Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Deprecated templates

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_22#Template:Db-deprecated. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In continuation of that discussion. I found {{Db-deprecated}} as a template to tag templates for speedy deletion as being deprecated. The funny thing is that the template s listed under WP:CSD#G6 as a technical deletion, even though as a template it seems also to fall under WP:CSD#T3, as further witnessed to by the fact that the template postulates a mandatory 7-day waiting period, just like in T3.

My main argument for deletion of {{Db-deprecated}} as mentioned in that discussion is that I think deprecated templates should never be speedied. In view of that fact, some editors have claimed that the discussion is outside the scope of WP:TFD, and so I have come here.

I don't think deprecated templates should ever be speedied. First of all, I have noticed that not always deprecation is discussed at all. And even if it is, the measure of deprecation is not always correctly assessed. Full deprecation means a template is not in use, but also includes that the likeliness of it being used is very low. In addition, I have noticed that it is common practice to keep deprecated templates for years with the deprecated notice, just in case. Even when they are finally fully deprecated, some of them are tagged with Template:Historical template. In view of the above, I think the deletion of a deprecated template should be carefully assessed and is not a matter for speedying. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Deprecation doesn't mean a template isn't likely to be used. It means a template shouldn't be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. That is what "full deprecation" means. See the explanations of Template:Deprecated template and Category:Deprecated templates. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support removing "deprecated templates" from the CSD:T3 criteria. The problem I see here with deprecated templates regardless of why they are deprecated or just how deprecated they are, is that there is no real way to "fully" deprecate a template. There is always going to be some usage, and there is nothing that can be done about it. The reason I say this is because there is no way to change the history of pages using the template. So, those revisions will always and forever use that template. As a note, old revisions of pages always use the newest version of templates. What this means is if a template is deleted, then all of the revisions that used that template are now broken and will not render. This may be okay in some cases, but this is never something that should be decided as a speedy deletion. Technical 13 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is such a thing as "fully deprecated": If all transclusions of a template have been migrated to the preferred alternative, then the old one is fully deprecated. The real question is whether we should actually be deleting deprecated templates or leaving redirects (soft or hard) behind. I think there is a good argument for redirection, but the parameters of the problem does not fall under any question about deprecated templates staying around - they need to be cleaned up once any switchover has been made. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Then the template isn't deprecated, it is superseded. Replacing with a newer/better version is not deprecation. In those cases of superseding a template with a new version, there should always be a hard redirect or the history versions of all the pages using the template will be broken, which is just a bad road to go down. Technical 13 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13, superseded is what is called "deprecated" here, agree. What you mean is probably close to the intention of Category:Deprecated templates kept for historical reasons. By the way, I understand from Vanisaac's post that he agrees that deprecated templates shouldn't be speedied. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned

Since we're on the topic, is it normal to speedy delete templates just for being orphaned? I'm asking the question since I see such cases on Templates for Discussion all the time, so even if you can speedy delete them, no one is doing it. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, templates that are designed to be substituted are technically orphaned, even though they are in use. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@This, that and the other I think that was not the question.

@Ego White Tray If a template is not presently in active use, that is not a deletion criteria at all, not speedy and not regular. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

So orphaned should be deleted from the speedy criteria as well, then. Right now, the way it's written implies that any orphaned template that is not used can be speedy deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Determining whether a template is used or not may be difficult, due to substitution and a few other rare uses that are not easily identified. I would think they could be speedied if usage can be easily determined to not exist, anymore, or to never have existed, but this is often harder than it looks, so I would prefer having them all go to TfD to minimize error and increase consensus. It is often the case that something nominated as unused is found to actually be used. It may be deleted for other reasons, but not always. —PC-XT+ 17:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

CSD and TfD

The way these things are written, if something survived a TfD, they could be deleted the next day through a CSD because they meet the criteria for deprecated or orphaned, per my opinion at the TfD discussion, this is a loophole for an endrun around consensus discussions. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think that keep votes at TfD explicitly say that it is not deprecated, although it might be orphaned (which is often why it's nominated for deletion in the first place). Ego White Tray (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep votes at TfD have voted to keep deprecated templates around in the past. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

After a week I think the general drift of the above is that "deprecated" and "orphaned" are not in themselves speedy criteria. Perhaps an as yet uninvolved editor would be willing to assess if that is true and if it is, make the appropriate edit to the guideline. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would draw the line at "deprecated", because that is something which should be determined in a discussion anyway, and preferably that should be a TfD. On the other hand, I have successfully nominated orphaned templates under WP:CSD#T3 (and Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki/header under WP:CSD#G6, because technically it was not in the template namespace) and it seems that "orphaned template" is an acceptable speedy deletion criterion. Do we really want to have orphaned templates clutter up TfD? Well, many already do anyway, but do we really want not to have a quicker deletion option? Keφr 09:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better that orphaned templates go to TfD, since it is important to determine why it is orphaned. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My opinion as well. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen CSDs go on "orphaned" templates because someone didn't know that they were substitution templates, so are always "unused", so it's best to go through TfD, to make sure someone isn't assuming that things are not substitution templates. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If they are meant to be substituted, they should be documented as such. We have {{subst only}} for that. Keφr 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that they actually are. Several older subst templates didn't have that, as they predate that documentation process; and some of the newer ones didn't have that as the people who create and maintain them don't know about it. Which is why TfD is better than speedy deletion. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

One day Template:Citation needed will become orphaned but speedy deletion would ruin an otherwise momentous achievement. Thincat (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I restored the recently-removed {{db-deprecated}} template pending the outcome of the TFD. The only reason to remove this longstanding template from being mentioned at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion before that discussion closes is if we decide that the template should no longer be advertised even if the outcome of the TFD is "keep" or "no consensus." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Honestly, deprecated templates should not be part of the criteria any longer, so I do not see a good reason why your wholesale reversion should reinstate the wording for the CSD as well as the template link. This seems more like extra wiki-bureaucracy and process than anything. We have followed the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion exactly as it was written:

"Policy or guideline templates: Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the Csd templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.

Anything else is just due process and simple formality; we have achieved consensus, here, on this very talkpage of this very policy page, followed the instructions to the letter, and TFD and the closing admin there would do very well to respect the consensus found here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to say this, but I also considered this a super bureaucratic partial revert by davidwr, and pretty unnecessary. Moreover, any admin from here could go to Tfd and close the discussion there as delete. Debresser (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

TfD closure not really needed - by removing orphaned and deprecated from the criteria, the template is now a misrepresentation of policy and can be speedy deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned revisted

When updating the project page [1], TeleComNasSprVen said "No consensus on orphaned templates however". I noticed 1 editor slightly opposing to remove "Orphaned" as a speedy criteria asking "do we really want not to have a quicker deletion option", while 5 editors are of the opinion that "orphaned" is not (and can not be, because of substitution) a speedy criteria. IMHO this qualifies as a consensus. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree both with the 5 editors you mention and with your interpretation of that as the consensus opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Five editors out of 114,205 "qualifies as a consensus" to change a major policy? Keφr 18:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If we required a majority of active editors before changing things then nothing would ever get done. Fortunately we only require consensus of those who express an opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I never really focused on the template criteria, but it seems obvious to me, in agreement with the discussion, that orphaned as part of the criterion is a bad idea and you can chalk me up as a sixth. As noted, any normally substituted template may appear "orphaned", and determining whether it actually is may be difficult (though a z number assignment makes it much easier), which immediately makes that part of T3 criterion hard to be seen as meeting our objective and uncontestable goals. Anyway, I'm not so sure that even if we determine a template is actually orphaned that's a good speedy basis without discussion. Take, for example, a template I set up for when the VisualEditor was the default. That template is (likely) truly orphaned now and thus a speedy delete candidate solely on that basis. But if there was discussion of it, I'd argue we may very well see the VisualEditor back and it will be highly useful then. I'm sure there are many other sui generis circumstances where speedy deletion for being orphaned, alone, is a bad outcome on the merits. "[I]t must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor above is right. In addition, if the ratio is now 7:1, it is likely to stay in favor. Also, the arguments forwarded are strong arguments, which is important since WP:VOTE means consensus is not just a vote. And last but not least, it has already been indicated above, that many templates have been nominated through WP:TFD, even though technically they could have been speedied, so either this "major policy" is not well-known, or editors have always seen it as flawed. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The deletion criteria should be unused, not orphaned. The templates that are ideally orphaned include subst-only, preloaded, and many maintenance templates, as well as those intended only for informative redirection or placeholding, (such as deprecated templates,) temporary sandboxing, or configuration. The range is from very useful to useless. Only once any usefulness is past should it be deleted, unless, perhaps, it can be expected to become useful again in the near future. Discussion is often required to determine usefulness. —PC-XT+ 20:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Unused should not be a reason for speedy delete - if it is intended to be substituted, it will be difficult to determine if it even is unused, and if not, we still need to determine why it's unused before deleting it. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My philosophy is that if anything needs 'further investigation' (i.e. it's not completely obvious and if the administrator passing by must try to figure out by checking Special:WhatLinksHere, whether the template is substed or not, and this goes with almost any CSD criteria not just templates) then it doesn't qualify for point-blank fire-and-forget CSD criteria. So if it's not obvious that an orphaned template is not in use as a substed template, it should go for discussion and investigation, with probably a delete outcome. However, there's also G6 as a fallback criteria for purportedly non-controversial cleanups, and orphaned and obviously unused templates are rare enough that G6 can be used sparingly, so you can try using that instead. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 18:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping deletions should NEVER be used if there is a consensus against speedy-deleting - So, no, G6 can not be used for "obviously" unused templates. Also, as mentioned above, it's never obvious. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, any sort of deletion should not be used if there's consensus against it, that's a moot point. But would you still object to using G6 on say, an unused template that duplicated a mainspace article, or an unused documentation page that is technically in template space which an admin forgot to delete after he deleted the main template page? Or do you think that those still warrant more discussion? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A template duplicating an article doesn't meet any speedy delete criteria, but this seems like such a rare case, that it wouldn't be a burden to TfD (unless you've actually seen this happen). As far as the documentation page example, that would easily go under G8, since it would be dependent on the non-existent template page, and no, it doesn't need discussion. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the template duplicating an article could be treated as an article (since that's what it really is) and be deleted under A10 if applicable. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

G8? I didn't know we had that criteria, I thought most subpage deletions were considered "technical deletions" under G6. A10 only applies to article, but I guess if we really wanted to we could apply liberal interpretations of it as well as the other criteria like G2. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The deletion shouldn't be speedy. Also, some templates appear to be something they are not, due to editors who don't realize all the uses or their particulars. It can be a mess, and not always easily handled. —PC-XT+ 20:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the edit was already made. [2] Debresser (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of Pages that have survived deletion discussions

I made some changes to the body text of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions (diff). The previous text implied that only those reasons listed (G8/dependent pages, G9/office, A2/exists elsewhere, A5/transwikied, F8/commons, and newly-discovered G12/copyvio) could be used on pages that survived AFD, and they explicitly encouraged requesting speedy deletion of newly-discovered copyright violations without regard to the possibility of having a good version to go back to.

The reality is that having gone through AFD does not in and of itself exempt a page from any CSD criteria, even if as a practical matter a page that meets certain criteria (e.g. G10/attack, with no clean version to go back to) would never make it to AFD much less survive it, and certain criteria, such as the ones previously listed, are normally not controversial.

So, I made an additional change to take out the "list of criteria" and add some other clarification, then reverted it for discussion (diff, combined diff).

What do you guys think?

1. Keep what I did and take the suggested additional edit (i.e. this version, since reverted) then apply subsequent udpates if it makes sense to do so
2. just keep what I did so far and apply subsequent updates (i.e. keep the current version)
3. revert to the previous version (29 December 2013‎ Pigsonthewing), then apply subsequent udpates if it makes sense to do so

I'm recommending "keep what I did and take the suggested additional edit." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The only concern I have with your edit is that certain of the criteria will never apply to any article that was kept after a deletion discussion. A keep means that it was not nonsense, a test page, vandalism, or a re-created deleted page. Being kept in a deletion discussion pretty much disqualifies creation by banned user, author requests (since the discussion is a substantial contribution of other editors), and spam (which would have been identified in the deletion discussion). Attack pages and obvious copyright violations would almost certainly be identified in such a discussion, and a kept page is unlikely to be dependent on another page, and abandoned articles for creation doesn't even apply, so we've essentially eliminated all of the "G" criteria except housekeeping and office actions. Naturally, if a page became speedy-deletable since the discussion, it should be reverted, not deleted. So, I'd say keep the list of criteria that can be used, but otherwise keep your text. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at the list, A2 (foreign language) and A5 (transwiki) should be removed, since a foreign language article would never survive articles for deletion without translation and transwikis only happen after deletion discussions. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ego White Tray, white it is true that some criteria will practically never be used after an AFD, there is no need to create a list that spells out the rest of them. Also, like copyright violations, it may be discovered later than an article was created by and significantly edited only by banned users. In the case of a previously-AFD'd article, if everyone saying "keep" was also banned at the time, then speedy-deletion should be allowed, but the entire history of the article and of the AFD would need to be reviewed first to verify that db-banned applies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, certain criteria should never, under any circumstances, be used to speedy delete an article that survived a deletion discussion. The deletion discussion is proof that the article is not eligible for most of them. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• I disapprove of this edit, and I am glad that Davidwr self-reverted. IMO this sort of change to the CSD page should always be discussed first. I think thsat the list should remain, even if it is edited. In particular, an A7 is never valid after an AfD wiht a keep or no-consensus result, nor is a G5. DES ^(talk) 04:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• The list and explanatory sentences were added November 2012 with discussion at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 47#Deletion after surviving XFD. I've never really liked the exhaustive list, but I think that it is necessary, as I wrote then. Flatscan (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I inserted "their most recent" to match the sentence in the lead and reverted Davidwr's body rewrite. I think that much of it is redundant to the checks done for any speedy and that the instructions are woefully incomplete compared to the full G12 text. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this all be per common sense? I don't know if/why it should be needed to hammer this down. Any sensible and experienced Wikipedian should understand that in general pages that have survived XfD shouldn't be speedied. Those same Wikipedians should also understand there may be exceptions for certain corner cases. These should all be self-evident. Since every speedy deletion is performed by an admin, and I would assume all admins are sensible and experienced Wikipedians, I'd say we're good. Do we have examples where this is getting messed up? If there aren't, this seems like a solution in search of a problem, and those kinds of solutions don't have good historical track records. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deleting articles that survived deletion discussions

Based on the above topic, I'd like to review which criteria can be used to speedy delete pages that received "keep" or "no consensus" after deletion discussions:

Those currently listed are bold. Those that I expect are not controversial are in small text.

G1 - Nonsense - Never. Such a page would never have survived a deletion discussion
G2 - Test pages - Never. Same as above
G3 - Vandalism - Never. Same as above
G4 - Re-creation - Never applicable.
G5 - Banned user - Never, as this only applies to pages with no substantial edits by others. A deletion discussion I would always consider substantial
G6 - Housekeeping - This is currently listed as acceptable, but the only possible reason I can think of is redirects deleted to make room for articles
G7 - User request - Never, same as G5
G8 - Dependent on non-existent page - When would this ever apply?
G9 - Office - Acceptable, but should be discourage, with rev delete a better option
G10 - Attack pages - almost never, as such a page should not survive a delete discussion, but it's important to keep this option open if required
G11 - Spam - Never, would never survive deletion discussion
G12 - Copyright violation - rarely, only on the rare occasion that it isn't discovered during deletion discussion
G13 - AFC - not applicable

A2 - Foreign language - Currently listed, but shouldn't be, as such an article would never survive deletion discussion without translation
A5 - Transwiki - Currently listed, but shouldn't be, since transwiki should only happen through deletion processes
A9 - Musical recordings - Not listed, but what if a recording survives a discussion but the band is later deleted - does it qualify?
None of the other A criteria should qualify, since they never would have survived a deletion discussion

None of the redirect criteria should qualify

F1 - Duplicate - Not listed, but maybe it should be an option in case someone later uploads a better version of the same image.
F5 - Orphaned fair use - Not listed, but maybe should be. An image in use during a deletion discussion may become orphaned later
F8 - On commons - agreed.
I don't think any of the others file criteria should qualify

None of the category, redirect, template or portal criteria should apply.

To summarize, the following are worth some discussion: G5, G6, G8, G10, A2, A5, A9, F1, F5

Please comment on the above. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the "substantially changed article" where some realistic CSD criteria was not known at the time of AFD and all edits that aren't deletable under that criteria are deletable under some other criteria. An example would be an undetected, no-good-versions blatant copyvio that survives AFD and which is later totally replaced by a page which, if new, would be CSD-able under any G- or A- criteria such as db-g1. The casual reader might tag it db-g1. The astute administrator would review it and say "nope, can't do db-g1, it's been through AFD so there must be a good version to go back to, but oh wait, that old version looks like it might be a copyvio, let me check Google, yup, the older versions are db-copyvio and the newer versions that aren't copyvio are nonsense. Buh-bye."

So to be clear, you mean that some revisions are copyright violations and the rest are nonsense? Seems like a very unusual case, and I'm frankly not sure how it would be handled if there was no deletion discussion. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Several comments"

• G6 possibly as part of a complex move.
• G8 for a sub-template kept at TfD if the main template was later deleted validly.
• A9 I think that a previous keep should count as a "claim of importance or significance" so A9 should be off-the-table.
• U1 could happen to a userspace page after an MfD.

Otherwise I agree with the above. DES ^(talk) 05:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about G5. If an article is created and survives a legitimate deletion discussion, and is later discovered to be by a banned user, and still has no substantial contributions by others, I see no reason it shouldn't be deletable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. If there was a consensus to keep and that it meet all the other standards I don't think that it should be deleted simply because of who wrote the article. Now, on the other hand, if it turned out the previous consensus was due to most of not all the keep comments being made by other sock of the same banned user that would be a different story.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Jack, in my view, a deletion discussion qualifies as substantial contribution by others. Such discussions nearly always involve other editors researching the topic to find sources or determine if it's notable. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

g5 would be clearly inapplicable after a keep vote. If the previous AFD looks corrupted then a new one should be held. Otherwise I am pretty happy with the summary. U1 may not be allowed if someone moved an article to users pace and then asked to delete it. But that case should be carefully considered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

G5 is clearly still applicable after an AFD discussion. The content of the article is irrelevant ... the only concern is whether the deletion would cause substantial edits by other editors to be lost. If no other edits have been performed, there is no reason not to delete the article based on the creation by a banned user.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Does undetected fraud in a AFD invalidate it for the "CSD criteria not valid after AFD discussions"?

Question 1: If an AFD closes as "keep" or "no consensus" and a later analysis shows that enough of the participants were either banned users or sock/meatpuppets to call the outcome into question, AND there were NO remaining editors who supported keeping the article, AND there were enough editors supporting deletion that if the debate had not been compromised it would have closed as delete rather than being re-listed, does it render the AFD "invalid" for the purposes of saying "you can't mark the page as [insert criteria here]?

Question 2: Same question, but there were not enough editors calling for deletion to prevent re-listing had the discussion not been compromised. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Question 3: Same question, but there was at least one legitimate editor who supported keeping the article.

Answering my own question: For me, situation 1 invalidates the AFD with respect to speedy deletion if it doesn't cause the AFD's results to be changed to "delete" outright, as there really was no support for keeping the article and definitive support for deleting it. Questions 2 and 3 are more murkey. If it was "2-0" not counting illegitimate editors in favor of deletion, which normally means re-listing, I'd probably say yes, treat it as an invalid AFD. If it was 1-0 I would be more hesitant. If it was 3-2 or 2-1 for deletion (even if the "1" was the puppet-master of the sock-farm) I would also be hesitant. If it was really lopsided like 6-1 favoring deletion then I would either treat it as if it as if the AFD hadn't happened, assuming the AFD's results weren't changed to "delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My answer - don't make an exception since it's moot. It would take either another deletion discussion or a deletion review to fairly make this determination, so there is not reason not to just nominate it for deletion again, so the allegations can be investigated. Also, speedy criteria need to be frequent, and in the spirit of that idea, I don't think fraudulent AfDs are frequent enough to justify making an exception, nor to justify the instruction creep. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There may be cases where the socks aren't fairly obvious and noted in the discussion. They are often spotted and either struck out or tagged as SPA. Is there a particular discussion in mind here, or is this a 'what if someone...' scenario? Peridon (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should these two paragraphs be back in?

Except in obviously non-controversial cases such as office actions and pages or files that are known to exist (including all required attribution history) on another WMF project, please check the article history and review any past deletion requests and deletion discussions before removing a page that has survived a deletion discussion.

− −

Consider alternatives such as reverting to an older version, editing out inappropriate content (e.g. copyright violations), etc. possibly in conjunction with revision-deletion as an alternative to deletion of pages that have survived deletion discussions when possible. When in doubt, open a new deletion discussion. Dlohcierekim 14:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with this text, I suppose, although the "pages of files known to exist..." part is very awkwardly written. I'm also okay with removing the list of criteria from this section if we notes whether this is acceptable on each individual criteria instead. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think these paragraphs should be restored, possibly with improved wording. I think the explicit list of criteria should also be restored as i said above. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:Davidwr inserted those paragraphs a few days ago, and I reverted within two days. My objections are:
  • There is redundancy with existing checks, both in general and for specific criteria. For example, {{db-redirnonebot}} (G8) already warns admins to check for possible redirect targets. The list members are generally edge cases where the extra checks are just not relevant.
  • I think that the "Consider alternatives" sentence – with explicit instructions of "editing out inappropriate content (e.g. copyright violations)" – is incomplete compared to the full G12 text and that it encourages its readers to attempt ad hoc fixes instead of the established WP:Copyright violations and WP:Copyright problems.

I am open to mentioning previous deletion discussions and survivals. Flatscan (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose: G14. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts with no mainspace contributions.

Propose:

G14. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts with no mainspace contributions.
Applies to pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, such as fantasy online reality game shows, containing no sourced content suitable for mainspace, and only applies if the author(s) have no history of good faith mainspace editing.

• Intended to apply to the multiple MfD nominations currently listed by User:Whpq. Such pages regularly appear nominated at MfD, are always deleted, and are a waste of time and space to have the community consider individually.

New criterion criteria:

(1) Objective. We have never seen anyone at MfD misrecognize NOTWEBHOST material for drafting, it is not sourced, it is not encyclopedic, it is tabulated data-rich and prose-poor, and it has not benefit to any current mainspace page. Further, extensive data rich drafting is not associated with SPA accounts. No (zero) good faith constructive edits to mainspace is an objective criteria for excluding all potentially interesting project related material.

(2) Uncontestable. SPA NOTWEBHOST violations are not seriously contested at MfD. They are so trivial they are barely worth supporting the nomination.

(3) Frequent. I guess I see several a month, and have done for many years. There are probably more not nominated for deletion.

(4) Non-redundant. while very similar to G1, G3 & G11, it is clearly not patent nonsense (G1), and is much broader than G3 & G11 which is why it requires the SPA author co-criterion, and the SPA author co-criterion would be too restrictive to add to G3 and G11.

Such pages usually occur on an SPA main userpage, or sandbox subpage, or titles subpage. They sometimes occur on SPA talk pages, and in these cases I expect that taggers/and CSD deleters should be able to recognize whether the talk page has been used as a talk page, which is not typically the case. In principle, these pages should be deleted wherever found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support the idea. I think the details need to be talked out, though. Would a userpage being used like a Facebook page be G14-able? What about completely hopeless COI "drafts" that narrowly dodge G11? Does a single constructive edit really exempt accounts from this? That seems like a really cheesy way around it (fix a comma somewhere or something). Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• My thoughts... A facebook page from a non-contributor. If old (beware WP:BITE), Yes, speedy delete.
• A good faith draft, No. Even if hopeless, or a COI, etc. If the intention was to contribute to mainspace, then No.
• There are so many of these, so regularly, without even a whitespace fix to mainspace, let alone a meaningful constructive edit. I think we actually have quite a low proportion of misplaced commas, if a new editor can find one, they are a potential serious editor, and worth an MfD discussion over. However, "good faith mainspace editing" has a degree of fuzziness, I don't think a single edit to one comma is necessarily "editing". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because while We have never seen anyone at MfD misrecognize NOTWEBHOST material for drafting it could be misrecognized. Despite the "and only applies if the author(s) have no history of good faith mainspace editing." clause, a person could have virtually no mainspace edits and have their userpage deleted under such a criterion despite hundreds or thousands of template and/or module edits. This would be unacceptable. I do like the theory of this criterion, but the details need to much better hashed out. Technical 13 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  Okay, drop mainspace. How about any contributions useful to the project, anywhere? And anything COULD happen. That doesn't mean we have to act like it will. If that were the case, we couldn't have CSD at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instead, I recommend doing what I do: WP:BOLDly moving such "main" user pages to user-sub-pages, boldly adding {{user page}} to the top which (evil grin) turns on "no index" in most search engines, and even boldly blanking such pages when they cannot be anywhere in user-space. Oh, of course, I go and tell the editor what I did, why I did it, and how he can find what he wrote in the page history. The difference between this kind of action and deletion is that the editor can go back and retrieve his wiki-code if he can find a wiki that will host it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the pages Smokey Joe are referring to are almost always user pages. Thus, my alternate proposal below. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose regretfully. I do agree that there needs to be a CSD to efficently dispose of the reams of WP:NOTWEBHOST applicable content, this implementation is not it. Hasteur (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Narrower alternative

U4. Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations by accounts active at least 30 days with no contributions outside their own user pages.
Applies to pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, such as fantasy online reality game shows, containing no sourced content suitable for mainspace, and only applies if the author(s) have no history of good faith editing outside of their own user pages. This does not apply to draft articles unless they are vandalism or blatant hoaxes. Such pages may be deleted after seven days.

This narrower user-space only version should work better. I'm not sure if 30 days is too long or too short. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need the 30 days requirement at all? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes users sign up, make a user page, then take several days off before becoming a productive editor. The last part won't happen if their user page is immediately deleted. The helps ensure that the criteria isn't abused. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd rather see them work more like a CSD:G13 and be tagged for U4, the U4 tag will contain a noindex, after three/six/twelve months if there is no change, they will be added to a Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as NOTWEBHOST and deleted. Technical 13 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why should we allow it to sit around that long? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's not indexed, and it's not clogging up a CSD category, and it's not readily searchable, what's the harm in AGF and allowing the page creator (or anyone else who happens upon it) to turning it into an actual draft mainspace candidate? Doesn't seem like it does any more harm then most of the G13s that have been sitting around for 6+ months (I've seen some as old as 4+ years). Technical 13 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about anything that looks like a draft (I explicitly excluded that from my proposal). We're talking about people using Wikipedia to track fantasy football, or reality shows, or made-up games they play with their friends. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Then don't those fall under the new "Obviously made up" criteria? Technical 13 (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, because these are user pages, not articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • These user pages are not articles in a draft state. They are tables for tracking fantasy off-wiki activity. I've nominated a lot of these through MFD, and the editors involved are not prospective productive editors. Any main space edits have been few, and are minor edits to a reality show article. If anybody has not seen such articles for themselves, visit MFD and check any of my nominations for fantasy reality game show pages for a sample of such articles and the editors who create them. -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • This is an accurate description of the problem. I remember nominating a bunch of these a while back (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TARTEdition and perhaps some older than that), so this is a persistent problem. As an aside, it'll be interesting to see a list of users with more than 100 edits and have a live userspace/mainspace edit ratio of >100. MER-C 13:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it is an old and persistent problem that has occupied MfD as long as I know, well before 2010. Most such pages are fantasy or games or fan-recording TV shows, and sometimes we see unreadable data-dumping and access. I used to try being very nice to such accounts, as per davidwr, but the blatant, rapid, WEBHOST abusing accounts never respond. Accounts that were fiddling around with an article on a TV show, they are much easier for AGF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this. I dislike the "no sourced content suitable for mainspace". Firstly, articles and drafts are not required to be sourced, merely sourceable, and this would potentially hit the work of a user who drafted the prose first and then went back and added sources afterwards (a perfectly valid method of constructing an article). Secondly, it would also clobber content that would be useful in another namespace (for example a user who has been contributing anonymously and has signed up so they can draft an improved portal or template, etc) and/or which would be valuable on a sister project. Overall there is a lot of "I know it when I see it" about this, which is completely unsuitable in a CSD criterion. I agree with the spirit of what this is trying to achieve, but it needs careful attention to get the details right, and it isn't guaranteed that it is possible to be sufficiently objective and broad enough to make it viable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Have you ever seen any account with no mainspace edits, excluding declare alternative accounts, produce useful new pages? And if they did exist, if they were somehow Wikipedia-clueful without an edit history, wouldn't they be well prepared to talk the the deleting admin and request a refund? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Some comments

  1. Having noindex doesn't prevent illegitimate wiki-mirrors from slurping the data and copying it out.
  2. I could see usefulness in putting a constraints on how long users must be away from editing the page (staleness), non-productive collaberation (using en.wp to play a game), and non-productive content.

• I do like the "Put it on a maintenance category for human evaluation" to flag pages that might be eligible, but would want a second set of eyes/brain to verify that yes this is something that WP doesn't need to be hosting. I think constratining this to only User/User talk namespaces could be a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So far, the discussion is about a speedy deletion process, but there is some reluctance. Would something akin to a PROD, but applicable to user space be more appropriate if there is a desire for more human review of the material under review? The fantasy gaming pages are not controversial deletions and the discussions (when they exist at all) don't go much beyond a "per nom" other than to note that the editor doesn't have much (any) productive edits beyond the page in question. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd certainly not object to that, giving 7-10 days for human review. The criteria would still need to be well defined (although there is more room for subjectivity) and templates would need to be carefully written to avoid BITEiness but both of those are achievable. If prod can't keep up with the load long term (i.e after the initial 'backlog' is dealt with) then we can revisit speedy then. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Is there any difference between a Prod and a 7-day speedy delete? I can't think of any except for name. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I suppose not. My response was really based on the very long 30 day proposal. Something along the lines of 7 days would make it similar to how some speedy deletions for files are handled which seems reasonable. -- Whpq (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• I propose an alternate wording:

U4. Pages consisting entirely of writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant articlecontributions. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. fantasy online reality shows or roleplay), which would be otherwise inappropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no long-term history of good-faith editing outside of user pages. Pages meeting this criteria may be deleted after 7 days.

I worked in actual wording from the User pages and WP:NOTWEBHOST guideline, and got rid of the time requirement in favor of just "long-term" activity outside of userspace. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the end be changed to "with no other significant contributions", to address Technical 13's concerns above? Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support the above. Would modify to:

U4. Pages consisting entirely of writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant article contributions. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. fantasy online reality shows or roleplay), which would be otherwise inappropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no long-term history of good-faith editing outside of user pages. Pages meeting this criteria may be deleted after 7 days.

(ie not at all related; don't require history to be long term, a short history of good-faith editing outside of user pages gives credit.) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support the modified wording from SmokeyJoe. -- Whpq (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I don't like this at all. What is "writings, information, discussions, and activities" meant to be – a comprehensive list of anything a page might include, or a list that excludes some (unspecified) types of content? What about images, are they in or out? Is there a reason why this list can't be condensed to "content" or "material"? If I append to my user page "Wikipedia aims to be the largest encyclopedia in history", will that spare it from speedy deletion? Surely user pages do not have to be related to Wikipedia's goals – a page can very properly say a bit about who the person is and what their interests are. If someone has a conflict of interest we should encourage them to say so before they start editing. If you want to have a criterion against roleplay or whatever these things are, just say so. Thincat (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition to Thincat's concerns, I also object to "editors with no significant article contributions" as users may have only minor contributions to articles but very significant positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But the user's interests are related to Wikipedia's goals — they will probably influence the user's editing habits. Perhaps the criterion could be amended not to cover WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. (And maybe another criterion created just for that.) Keφr 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think the grace period may be too long. I think these people will just create another account to host their "reality shows" on. They will get bored with the speedy deletion cat-and-mouse eventually, but well… I am also a bit worried that these users will start abusing the project namespace instead. Keφr 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If they create another account, you take it sockpuppet investigations and they are immediately blocked. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• @Thincat: To note, my definition of the wording "writings, information, discussions, and activities not related to Wikipedia's goals" comes straight from Wikipedia:User pages; the content matter it restricts falls directly in line with that we're trying to do with this CSD criteria. The remainder of those examples of "excessive unrelated content" are already covered under other criteria ViperSnake151  Talk  17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have directed some of my criticism towards that guideline. Frankly I have never bothered to discover what these sort of pages are about so my suggestion here will be naïve. Something on the lines of:

U4. User pages, other than draft articles, with no substantial content other than for the offsite activities of roleplay or online game shows.
Such pages may be deleted after seven days.

Vandalism and blatant Hoaxes, etc can be deleted anyway. The criterion should apply to everyone, not just newcomers. The word "substantial" is already used in several CSD criteria. The intention would be to add further specific types of unacceptable content following consensus here and as the need arises. Thincat (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd still adhere to the wording on the user page guideline, and make it something like "User pages which consist of writings, information, activities, or discussions that are unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. This includes pages intended to facilitate activities on outside websites, such as role-playing and "fantasy" games." ViperSnake151  Talk  19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd keep the no non-user edits clause back in. If we are going to delete an productive and experienced editors user pages, we should be discussing that. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"User pages which consist of writings, information, activities, or discussions that are unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no history of significant contributions to Wikipedia articles. This includes pages intended to facilitate activities on outside websites, such as role-playing and "fantasy" games." ViperSnake151  Talk  03:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. A CSD for WP:NOT#WEBHOST pages is long overdue as said above. As for modifications, I suggest:

U4. Pages consisting entirely of content that does not contribute to Wikipedia's goals, by editors with no significant contributions to the encyclopedia. This criteria includes pages containing substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, (e.g. fantasy online reality shows or roleplay), which would be otherwise inappropriate elsewhere on Wikipedia, whose editor(s) have little to no history of good-faith editing outside of user pages. Pages meeting this criteria may be deleted after 7 days.

This allows good-faith editing outside of user pages and hopefully avoids the problems Thincat points out above. Anything mentioned at WP:UPYES can be reasonably interpreted to contribute to Wikipedia's goals. MER-C 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support with a rider. There should be provision for a newbie who is just telling us a useful bit about themselves ("I'm a student at Deadbush Flats University", "I am a linguist specialising in Upper Slobodian, Krankichik and other languages of the Fischburg Mountains", and so on), but who hasn't actually edited yet. Those probably will edit. A full FAKEARTICLE may or may not be considered deletable here. Personally, I'd like to include the things that belong on Facebook (the smiling or gawping portrait, the description of their educational path from infants to studying engineering in their first year at uni, and the links to Twitter, MySpace and YouTube). These won't edit. They are profile people who have to be on all available social media (and things they don't understand that are also free, like encyclopaedias...). Definitely include for the chop are the fantasy charts, the 'you can post here about the Dungeon Miners World game' would-be forum pages, and the short (or not so short) story publishers who don't know the difference between an online encyclopaedia and an online anthology (and who can't spel proply or put a coherent plot together either...). Peridon (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Anything that is explicitly permitted by Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F is not covered by my wording. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

With MFD nominations as seriously flawed as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pravin Kumar Sonu, I would not welcome speedy deletions on these lines. Thincat (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that one would be OK if they'd edited elsewhere, but is borderline otherwise. Too many pics, perhaps, but no Twittering, Facebooking or YouTubing. I do find the nomination maybe a bit sudden, but if no more edits in other places are forthcoming, it would not be flawed. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support this one. I was seriously thinking about creating this criterion myself and bringing the discussion here. On Commons, I created a tool to monitor contributions by new users (commons:User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users), and the results are absolutely damning about the amount of content which they contribute that is out of scope. Frequently, that scope bleeds over onto local projects, and I'm forced to nominate something for deletion. The most common scenario is that the content was article space and already deleted, but also quite frequent is that something is in the userspace and was never deleted because it technically doesn't violate any of the CSD rules, and no one wants to bother with the lengthy MFD process. We very much need and ought to get a control of this. I suggest that G14 or U4 or whatever it would be would be subject to the same requirements as A7. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support a criterion like this. Not sure yet about the exact wording. Right now though I am wondering why we are restricting this to only user pages. We get these at user subpages and at user talk subpages. I would suggest the language start with: "Personal user pages and subpages and user talk subpages (but not user talk pages...)" Also, minor quibble, "...covering an offsite activity" → "...covering offsite activities."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the MER-C version. We can see if more specific forms are needed as we go along, but this looks fine for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for not being #3 frequent enough to justify instruction creep. Also, the seven day waiting period makes this a PROD, not a CSD. CSD are Criteria for SPEEDY Deletion. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have you reviewed the speedy deletion criteria for files? The 7 day waiting period is used there. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support anything that gets this garbage CSD eligible. Obviously this shouldn't be constructed too broadly, but it looks like folks are on top of this. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Per above, there is an apparent consensus in favour of establishing a "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost" speedy deletion criterion in some form. However there is no single phrasing that everyone seems to agree on. The following RfC is intended to clear this up.

To participants: please edit the appropriate section, read the suggestion in the <!-- comments --> (keeping them intact for later participants) and sign yourself under the appropriate header explaining your position.

Keφr 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This description forgot the "by an SPA non-contributor" clause. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there might potentially be no such clause in the criterion itself. But when there is, we could add "by users not actively contributing to the encyclopedia" to the criterion name. Keφr 09:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose entirely

If you want to oppose the criterion in its entirety, please sign your name below.

1. I support the idea, but the criteria as actually proposed is significantly too subjective and risks of driving away contributors is too great. Speedy deletion of WP:NOT-violating material has been rejected many times before for good reason. We need to tread massively more softly than what is proposed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. This is precisely why we have MFD. Why should we trust anyone independently to determine whether something doesn't contribute to Wikipedia's goals? Of course you can have a solid opinion, but whether something contributes to our goals is absolutely something that needs discussion. This criterion is simply too vague and incapable of being firmed up. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. I do not see any justification for this as a speedy deletion criterion. I see no evidence that MfD is overwhelmed with such pages, nor that their deletion is so urgent that we cannot wait for MfD. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
4. I shall oppose this. I would be happy for fantasy game pages (not pages "such as" these, but specifically) to be speedy deletable for all spaces and users. I would likely agree to further specifically listed bad types of page. However, the vagueness of the matters proposed here and the poor judgement of some editors, including admins, at MFD makes me feel that a good speedy criterion is unlikely to be agreed to here or subsequently adhered to strictly. The question about "Eligibility of items listed in WP:UPYES" for CSD makes me worried that something, somewhere has gone off the rails – possibly it is me. Thincat (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. I agree with Thryduulf that this is too subjective. Many such pages should be deleted, but MfD works fine, and the occassional divided opinion on these at MfD shows the danger of one or two admins should not be making a speedy decision on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

   @Thryduulf:@Nyttend:@DESiegel:@DGG: Actually MfD is backlogged (see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Old_business with discussion, where only the nominator commented. Could anyone of you do the job? 81.183.18.228 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

   Better to have a backlog than to risk a lot of pages being deleted improperly — giving people several days to participate is better than preventing them from offering input on a deletion that's nowhere near clear-cut. Moreover, let me remind you that CAT:CSD is also backlogged. If it's backlogs about which you're worried, the solution to the problem is more administrators, not a change in our deletion policies. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

   Nyttend Sidebar: Acutally, the reason why the CSD category is backlogged fairly often now is because of the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned AfC submissions sub category being filled up which is caused by my CSD:G13 nominating bot (User:HasteurBot/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot). Once we've dealt with the years worth of backlog the bot will calm down and only nominate pages that meet the higher standard (at least 6 months unedited+ 30 days of notice to creator that the page is in danger of being deleted) that was agreed to by a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

   @Nyttend: It's not really "more administrators" that we need, but more that the community is willing to permit to carry out XFD closures. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose more or less per Thryduulf and DGG. No indication that routine use of existing deletion mechanisms has any significant inadequacies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Namespace

To which namespaces the criterion should apply.

All namespaces (G14).

1. Support: We have the A series to deal with articlespace, but once people discover that their walled gardens of WikiGameFun are being torn down in userspace, they'll just move to annother namespace. All namespaces allows this creation to traverse into other namespaces where the pages migrate to next and we don't have to come back in a year to create annother CSD. Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support: People wanting to use WP as a web host don't care what prefix they use, much is the same way they don't care what any of the other rules are. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support: If we only apply to userspace, they'll just start making the pages somewhere else. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User namespace only (U4).

1. Support. While NOTWEBHOST abuse by SPAs is usually found on Userpages and UserTalk pages, it is obviously unacceptable anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. @SmokeyJoe: Your response sounds like you meant to support all namespaces, but you signed under user namespace only. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support: In other namespaces, such content can be classified under other criteria (i.e. hoaxes, spam, A7, etc.). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. I'd much rather this be rejected entirely, so this is explicitly not support for the proposal as a whole, but if it does happen, this is the less damaging of the two namespace options. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support: NOTWEBHOST violations are almost impossible to pass off as legitimate in other namespaces, per ViperSnake. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support: Other namespaces have deletion criteria that will cover this. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Requirements on account age

Whether creations by accounts younger than some given threshold would be exempted from the new criterion, to avoid biting the newbies and give them time to become useful contributors.

No requirement

1. Support: Behaviour can change; a long-time editor may come back as a vandal. This makes the criteria a bit less subjective. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support: I have found that it is primarily new accounts using WP as a short-term host. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Most of the accounts that do this are new, and it only takes 7 days to MfD the pages, so this criterion is pointless if it has a higher waiting period. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. WP:BITE will still exist. NB the speedy deletion notification will be a direct and unambiguous communication, and this communication is best done promptly, for an unambiguous NOTWEBHOST violation by an SPA. A prompt discussion is highly desirable, in the case of a newcomer with completely the wrong idea, but who might turn around. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - Prompt communication is better than letting it sit. Based on the NOTWEBHSOT I've found, waiting will make d=no difference. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Account must be older than 14 days

Account must be older than 30 days

1. Support, though I wouldn't mind seeing a higher threshold (90 days) as few editors learn enough of the WikiLaw in 30 days to properly defend their actions. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support iff the whole criterion is not rejected, but per Hasteur while 30 days is really too short to expect people to learn our policies it's better than giving them less time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Requirements on account activity

Whether creations by actively contributing accounts should be exempted from the new criterion to minimise false positives (i.e. technically eligible content which might be desirable to be kept), and how to define "actively contributing".

No requirement

1. Support: Polices should equally apply to all users, especially if we're enforcing WP:NOT. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, Giving a nod to ViperSnake151's view I would suggest that the CSD be a final step in attempting to remove the content. If they're an established editor who should know better, perhaps talking to them on their talk page might encourage them to clean up the item themselves. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No/few edits in mainspace

1. Any good faith edit in mainspace means that the account is not typical of the many cases that come steadily to MfD, of blatant NOTWEBHOST violation by accounts that have never edited anything else, and never do, during or after the MfD. Any account that edits meaningfully should not be subjected to this CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No/few edits outside userspace

1. Support iff the whole proposal is not rejected, this should apply only to those accounts with exactly zero edits to pages outside the user: and user talk: namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support few edits: This criterion shouldn't affect people who are benefiting the encyclopedia, but at the same time, fixing one typo shouldn't exempt you. (Not sure how "few" should be defined yet.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. No objection to expanding the exclusion to accounts that have edited usefully anywhere. I have never seen it happen, an SPA NOTWEBHOST violator who makes meaningful contribution in other places. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - Accounts editting elsewhere usefully might have a good reason for whatever is being considered for deletion and should be taken to a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support For the exact same reason as Whpq. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Grace period

Whether there should be a delay between nominating a page for deletion under the new criterion and performing the actual deletion, to give users time to take their content elsewhere.

No grace period

1. Support, If the content is not appropriate, a stay of execution isn't going to help it. Write into the CSD a offer of REFUND by mail for content that doesn't violate any of the other rules so as to make the CSD relatively soft. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support: With a grace period, this wouldn't be much more desirable to use than an MfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

   That might be the perspective of the tagger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Support: but compensate for with a very gentle message, so as not to scare off editors who, in another few years, may make useful contributions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Three days

Seven days

1. Support iff the whole proposal is not rejected. This gives users a chance to defend their content without having to figure out what on earth happened to their content and how to argue it's relevance after the fact. 14 days would be better still. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. "Speedy", long since recognized as a misnomer for CSDs, is not what's desired here. What is desired is easier deletion without having to occupy attention and space at MfD. Never have I seen an establish editor alleged "SPA NOTWEBHOST violation" and not seen the page deleted. It should be deleted, but there is no rush. Seven days is long enough for the author to explain unexpected reasons, or question a mistake. There is still WP:REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - Making this s SPEEDY removes the need for burdening other editors with a discussion at MFD. There is no need for immediate deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - Immediately is much too short - seven days is reasonable and gives editors a chance to change it or move it elsewhere. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Scope

Content eligible under the new criterion.

"Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals" (broad)

1. Support If we're designing this to be the good case for cleaning out items that aren't related to the goals of creating an encyclopedia or developing the creation of an encyclopedia, it doesn't belong here. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support: No sense restricting this to the one particular type of violations we're currently seeing. No doubt another type will become popular in the future. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Substantial content covering an offsite activity, real or imaginary, such as fantasy online reality game shows, containing no sourced content suitable for mainspace" (narrow)

1. Support if worded without the specific reference to fantasy games (WP:NOTWEBHOST can be linked somewhere in the final wording) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support iff the whole proposal is not rejected AND "mainspace" is replaced by "the article, portal, project ("Wikipedia:"), help, template, or category namespaces". Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose "not closely". Something half-related must not be subjected to this CSD, but taken to MfD. Delete "closely". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

   Support Thryduulf's modifications. The wording needs to be improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

4. Support - Intention shouldn't be to cover anything under WP:NOT, but the narrow scope that requires no discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility of items listed in WP:UPYES

Whether kinds of pages listed in WP:UPYES, either mentioned generally or specifically listed, should be explicitly exempted, and which.

1. Exempt ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Exempt (but this does not indicate support for the proposal as a whole). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Exempt: This seems implicit, even with the broad scope option. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Exempt, obviously?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Expempt - Things that are allowed by guideline obviously cannot be deleted without discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility of WP:NOTMYSPACE and resume-style pages

1. Exempt editors should be provided guidance on how to make proper user pages. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Exempt (but this does not indicate support for the proposal as a whole). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Exempt These are a separate issue than NOTWEBHOST. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
4. WP:NOTMYSPACE violations by SPAs should be summarily deleted, without the fuss of MfD. Posting a resume may be an introduction in preparation of editing, maybe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Exempt - Agree wity SmokeyJoe. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility of drafts

Whether pages plausibly intended or explicitly marked as drafts would be eligible under the new criterion, and which.

1. Exempt plausible drafts ViperSnake151  Talk  18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Exempt everything plausibly intended as a draft, whether explicitly marked or not and whether it would make a plausible article/template/category/help/project page or not (but this does not indicate support for the proposal as a whole). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Exempt plausible drafts Sticking {{userspace draft}} on a page shouldn't make it count as a draft, though. Admins would have to decide when deleting whether or not it's a good-faith attempt at a draft. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Exempt everything plausibly related to the project. I think this CSD is aimed clearly at games and fantasies, and personal file storage. I would also exempt anything verifiable under WP:V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Exempt - Anything plausibly written as a draft needs discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

broken redirect

Are broken redirects able to be speedy deleted?ZSpeed (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirects that point to deleted and/or missing pages can be speedily deleted under criterion G8. WilyD 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can be does not mean should be. Might it not be more appropriate to fix the redirect to go to the new location? Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Technical13 See the reply of the editor above: Redirects that point to deleted and/or missing pages. If a page is missing/deleted, then there is nothing to fix. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Debresser, I understand that, but that was not the OP's question, so I felt I should clarify it especially since their <250 edits suggested to me that further explanation was warranted. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago but I remember being shot down, but I think we should list the general criteria that applies to individual sections. For redirects, for example, we could not to use G8 for broken redirects, G6 for redirects obviously created in error, G3 for redirect vandalism. I think each namespace section should have something like this. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So pretty much a broken redirect can be deleted, but first you should see if the redirect can be fixed. ZSpeed (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes:

• If a redirect points to a deleted or never existing target, and there is nowhere else to point it to, then it can be deleted under G8.
• If a redirect is broken because it's a double redirect then it must be fixed not deleted.
• If it is broken because it points to another project or a special page, it should be converted to a WP:Soft redirect.
• If someone attempts to create a redirect but doesn't do so correctly then, if the target is plausible it should be fixed. If the target isn't plausible but a different one is, fix it and point it to there. If the target isn't plausible and there isn't a different one that is then it can be deleted under R3.
• If a redirect is created by mistake, including as a result of a mistake when moving a page, then it can be deleted under G6 (or U1/G7 if so requested).
• If a redirect was created as vandalism then it can be deleted under G3 (but note that just because a redirect is offensive it isn't always vandalism - see WP:RNEUTRAL).
• If you can't work out whether a page was intended to be a redirect or not then it is likely that at least one of A1, A3 or G1 will apply.

If you aren't sure, nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (WP:RFD), it will be speedy deleted from there if appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

insult in redirection

IMHO, insults or defamation in redirection like Somebody name ->Adolf Hitler should be deleted immediately. I'm also surprised that it starts numbering as R2, why is there no R1 rule ?Lpele (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

They can be speedied - use G10 or R3, or both together. There probably was an R1 once - possibly covered redirects in general and got split. Numbers don't get reused, to avoid confusion. Peridon (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

R1 was about redirects to deleted pages and was merged into G8 a few years ago. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

G3 seems reasonable too. Really, there is a plethoria of possible speedy deletion criteria this could be deleted under. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Old criteria

A4, A6, A8 and G9 are missing too. Someone will tell us what they were. Peridon (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The project page already does, you just need to read it. It's in the section "Deprecated criteria". Those missing ones have mostly been merged into others, while the only one that was ever entirely deleted was T1, divisive inflammatory templates, decreed by Jimbo (talk · contribs) by fiat, and a great example of why he should be treated like any other editor, since he never could've gottten consensus for it. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't have entries for the repealed criteria at their natural places, e.g. R1. Repealed; see below, in order to make it easy for anyone to find? I added it some time back, since it's a good deal simpler than finding the "Not all criteria are used; some have been repealed" note that's stuck in a few different spots; however, someone removed it for a reason that I didn't understand and can't now remember. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually made that change, figuring it was best not to have the unused numbers with the real criteria. The "some have been repealed" text is a link to the section listing the old criteria - it is placed on the categories that have missing numbers. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This section demonstrates why that's not a good idea. If the lines for the repealed criteria have nothing except "Repealed; see below" or something like it, you're not going to go around tagging pages under them in good faith; any such tags are either vandalism or typos that you could make under the current setup. As we have it right now, it's very easy to overlook the "some have been repealed" text because it's so small, and when you discover that there's a gap between A5 and A7, you're not likely to think of scrolling up to the top: this isn't the kind of page that people generally read from top to bottom or in any other specific order. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the repealed criteria are of such low importance, that if not for the missing numbers, I'd say not put them in that section at all. If you prefer the inline format, I could live with it, but without a section header and not boldface. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How about a simple

A4: deprecated

VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You could - but why do you really need to? In my view, the small note about skipping numbers is all you need. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I quite like that too. Ego, are you adamant against including it? I'm not seeing the point to not have the extra clarification (yet). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed to anything that makes the list more complicated while providing no benefit. There are already people who think the list is far too long for them to bother reading the detail, this would make it worse. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of G5. Creations by banned or blocked users

WP:CSD#G5 states "pages created by ... blocked users in violation of their ... block". Does the term "block" only apply to English Wikipedia, or is it of broader scope? Consider a user who has been blocked 1 month at Commons for "uploading unfree files after warnings". If these images have been deleted from Commons, and the offender then uploads exactly the same images to English Wikipedia (licensed {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}} as they had been at Commons), does G5 apply to these images? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• In general, no. Being blocked on one project is a local matter (although there are global blocks), so continuing to be involved in other projects is not a violation of the ban/block. The example is a little hard to parse - in general, Wikipedia can host unfree images, under certain conditions, so even if they get deleted off Commons, they might not be deleted here. However, if they're being uploaded with bogus licences (your example is a little unclear) CSD#F9 applies, so G5 is kinda irrelevant anyhow. WilyD 11:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• No, they might happen to qualify under F9, but it's outside the scope of the G5 criteria, and CSD are supposed to be applied only when the criterion has been strictly met. Probably the best way to handle something like this is at ANI, where admins and active editors can examine the issue, and extend the block/ban to enwiki if necessary, but the images could very well be fair use on enwiki, while being copyright infringements on commons. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs discussion, and CSD just don't leave the kind of paper trail of consensus that you would want for something like this. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• No, non-global bans and blocks are local. But... edits made by suspected sockpuppets of a blocked user incorporating such non-English-Wikipedia creations probably should e investigated and, under some circumstances, reverted with no assumption of good faith. For example, if a blocked editor uploaded a file to the Commons and an IP address put that file in an English article in a way that was consistent with the editor's past behavior, I would be more inclined to toss good faith aside and summarily revert the change in the article and possibly open an SPI than I would if the edit looked like it was coincidental. However, I would do so at my own risk - if I was wrong too often, I would rightly be called on the carpet for being disruptive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a sock (suspected or otherwise) - the user's editing style is, erm, distinctive; and I've never come across anything quite like that before.

It's a noob with a very poor understanding of copyright, the importance of reliable sourcing, and a number of other matters. Every single one of his ~60 uploads at Commons was deleted as a copyright violation; after deletion, he re-uploaded some of them under different file names, and so basically ignored all the warnings. He only stopped after a block was imposed - at which point he started to upload the same images to Wikipedia instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If they violated copyright on Commons, they likely still will here, unless they happen to qualify for our very limited Fair Use policy. If so, they can be deleted here and if her persisnts he can be blocked here. The info from the commons deltions can surely be used to speed up the process here. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Commons blocks are not binding on our Wikipedia, so an edit (or an upload) done by a user locally blocked on the Commons isn't in violation of a block. If a user has a global block, though, it should apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)