.ext}}
• Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons

F9. Unambiguous copyright infringement

This applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images will not be released under such a license. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{Db-filecopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

• {{Db-f9|url=URL of source}}, {{Db-filecopyvio|url=URL of source}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations (0)

F11. No evidence of permission

If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own. Instances of obvious copyright violations where the uploader would have no reasonable expectation of obtaining permission (e.g. major studio movie posters, television images, album covers, logos that are not simple enough to be public domain, etc.) should be speedily deleted per reason F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement), unless fair-use can be claimed. Files tagged with {{Permission pending}} for more than 30 days may also be speedily deleted under this criterion. (Please note that the backlog for messages sent to the permissions-en queue is currently 0 days. You may wish to wait at least this amount of time before tagging VRT pending images for deletion.) Files tagged {{Permission received}} whose permissions have not been confirmed after 30 days may be deleted immediately under this criterion, without waiting an additional seven days, provided a check of the ticket is performed by a VRT agent to confirm that no further interaction is ongoing.

• {{subst:Di-no permission}}, {{subst:Npd}}
• {{subst:Db-no permission-VRT}}
• Category:Wikipedia files missing permission

Categories

For any category pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

C1. Unpopulated categories

This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, categories under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (or other such discussions), or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. cleanup categories, or Category:Wikipedians looking for help). Place {{Possibly empty category}} (or, for administrative categories, {{Wikipedia category}}) at the top of the page to prevent such categories from being deleted.

• {{Db-c1}}, {{db-catempty}}.
• {{Db-empty}} – context-specific version: calls {{Db-c1}} for categories, and {{Db-a3}} everywhere else.
• Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (133), and after seven days Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories (0)

C2. Speedy renaming and merging

Assorted sub-criteria that are used only at WP:CFDS; please see that page for details and instructions.

C4. Unused maintenance categories

This criterion applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past (e.g. Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2004), tracking categories no longer used by a template after a rewrite, or empty subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets or Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. Note that empty maintenance categories are not necessarily unused—this criterion is for categories that will always be empty, not just currently empty. If you are unsure whether a category is still being used by a template, consider asking the creator of the category or at the template's talk page before tagging.

• {{db-c4}}, {{db-templatecat}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused maintenance categories (0)

User pages

Further information: Wikipedia:User pages

These criteria apply only to pages in the User: and User talk: namespaces. For any user pages that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

U1. User request

Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. This also includes editnotices for user pages. In some rare cases, there may be administrative need to retain the page. User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion. Pages that have previously been moved are only eligible if all previous titles were in the user's userspace. Note: The template does not display on certain pages (such as .css and .js pages), but its categorization will work.

• {{Db-u1}}, {{Db-userreq}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user (1)

U2. Nonexistent user

"WP:U2" redirects here. For the WikiProject for the band, see Wikipedia:WikiProject U2.

This applies to user pages, user subpages, and user talk pages of users that do not exist on the English Wikipedia (check Special:ListUsers), except user pages for IP users who have edited, redirects from misspellings of an established user's user page, and redirects created due to a user being renamed. Pages of users who exist on other WMF wikis but do not have local accounts are eligible for deletion.

Before placing one of the following templates or deleting a page under this criterion, consider whether moving the page to another location, such as a sub-page of the user page of the primary contributor, is preferable to deletion.

• {{Db-u2}}, {{Db-nouser}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user (0)

U5. A non-contributor's misuse of Wikipedia as a web host

Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages § What may I have in my user pages? It applies regardless of the age of the page in question.

Before placing this template or deleting a page under this criterion:

• Read Wikipedia:User pages § Handling inappropriate content and Wikipedia:User pages § Deletion of user pages.
• Consider blanking pages with a significant history unrelated to the content that is being deleted.
• For draft articles that are on a user's main page and which do not otherwise qualify for speedy deletion, consider moving it to a sub-page.
• {{Db-u5}}, {{Db-notwebhost}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations (0)

Exceptional circumstances

These temporary criteria apply to large-scale cleanups of problematic pages that would overwhelm the normal deletion processes. Criteria should be deprecated when no longer needed.

X3. Redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation

Examples: "Foo(bar)", "Joe Smith(disambiguation)". This does not apply to terms that will correctly or plausibly be searched for without spaces, nor does it apply if the redirect contains substantive page history (e.g. from a merge). Before nominating a redirect under this criterion:

• Create the correctly spaced version as a redirect to the same target if it would make a good redirect but does not exist
• Adjust any incoming internal links to point to the correctly spaced version
• {{db-x3}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation (0)

Non-criteria

Commonly denied CSD reasons

The following proposals for new speedy deletion criteria are frequently raised, but have repeatedly failed to gain consensus:

• How-to articles
• Essay articles
• Expansion of A7, A9 and A11 to include books, software, schools and/or other subjects
• Neologisms
• Unsourced articles

A7, A9 and A11 scope

A7, A9 and A11 do not apply to any other subject that does not indicate importance. Expanding the scope of A7, A9 and A11 to different subjects (such as products, software, books, schools, etc.) have been proposed several times in the past and failed to gain consensus. Amongst the reasons for those rejections were that such subjects are not created often enough to require speedy deletion (such articles can be handled by proposed deletion or by listing the article at articles for deletion), that such subjects cannot be objectively covered in A7, A9 and A11's wording and that admins are not able to assess claims of importance for certain subjects. Before proposing a change to A7, A9 and A11 to expand their scope, please check whether your proposal has not already been discussed on the talk page (archives).

The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion:

1. Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or essays. Wikipedia is not: "a dictionary", "an indiscriminate collection of information", "a crystal ball", "a how-to list"; or essays like Wikipedia:Listcruft, Wikipedia:Obscure topics, Wikipedia:Deny recognition,...; are not valid reasons for speedy deletion.
2. Less-obvious hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism.
3. Original research. It is not always easy to tell whether an article consists of material that violates the policy against novel theories or interpretations or is simply unsourced.
4. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant.
5. Failure to assert importance but not an A7, A9 or A11 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7, A9 or A11 under those criteria. Nor does it apply for neologisms that do not meet A11 because new specialized terms should have a wider hearing.
6. Author deletion requests made in bad faith. Author deletion requests made in bad faith, out of frustration, after others have contributed substantially (because the work of others is involved) or in an attempt to revoke their freely-licensed contributions are not granted. However, anyone may request deletion of pages in their userspace.
7. Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply.
8. Copies that are not copyright violations. If content appears both here and somewhere else (possibly in modified form), consider the possibility that Wikipedia's is the original version and the other site copied from Wikipedia's version. Alternatively, the same author may have written both versions, or the original may be free content.
9. PNG / GIF files replaced by JPEG images. JPEG encoding discards information that may be important later. Do not delete the original PNG / GIF files.
10. Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain.
11. User and user talk pages of IP addresses. Although users are encouraged to create Wikipedia accounts, unregistered users are still allowed to edit Wikipedia, and are identified by their IP addresses. If an unregistered user has a static IP address, it may have a user page and/or user talk page associated with it, and even for non-static IP addresses, the history can contain important discussions or information that may be of interest.
12. An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. It may be reconsidered after translation whether the article merits deletion, retention or improvement by means of a suitable tag. However, if it already exists on another Wikimedia project, it might be speedily deletable under criterion A2.
13. Subject request. Sometimes somebody claiming to be the subject of a biographical article requests deletion of the article, or even blanks the article. Article subjects do not have an automatic right to have their articles deleted. Nor does such a criterion apply to namespaces other than article space: for example, pages in the Wikipedia namespace devoted to a discussion about a particular editor. See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs
14. Orphaned pages or redirects. A page cannot be deleted just because no other pages link to it. This includes redirects – even if 'What links here' returns nothing, a redirect may be a likely search phrase, or have links to it from outside Wikipedia.
15. Redirects that are poorly targeted. A redirect should not be deleted just because its target is incorrect or confusing. Instead, change the redirect to a better target. If you're not sure where it should be targeted, open a discussion at Redirects for discussion.
16. Drafts covering the same topic as an existing mainspace article. These are not valid deletions under A10 (due to not being articles) nor G6. They can be replaced with a redirect to the mainspace article if necessary.

Procedure for administrators

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion process

Make sure to specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary. Also, in general, the article's creator and major contributors should have been notified.

Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version, or there was actually a cut-and-paste move involved. Also:

• The initial edit summary may have information about the source of or reason for the page.
• The talk page may refer to previous deletion discussions or have ongoing discussion relevant to including the page.
• The page log may have information about previous deletions that could warrant SALTing the page or keeping it on good reason.
• What links here may show that the page is an oft-referred part of the encyclopedia, or may show other similar pages that warrant deletion. For pages that should not be re-created, incoming links in other pages (except in discussions, archives and tracking pages) should be removed.

If speedy deletion is inappropriate for a page:

1. Please remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. Doing so will automatically remove the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
2. Consider notifying the nominator, using {{speedy-decline}} or {{uw-csd}}. (If you're using CSD Helper, it will usually notify the nominator for you; it will normally use its own notification template.)

When deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, please specify the reason for deletion in the deletion summary, so that it will be recorded into the deletion log. Quoting page content in the deletion summary may be helpful, but must not be done for attack content or copyrighted text. In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion.

Twinkle or CSDHelper can be used to process nominations more quickly and smoothly. When processing a nomination:

• Twinkle can delete the page.
  • Twinkle can notify the page creator if the page is deleted.
• CSDH can delete the page, convert the nomination into a PROD nomination, or decline the nomination.
  • CSDH can notify the nominator if the nomination is converted or declined.

Obsolete

In the past, criteria beginning with the following letters were used:

• "P" for portals
• "T" for templates and modules

All criteria in these groups have been obsoleted; as such, these groups are not currently in use. Some criteria in the active groups were also used in the past but are no longer valid. They are kept here for historical reference and to preserve numbering. Two of the repealed criteria did not have consensus before being enacted, and two were meant to be temporary. The remainder were merged into broader criteria or deprecated entirely.

A4. Attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title

Merged with and later superseded by "No content" (A3) in November 2005 as part of a bold rewrite that was made to simplify the CSD criterion (archived discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3).

A5. Transwikied articles

Was repealed in December 2022 due to lack of use (unopposed proposal). Instead, use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Deleted articles that are temporarily restored to allow for a transwiki may be re-deleted under "technical deletion" (G6).

A6. Attack articles

Superseded by "Attack pages" (G10) in March 2006 (discussion).

A8. Blatant copyright infringement articles

Superseded by "Unambiguous copyright infringement" (G12) in October 2006 (unopposed proposal).

R1. Redirects to non-existent pages

Merged into "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8) in September 2008 (discussion).

F7a. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag

Repealed in March 2021 due to the problem being easily surmountable (discussion). Instead, the invalid tag should be corrected. Once the tag is corrected, other speedy deletion criteria may apply.

F10. Useless non-media files

Deprecated in favor of proposed deletion in February 2023 following rare usage and added technical restrictions on what file types can be uploaded (discussion).

C3. Categories solely populated from a template

Merged into "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8) in October 2008 (discussion).

T1. Divisive and inflammatory templates

Enacted by Jimbo Wales without formally assessing consensus during the userbox wars. Was repealed in February 2009 (discussion). Instead, "attack pages" (G10) may be applicable in some cases; otherwise, use Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for userboxes and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion for all other templates.

T2. Misrepresentation of policy

Was repealed in July 2020 following rare, often incorrect, use (discussion). Instead, "pure vandalism" (G3) may be applicable in some cases; otherwise, use Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

T3. Duplication and hardcoded instances

Was repealed in December 2020 due to misuse and the seven day hold (discussion). Instead, use an existing applicable criterion or submit the template to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

T4. Subpages of non-existent pages

Merged into "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" (G8) in September 2008 (discussion).

U3. Non-free galleries

Was repealed in July 2021 since a bot automatically removes non-free images from user pages (discussion).

U4. Old IP address talk pages that meet specific criteria

Never enacted as policy anywhere, but deletions occurred nonetheless. Was repealed in March 2009 (discussion).

P1. Any portal that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article

Repealed in February 2023 following rare usage (discussion).

P2. Underpopulated portal

Repealed in February 2023 following rare usage (discussion).

X1. Redirects created by Neelix

Created as a G6 extension in December 2015 shortly after the discovery and arbitration case regarding 50,000+ questionable redirects created by the user Neelix, and later split into its own criterion. Was repealed in April 2018 after cleanup was completed (discussion). Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

X2. Pages created by the content translation tool

Created to delete pages created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016. Was deprecated in July 2017 when consensus agreed to move most of the remaining pages to the draft namespace (discussion).

See also

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
• Wikipedia:Alternative outlets
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
• Category:CSD warning templates
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates
• Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Wikipedia:No blank pages
• Wikipedia:Proposed deletion
• Wikipedia:Undeletion policy
• Wikipedia:What to do if your article gets CSD tagged
• Wikipedia:Over-hasty Speedy Deleters
• Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion

Footnotes

flag since the article subject closely mirrors my deleted article. Is there some criteria that makes it a keeper? Thanks - Pepto gecko 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Opalelement Talk Page

"Deletion of User talk warnings: Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked." I deleted them form my talk page because they were handled already and i thought they weren't needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opalelement (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

They are needed in light of the fact that you still create pages that are insufficiently notable. Jcink.com was just now deleted, FYI.

Yeah i saw it was deleted, I really have to contest, what do have to do, get a petition? I could get about 100 signatures or probably more, all from people who think Jcink.com helps them and can help others, which is why i made it... It helped me alot and it can help others, and isn't that kinda the point of wikipedia, to help others? Just tell me what i need to do to make it stay and i will. Opalelement 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A petition by the *users* will probably not be helpful. You can petition the wikipedia administrators at Wikipedia:Deletion review by following the instructions there. In the future, please sign your posts with ~~~~

There is a request for Jcink.com on Requested Arrticles in J-M. Can I make the Jcink.com article now that someone has actually requested it?

Manuelcragi

Sorry, can you help me... I don't know how to do that, I didn't want to do vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelcragi (talk • contribs)

It's what you *are* doing, not what you aren't doing. When somebody adds a tag like {{notability}} to an article of yours, don't remove it unless you provide a rationale, or do something substantial to correct the underlying concern. Also, it's customary to add new material to the *bottom* of pages like this.

Ok, sorry for both things, I'm still learning (; I already modified the content saying that the project is in pre-production in my university, the art institute of vancouver, we are going to shoot the pilot very soon.

Twin souls

Any chance you could add all the Twin souls characters and the pre-production into your AfD? Saves the trouble of doing them all individually. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Sounds good, though.

Well, I think I did that right. Alexander Reim and Twin souls added to the afd.

HipHopDX

HipHopDx is a professional, popular and well-reputed web site. Countless Wikipedia articles contain links to reviews or articles published on HipHopDx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyvoltron (talk • contribs)

For the specific guidlines on website notability, see WP:WEB. The article does not reference "multiple non-trivial published works" which is the "central criterion" for website notability. If you want to dispute the tagging of the article, it's best to do so on its talk page. Few people will see your reasoning if you only put it here.

Fermin Fautsch

The page Fermin Fautsch has been nominated for deletion. Because you have edited it, you may be interested in contribution to the discussion here. Philippe Beaudette 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

DowneLink

What's it need to be significant. It's a valid site with lots of users that is in the beta testing stage. What needs to be added to show that the site has significance? I'm working on adding a link to the website, would that be it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tk03759 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid that is not sufficient. For the guidelines on website notability, see WP:WEB.

What about as a stub? Tk03759 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The page must be made to reference reliable sources (WP:RS). The page must assert the notability of the website it is about. These requirements are not abrogated for stubs.

I think I understand now, and I'm going to remove the "hangon" tag so that the page can be deleted. Once the site comes out of beta, more information about it should circulate and I'm sure it'll wind up on wikipedia. Tk03759 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rage

you deleted my page and said that i insulted someone. i didnt insult anyone though. i made a page for my teacher who wrote a book about the slave trade in west africa. i wrote a small thing about his youth, and a few quirks he has. thanks for deleting my page, ill make sure to never make anything again, since you of course know Walter very well, and must know that those things are untrue and insulting, right? have fun playing pokemon bulbasaur...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyjschmidt (talk • contribs)

I don't have the power to delete pages, and furthermore, I don't even know what page you're talking about.

"Please do not make personal attacks on other people as you did at Walter hawthorne. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Deranged bulbasaur 05:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)" do you still claim you didn't delete my page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyjschmidt (talk • contribs)

Yes

AutoVaughn

I understand that it does look like it's just another random article that Wiki doesn't need. However, I don't have all the information in front of me and it's too late to call them to get it all. So, if there's a way to put off the deletion of the page as they are a factual band and they do show up on wiki under Jaci Velasquez. Just trying to make it a little more complete as I, and many close friends, do know the band personally. Also, I apologize for the poor formatting of this response and the entry as I've never made an entry from scratch before. I've just done some minor editing. I will look into the way of creating an article. Quietpopcorn 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Quietpopcorn

There's probably not a way to forestall the deletion, but you can always try again. You can save the text of the present article before it's deleted, then add the information that will make it satisfy the notability guidelines. I would however like to draw your attention to WP:COI.

Shuyi wang

Hi, i just wanted to apologise if i shouldn't have deleted that previously. I'm still rather new to this. Thanks for the tip though.CEP78 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. That article will be gone from history in no time, and now you know what to do in the future.

AfD

Sorry if I upset you, wasn't intended to be a personal attack. jimfbleak 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No harm done.

Page on Julian Fane

Would you mind telling me why you have nominated my recently added article on Julian Fane for deletion? Sebras 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your input

You input is required at Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found. Please help us in reaching compromise. regards. --- ALM 13:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag to Pasion Mura

I have already posted an AFD tag on the page. Before, I had tried to speedy-delete it, but the author contested the deletion. Can you please remove the tag from the page? Thank you. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Henry King-Tenison

Heja, for your information, according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Other_non-royal_names the title is usually used with peers. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ~~

Ah, I see.

Thanks for the explanation

Aloha and mahalo ā nui for you explanation of deletions. I will keep that in mind for next time.Dcbnmlt 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Nipples on Batman

Wow - that was quick. OK.... let me ask you this - what is your criteria for verifying that something is an 'Internet Phenonemon'? A citation of someone else describing it as such?Mikejstevenson 12:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume that you mean the article in question was just deleted. There are no separate guidelines on "internet phenomena." I only mentioned it as one because articles about them frequently fail established wikipedia guidelines like WP:NN and WP:ATT. The Nipples on Batman article, true to its type, clearly failed in those respects among others.

Oh, I guess it's still around. In that case, it *will soon* be deleted for failing those guidelines. Deranged bulbasaur 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Drake Bell

How do you add a hangon?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake&Josh (talk • contribs)

Put {{hangon}} at the top of the page.

Honeycut

Honeycut was reviewed in several San Francisco newspaper, got the annual SF Weekly music award, has released a CD which is also reviewed by the record label and available at music stores in San Francisco (e.g. rasputin) and through amazon. I think it clearly meets the criterion for notability. Am I wrong? BTW I am not affiliated in any other way with them than liking their music.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgoerner (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you should add that to the article. If I recall correctly, it was all of one sentence long when I tagged it.

I understand that, but I lost some typing because of you tagging it... On the page quoted by you, it says: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." No problem. Hopefully it is long enough now not to be marked for speedy deletion... Matthias

I'm very sorry that you "lost some typing," but the article, as it was when I tagged it, clearly met the speedy deletion critera. If band articles with no assertion of notability were allowed through, wikipedia would be bogged down in a morass of unverifiable, self-promotional drivel. I'm glad you improved the article and recreated it, but alleging some impropriety on my part for tagging it in its original state is silly. Now *I've* "lost some typing" on the issue, and I'm tired of it. Go away.

Also note that the counsel not to delete articles too quickly is for administrators who happen accross already tagged pages that are mostly empty. They're supposed to give the creator a small span of time to actually put content in the article before deleting it. I didn't delete your article. I just tagged it for deletion. You're obviously not observing that distinction properly.

Hey, I understand, and I am sorry. Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoerner (talk • contribs)

Ok. No harm done. For what it's worth, I'm sorry if I came off as irascible.

No problem. Good to know that there are people taking care of the wikipedia standards!

Page on WaferTech

WaferTech is a major company in Clark County, WA. It's also the largest pure-play semiconductor foundry in the United States. This article should be kept although it certainly needs to be polished and linked to external mentions of WaferTech. Thanks! --rms1 Rms1 06:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Rms1

It would be better to argue that on the article's talk page than to argue it here. Be aware, however, that the primary criterion for the notability of companies is non-trivial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Deranged bulbasaur 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ingenuity

Thanks for the rapid deletion. I didn't realize I had to have sources given that tons of pages here do not. I have plenty of sources, but now that my page is deleted, I really don't feel like going through the trouble of recreating it from scratch. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean by deleting content you are completely unfamiliar with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vobios (talk • contribs)

It's not my fault that your page did not meet wikipedia guidelines. I don't have the power to delete pages unilaterally, so at least one administrator must have concurred with my judgement. My guess is that there was a greater problem with it than lack of sources, since that's not one of the WP:CSD.

I did not imply it was entirely your fault. It's the fault of the system. Anyone is free to add a tag. Deleting the page entirely based on a small technicality is irresponsible. It was clearly not spam or harmful in any way. It would be nice to have a chance to defend myself. Vobios 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Magsamen

Hello, I completely rewrote this article and found a few citations. I think it meets notability standards now due to her awards. Please review my changes and consider advocating for keeping the article. --Mus Musculus 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WaferTech

Some additional third-party references have been added to WaferTech. --Eastmain 23:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U

The RFC/U page has enough cruft every day, no need for your self nom. C'mon now. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not cruft. I want to know if my username violates policy. I presume that's what a *request for comment* is for.

No, its a point violation. We don't need test cases, and that's what you said it was. Please refrain from this type of activity. pschemp | talk 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a point violation even though I legitimately want to know whether or not I can keep this username?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

I dunno if it's a point violation, but it's certainly silly and unneeded. Pschemp and I disagree, as a rule, on just about everything, but if she hadn't pulled your self nom, I would have. That should tell ya' something. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're "not sure" whether I committed any misconduct in my nomination, but you're willing to withdraw it from consideration nonetheless?

YOu've been editing for over a month and no one has complained. That's proof enough. We don't need "test cases" for something like that. There are better things for people to be spending their time on. Go improve the encylcopedia instaed of wikilawyering please. pschemp | talk 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd rather not, when a pall of doubt hangs over my identity here. There's a difference between trying to prove a point and trying to discover what's acceptable and what's not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

If you're uncomfortable with your own username, you can request that it be changed or just create a new account. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not uncomfortable with it. I want to know whether it's allowed or not. The common sense definition of a "request for comment" certainly admits of cases like this. I'm not convinced that your removal of my nomination was well-founded.

And what's the use of signing my comments on my own talk page when it's obvious I've made them—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

It's certainly not obvious that you've made them, and your unwillingness to sign your message might reasonably be interpreted as impolite, but that's between you and whoever raised you. Regarding your username, I have no dang idea why you think it's controversial. You're sure it's your username that's causing the problem? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It contains a trademark, doesn't it? That has been grounds for previous renamings, hasn't it? Maybe it's the singular workings of my own brain, but that seems to invoke doubt about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deranged bulbasaur (talk • contribs).

For that matter, why must you necessarily think it controversial before it's a valid rfc? I'm still waiting for somebody to point out where I've erred. [EDIT CONFLICT]

What trademark? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is a trademarked character from the Pokemon series of video games produced by GameFreaks. Deranged bulbasaur 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This type of use of a trademarked term is not actually in violation of trademark law, but both the policy and the inforcement leave room for wide latitute in interpretation. You say I'm "wikilawyering" but the question is clearly applicable in my situation, and I'm not just trying to assert some abstract point in a way that would violate WP:POINT. Deranged bulbasaur 01:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm out. There is no happy ending to this. If you'd like to pursue an RFC/U about your username, include a full description of why you think it's an issue. Your initial post did no such thing. If you decide to re-submit yourself, consider for a moment what your end goals regarding this are. The RFC/U regulars tend to be... conservative in their unique interpretation of WP:U. Are you going to be happy with the answer? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what was deficient in my original submission. If you would like to articulate to me what I should include besides an additional clarification that Bulbasaur is a trademark (obvious from the context) I would be happy to do just that. Deranged bulbasaur 01:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like you got your answer —dgies^t_c 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Other's talk pages

Hi Deranged bulbasaur,

I found you since I watch Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and I looked over your edits a bit. I wanted to comment about your reverting of blanked messages by User:Opalelement on User talk:Opalelement From Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page:

Archiving of one's own user talk page is not required. A user may simply delete any comments they have read, whether they have acted on them or not. The only exception to this are warnings of vandalism and other abuse on anon IP talk pages. These must be retained so that admins can readily apply or remove edit blocks.

I had the same thought that everyone was supposed to keep and properly archive their talk page, but that is not the case. People can and delete comments at will. Just wanted to pass that along that you were wrong to revert and warn them about it. Cheers and happy editing. --EarthPerson 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems pretty screwy. You'd have to review the entire history of someone's talk page to find a pattern of abuse. What a time waster. Oh well, I guess I don't make the rules, so I won't do that any more. Deranged bulbasaur 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I happened to be reading Wikipedia:User page and it says "Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." I guess the question is whether "often frowned upon" is tantamount to "forbidden." In any case, my original belief that you can't remove such warnings comes from seeing IP users warned or blocked for that very thing. It didn't occur to me that the policy would be different between IP users and registered users. In my opinion, it should not be. Deranged bulbasaur 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. But, I think a quick gauge of an editor is both the contents of their talk page and how they use it. So I plan on archiving most of mine, except for blatant attacks or vandalism. Which so far have been pretty light. Cheers. --EarthPerson 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Saahar

hello Sir!

my topic saahar was under contraction but you delted that topic now i want to again creat that can i make that now if u dont mind.

Qadeer Mangrio

You don't need my permission to do that. The deletion log says it was removed for lack of context, so if you have remediated that problem and the article now has sufficient context, by all means go ahead and recreate it. Deranged bulbasaur 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Magsamen

Hi. I wanted to reply to your comment at this AfD. Hagiography is the study of the saints. When I looked at the article to be deleted (by which time it had certainly changed considerably), I saw that she was a categorized as a children's author. I took your use of hagiography to mean that you felt the purpose of the article was to make idolizing page about a NN author. Sorry about that. :) (I accidentally replied to the closed AfD and this thought to post this here.) Cheers. --EarthPerson 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

re

Hi... I do not put that vandalism on American back bear...:-9 yours Flavio/Tigre Reietta 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Youthinkleft

I noticed that the page I created has been tagged for speedy deletion, may I ask why? --Schweermo 05:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a page about web content that does not provide information to validate the importance of the topic. See WP:CSD to learn more about the criteria for speedy deletion and WP:WEB to learn more about guidelines for web site notability. Deranged bulbasaur 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Schweermo 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The other top

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#New noms to top or bottom? Uncle G 10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Deranged bulbasaur 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

BiggityBop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks for keeping up with him on Andy Sheil. He has been blocked. It's the hard work of editors like you that keep Wikipedia in good shape. Cheers, alphachimp 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're perfectly welcome. Deranged bulbasaur 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Against the deletion of MediaNext's Wikipedia page

Hello,

Personally, I do not believe that this page should be deleted. MediaNext was well received when first released, and was more than just a mere 'web-blog' as you describe in the speedy-deletion criteria.

I do think if this page is deleted, it will be a real shame, seeing as it doesn't fit perfectly in with the deletion criteria, making it unjustifiable to get rid of too.

I hope you take this into account.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaNext"