Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 268: Line 268:
Reason of proposing: Some user MW pages can be useless and will clutter up the server. Although ENWP does not have the ''Delete page permanently'' extension, those stuff should be removed from users.
Reason of proposing: Some user MW pages can be useless and will clutter up the server. Although ENWP does not have the ''Delete page permanently'' extension, those stuff should be removed from users.
[[User:ThesenatorO5-2|ThesenatorO5-2]]<sup>[[User_talk:ThesenatorO5-2|argue with me]]</sup> at 02:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC).
[[User:ThesenatorO5-2|ThesenatorO5-2]]<sup>[[User_talk:ThesenatorO5-2|argue with me]]</sup> at 02:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC).
:I'm not sure if there is an actual problem here, or if we are just setting up more stuff for admins to delete to an already long list. G2/6/7 seem more than capable to handle these two proposed criteria. Either way, if server space is a problem, the devs would tell us. -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda - mobile</b></span>]] <small>[[User:AmandaNP|(aka DQ)]]</small> 03:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:48, 10 August 2020


RfC: Removing T2

REMOVE T2
CSD#T2 is rarely used and often used incorrectly. Consensus was to remove it. This really didn't need a formal close, but I supplied one anyways because it was requested. For situations as clear as this, anyone can mark it as closed, even those involved. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should speedy deletion criteria T2 be removed? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As most of us are aware criteria for speedy deletion should be objective, uncontestable, frequent and nonredundant. This is not the case for T2 which allows for speedy deletion of Templates that are unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy, e.g. disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles and speedy-deletion templates for issues other than speedy-deletion criteria. While this criteria may sound good in theory, it does not satisfy any of the four requirements in practice as will be shown using data of the last 30 days of deletions and my experience monitoring nominations for many months.
In the last 30 days (May 13–June 12) there has only been four attempts to use this criteria, two of which were successful; Template:Admin page which contained the following sentence "An admin page is illegal to edit without permission from the owner of the page." before being blanked making it fall under G7 and Template:Chhonkar:AFC submission/draftnew duplicating Draft:Chhonkar for which G6 applies as it was unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace). The other two attempts were at Template:Chibuzor Gift Chinyere another draft which was moved to draft space without a redirect and Template:Uw-legal which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Template:Uw-legal. This data from the last month is very much in line with my experiences from watchlisting CAT:T2 for over 6 months where most of the items are drafts created in the template namespace (after all "template" can be defined as "something that serves as a model" or essentially a draft making the mistake both common and understandable) with the other groups I can recall seeing repeatedly being test pages which fall under G2 and templates containing article text which is usually handled through TfD to make sure copyright attribution is done properly and calls are replaced with labeled section transclusion if necessary. There are also a few cases where it is ambiguous if the template should be deleted under T2 or be taken to TfD. I can only recall seeing one disclaimer template that was deleted under T2 where almost everyone would agree that the page should be deleted, it clearly fell under the current criteria and no other criteria could have been used, I may of course have missed some which were deleted before I checked my watchlist, but it does show that it is rare to have an unambiguous T2. It is also worth noting that my experience with T2 is shared by others monitoring T2s as can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 60#T2 and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 62#T2. Misrepresentation of policy being misused.
From this data and my experience monitoring T2 requests it is clear that the criteria is not used frequently at all with the negative effect of taking a handful of extra templates through TfD being minuscule. T2 is often redundant to other criteria such as G2, G6 and potentially G3 with for example CSD templates for non-exsistent criteria being blatant and obvious misinformation. It is not uncontestable with many of the drafts created in the template namespace being deleted even though they most likely would be kept if nominated for deletion at MfD and many discussions about templates falling under T2 not being uncontroversial with the most recent example being at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 June 4#Template:Not WMF started just a few days ago. Finally there is a significant amount of confusion what actually falls under T2 and what doesn't as could be seen in so many examples above. Thank you for reading, I hope to hear your opinion on how to fix these issues! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A7 and reliable sources

The essay WP:CCS says: the inclusion of reliable secondary sources may itself be an indication of significance, but it doesn't say under what circumstances this is the case in. Am I right in thinking that this means sources that would count towards WP:GNG? What about cases where the SNG has additional requirements (e.g. WP:CRIME)? Adam9007 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Significance is explicitly a much lower standard than notability, so if an article has sources that plausibly might meet either the GNG or an SNG then that's very clearly a claim of significance. For example if there is an article about a crime and the article includes a reference to coverage of that crime in a source that is (or plausibly might be) reliable then that article cannot be speedily deleted under criterion A7. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The test of A7 says: he 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. Thus the absence of a source is not highly relevant. The presence of any reliable source may strengthen the claim, or make it clear that the claim is credible (if it can be supported by a source, it is surely credible), but mostly the presence or absence of sources should not be relevant to whether an A7 (or an A9) is valid or not. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So reliable independent sources can establish notability but not significance? That makes no sense. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On rare occasions (I don't have an example) an article may have sources that establish notability but despite this the article has been written so poorly that no claim of significance is made. No, I don't like this either. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot conceive any such example either. Mentioning sources that cover the subject is imho in itself a credible claim of significance (i.e. "look, this subject has attracted coverage in reliable sources!"). Regards SoWhy 07:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 says it better (but then I would, wouldn't I?) where my criteria is the (IMHO) more flexible "could any independent editor reasonably improve this article so it would not be deleted at AfD?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam9007 I would put it that no source is needed to establish significance. A plausible claim that if sourced would likely persuade some editors at an AfD that the topic is notable, or that suggests a reasonable,probability that source that would establish notability exist is a claim of significance. I would quantify this as "If of all topics that have property X, 10% or more would be kept at AfD, then X is a claim of significance". That is my opinion, it has no particular consensus.
However, as to Thincat's point, I would ay that if sources already present in the article pretty clearly establish notability, they also serve as a claim of significance. Or to put it another way, if a topic is clearly notable, it shouold not be deleted via an A7.
I would also say that A7 is normally about what is already in the article, not about what could be found with a search. An article that said only "John Knox was a popular preacher." giving no details and citing no sources would be a reasonable A7 in my view, although John Knox is clearly notable . Now if an editor knows that a topic is notable, the editor should not tag the article about it for A7 nor delete it as A7, but rather should add a claim that s/he is confident is accurate. But a good-faith editor is nmo9t required to do a search before tagging or deleting under A7. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:BEFORE does not explicitly apply to A7, WP:PRESERVE at least indirectly asks editors to try and fix problems before tagging or deleting. So expecting taggers and admins to do a quick search does not seem unreasonable. Regards SoWhy 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a source that covers the topic to such an extent that it might be part of argument towards WP:N, then no, A7 shouldn't be applied (if it's a totally trivial mention, that's probably not true). Note that CRIME isn't an inclusion/deletion criteria, but just a content organisation guideline, so no, stuff like that is irrelevant. WilyD 06:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. "Randy Marsh is an American geologist" is speedyable, but "Randy Marsh is an American geologist[1][2][3]" is not if any of those sources could plausibly count towards GNG and/or an SNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Require hoaxes to be recently created

I propose to change:

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.

to:

This applies to pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation, recently created blatant hoaxes (including files intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#8 years-undetected hoax article for context on the article that inspired me to bring this up, Battle of Ceber. Even if it turns out to be a hoax in the end, the amount of research required to ascertain that means that it is clearly not a blatant hoax. Often, whether a hoax is "blatant" is subjective, and if a page has survived for several years then it's good evidence that it's not a blatant hoax, if a hoax at all. Given that the purpose of CSD is to reduce the workload at AfD/PROD and we don't have a large backlog of several-year-old hoaxes waiting to be deleted, I think we should just make it a rule that old pages deserve more scrutiny at AfD instead of being speedied as a hoax. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth should we make it more difficult to remove false information? Absurd. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: The phrasing used is such that pages that are blatant and obvious misinformation would still come under the criteria even if they were not recently created, it's fair to say. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: The idea behind this is a good one, but would it not be more sensible to add to the end of the G3 criteria, after Articles about notable hoaxes are acceptable if it is clear that they are describing a hoax, something like Non-recently created pages are not generally blatant hoaxes, and should normally go through other deletion processes? I can see a conceivable scenario in which a genuinely completely blatant hoax could just be missed in NPP, so a speedy was still valid; doing it through a clarifying statement rather than making it part of the criteria would suit that scenario better, and equally give deleting sysops a policy line to point to in declining a CSD of a non-recently-created article. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support per nominator. In the context of R3 the precise meaning of "recent" is not defined and there is no clear consensus beyond "a few days old" definitely is recent and "more than about a month old" definitely isn't. I don't think that the timeframes for this need to be that short, but I don't have any firm opinions in what it should be. "Recent" meaning "less than about 6 months old" is what first comes to mind but as I say I'm more than willing to consider alternatives. However I do firmly believe there should not be an exact cut-off. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Naypta here: An article that requires extensive research to determine that it is a hoax is not a blatant and obvious hax, and speedy deletion is not the way to deal with it. An article that has been around for more than a year in mainspace, say, is probably not a blatant and obvious hoax, or howm was it missed for such a long time. But an article describing, say, how King Kong is currently being exhibited by Barmum's Circus in Albany New York is a blatant hoax, even if it has somehow been missed for years. Whether gross misinformation on a more obscure subject is a blatant hoax I am not sure, say an article about an 11th century reigning Duke in one of the Germanies that places him in the 13th century instead, or better an article about a person saying that he is an 11th C ruler of a small state, when he in fact never existed and no source so much and claims that he did, a vandal made him up out of nothing, or perhaps imported him form a historical novel. Surely that is a hoax, but it takes some research to confirm that it is -- is this blatant enough to speedy? Fortunately, such cases seem to be rare. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I echo Praxidicae's befuddlement: why in the name of $DEITY would we want to make it harder to remove misinformation??? It's bad enough that obstinate individual editors make removing hoaxes difficult without enshrining such obstructionism in our policies. Reyk YO! 19:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably also worth pointing out that the longest-enduring hoax article we ever uncovered was deleted by G3 just last year- conclusive proof that the system works as it currently stands and is in no need of changing. Reyk YO! 19:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If it's a hoax, it should be speedyable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Naypta's comment, I think the following would be sensible:

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.
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. For suspected hoaxes which are not recently created, consider using other deletion processes instead, as the page may not be a blatant hoax.

In strictly WP:LAWYERly terms, this doesn't change anything about the policy. However, because people have a tendency toward too liberal an interpretation of CSD, especially when subjective words are concerned, this provides guidance that old pages generally should not be G3'd, but if it's obvious enough then G3 is still OK. It's saying in essence, if your gut tells you it's a hoax, check again, there might be a reason why it has survived for so long; if you're still sure after double-checking, then you can nominate it for speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with thanks to King of Hearts for taking on the feedback! Perhaps this should be an RfC? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This talk page is well enough attended that we'll probably get enough traffic even without an RfC. But that's certainly an option if it looks like we don't have enough voices. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments on the first proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the revised proposal by King of Hearts, based on the comments of Naypta above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it was a bad deletion, but this fixes nothing. The problem was that something that wasn't a blatant hoax was deleted as a blatant hoax, it would've been just as bad if the article was eight minutes old as eight years old. This is just bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. If people fail to follow rules, adding more rules won't improve anything and usually makes it worse, since the more rules there are, the harder they are to know, and the less likely they are to get read. WilyD 09:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As WilyD says, this was first and foremost a bad deletion; what is needed is for admins to follow the policies and guidelines we have (most do most of the time), rather than follow their own interpretations (plenty do too often). It's preventing bad deletions that's important, not changing the rules to make it easier for them to continue to happen. ——Serial # 09:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: How would this chang[e] the rules to make it easier for [bad deletions] to continue to happen? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why adding guidance saying basically "If the article is old, chances are a lot of people have seen it and not identified it as a hoax so take a second look and make sure it really is a blatant hoax before applying this criterion." will make anything worse? Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The longer a page is, the less well it gets read. And adding special notes for every rare occurance just piles on clutter. If there was some reason to think this was a persistent problem it'd be different, but this is closing the barn door after the horse escaped ... via a secret tunnel. It wasn't the problem in this one instance, and it's not an ongoing problem. WilyD 12:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm definitely opposed to actually tightening the guideline; my read on the specific Battle of Ceber incident is that it was a bad deletion based on several parties under-rating the meaning of the word "blatant". It was therefore already not really an appropriate G3 candidate as the rule is currently written. The proposed reminder about thinking extra hard about non-recently-created pages is perfectly reasonable advice, but I do see WilyD's point about it just being another piece of clutter in an already long and complicated page. This is the first genuinely wrong G3 hoax deletion I've seen in a while, I'm not sure it's even warranted. I'm fairly neutral either way on that one. ~ mazca talk 15:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't find the justification compelling enough for this criterion specifically. Any speedy deletion criterion is less likely to apply to a page with greater longevity than a page more recently created, because the premise is longevity indicates acquiescence. If we want to include that advice for speedy deletion generally, I'd find that acceptable. --Bsherr (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose new policies to prevent the stupid thing Bob did once. Guy (help!) 09:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no real need to change policies and tie admin hands further. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in principle with the revised wording, but also with the oppose comments above that this may not be required. I'm left somewhere in the middle. We should expect some sensibility from admins to exercise reasonable and proper discretion, given the process they go through for the right. Unless there's a pattern of improper G3 deletions (there might be?) I don't know if this is required? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roundabout G13 deletion of mainspace articles

So, here's one example Draft:Mary Jane Holland (song), but I see this a lot, where (with some automated tool) articles get moved from the mainspace to the Draft name, ostensibly to incubate it, but probably in fact to delete it by G13. This doesn't sit right with me, but I struggle with figuring out what (if anything) I should do. WilyD 07:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? It's an unsourced microstub- exactly the kind of thing that should be sent to draftspace. If you're suggesting people are using draft space moves as an end-run around the normal deletion discussions, I'd like to see some proof of that. The whole idea seems farfetched to me at first glance; you'd need to think the article is hopeless, trust that nobody's going to touch the draft in six months but also expect a bunch of people to come to AfD to go keepkeepkeep. Pinging @Jmertel23: to get their thoughts on this particular draft space move they performed; I suspect it won't be "I was tryna sneak around AfD". Reyk YO! 07:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they're typically intentionally trying do an end-run around AfD (given the articles sit for six months, you probably could successfully PROD them). But that is what's actually happening. So if the purpose isn't to get the article deleted, but the practice is to get the article deleted, then we should probably look at the practice. WilyD 07:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other current examples Draft:Quiniela (Argentina) Draft:Claude Cehes so this is happening a lot. I'm not sure whether they should be deleted, but I definitely feel funny about deleting them per G13. WilyD 08:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think Draft:Claude Cehes should have been moved to draft, but certainly it shouldn't have been tagged for G13 3 days after it has been moved to draft space. Fram (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of G13 is a bit unclear there. Aside from being moved into draft space it is true that it hadn't had any human edits in over six months, so I can see where the misunderstanding came from. Reyk YO! 09:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly support making it explicit that a move into draft space counts as a human edit for G13 purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prematurely tagging with G13 is one problem. The initial problem is draftifying without tagging the pages for at least two projects. How were the articles to get eyeballs-on from interested editors without project tags? Evad37, would it be possible to get MoveToDraft.js to prompt/remind the mover to provide 2 projects? Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a requirement I've never heard of, and which seems rather impractical considering that most projects are moribund and getting two active, working projects for any article seems rather hard. Examples
It looks as if no one tags pages for projects when they move the articles to draft space, and I can't blame them. It's exactly the same when e.g. adding a Prod to an article, it also doesn't get or need project tags at that time. It seems like yet another hurdle in dealing with problematic content, something we can do without. Fram (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either we take steps to get editors' eyeballs on problematic drafts and act on the promise that draftifying is done with the intent of improving the draft or we say straight out that draftifying is G13 with a 6 month delay. Projects aren't the perfect solution, but they're what we've got. Cabayi (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftifying has always been an end-run around the deletion policy. There's no effort to gain consensus (as with AfD). No restrictions on its use or admin oversight (as with PROD and CSD). You just have single editor with the NPR right with full discretion to send any article to limbo and automatic deletion in six months, most likely without a single other human being properly looking at it in the meantime. But these points have been made by many people for many years, and it still seems to have consensus, so... – Joe (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: NPR right is not necessary for moving an article to draftspace, nor for using the User:Evad37/MoveToDraft draftifying script. Schazjmd (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was any evidence at all of people sending articles to draftspace with the intent of dodging AfD, as opposed to genuinely thinking draftspace is the right place, it wouldn't be long before there was consensus to do something about it. Looking at some of the examples raised in this discussion, it's clear that the problem is actually the reverse: there's a lot of shite getting sent to draftspace that should be speedied. In particular G11 needs to flex its muscles more. Reyk YO! 14:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This has come up several times before, most recently at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77#G13 and articles moved to draftspace. Just go to an archive page and look for G13. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody is intentionally using draftspace to dodge the deletion policy. The problem is that draftifying is the seductive "easy option". NPPers tend to work fast. When you're presented with an article that is in bad shape but isn't blatantly unencyclopaedic, you have limited options:
    • Fix it yourself and mark it as reviewed, but this is time-consuming and unappealing work when the subject isn't interesting;
    • Send it to AfD, but you'll have to do a thorough WP:BEFORE and write a convincing nomination that shows it will never be a good article, or you'll get roasted but AfD regulars;
    • Use PROD, but you have to be sure that the nomination is "uncontroversial";
    • Use CSD, but you have to make sure it exactly fits one of the criteria, or you'll screw up that all-important-for-RfA CSD log;
    • Send it to draft, simply declaring it "not ready for mainspace" and washing your hands of it.
    I think in that context it's obvious why draftifying has become a crutch. The problem is, there is a reason we make all the other deletion processes difficult: we don't want to delete people's work unless it really is unsalvageable. But unfortunately NPP is structured in such a way that it de-emphasises concepts like WP:PRESERVE, WP:FIXIT, and WP:NOTFINISHED, in favour of a quality control process that separates "reviewers" that check work from "editors" that do it. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good analysis and it's not the first time that I've seen one where encouraging NPPers to slow down will do a lot of good - how do we do that? Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love suggestions. Quality over quantity is important is stressed in the NPP instructions. Concerns over this topic are why Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Drafts basically duplicates substantial parts of WP:DRAFTIFY. I have added bold language about not being a substitute for AfD. I also emphasize this point when discussing draftification with everyone who comes through my New Page Patrol school. On a side note but very few NPP these days are high volume reviewers and to the extent that there are high volume reviewers it tends to be of redirects. This is a reason that we've been struggling to maintain with the pace of new article creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to Draft is effectively a 3-month PROD. Exactly as with PROD, it can be trivially fixed by remedying the problem that caused it to be draftified. Draftify --> G13 is an excellent way of getting dross out of the main encyclopaedia with ample opportunity to fix if anyone is even remotely interested. Guy (help!) 08:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That requires though that people who can fix it are aware that it needs fixing, and we are doing an appalling job of doing that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thryduulf, that's a generic issue with any deletion process of unwatched articles. Guy (help!) 16:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this isn't right because anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, but once it's moved to draft the barrier is much higher. WilyD 09:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone can move an article from draft to mainspace, just like anyone can do the reverse. If people routinely (or too often) do this incorrectly (moving decent aricles to draft, or moving unacceptable articles (about acceptable subjects) to mainspace, then we can educate and if necessary restrict these editors. But the process shouldn't be rejected (or mischaractrized) because some people misapply it. The same thing is true for Prod, CsD, AfD, or even article creation; if people too often get it wrong, they will be asked to change, and if that doesn't help they will be forced to change. While "move to draft" may be used too heavily or fast sometimes, it often is also used to be more gentle, to give articles which could be deleted a "grace" period, a second chance (e.g. for promotional articles about notable subjects). Instead of limiting its use, it should be expanded to e.g. articles in other languages (which now get a week or so in the mainspace before action is taken). Fram (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, if you ignore the fact that, for most of that six-month period, there is no category to look for (and possibly save) these inappropriately "prodded" articles that are not indexed by search engines. Also, what you wrote is almost directly contradicted by WP:Drafts#Moving articles to draft space. (You did mean six, right?) Glades12 (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:Claude Cehes, discussed above, is on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017 which is an old task list that I'm slowly working through -- apparently on my own. Consensus to draftify the articles on that list was reached in this discussion, against the background of the colossal Wikimedia Foundation software balls-up documented here. Please note that virtually all the articles on that list are (a) subject to CSD X2, so technically speedyable and putting them into draft space is my less-deletionist way of decrapifying the encyclopaedia; and (b) in violation of the TOU, because they're translations that don't credit the original contributors. (They could be brought into compliance with the TOU by putting the correct variant of {{translated}} on their talk pages.)
    More generally, I'm appalled by the tone of this discussion. I mean, how dare the little people move things to draft space without jumping through a series of hoops? Clearly, those who're doing NPP or working through old backlogs have infinite time to spend on this stuff. Please: get real. As a result of the project's various failures of recruitment and retention, nowadays there are only about 500 active mainspace editors. The options are trust them, or drown in spam.—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: I crunched some numbers: turns out 464 draftications happened during the last 1 week period. A detailed report is available at User:SDZeroBot/DraftifyWatch containing a brief excerpt from the article and the comment used by the moving editor. I can also get the bot to update the page periodically so that we can at least some oversight on the process. SD0001 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that mainspace articles should not be moved to draft unless there is some realistic chance of them being worked on in the near future. If the page has potential, it should be left in place until someone comes across it and is inclined to work on it. If not, prod or AFD. People who move pages to draft for "incubation" will invariably deny that this is a means of deletion, but in practice that is commonly what happens. Unless the page has been created by a regular editor who is still around, the chances of it getting noticed in draft are slim to non-existent. It has a much better chance of someone giving it love in mainspace. That could still take years, but we shouldn't worry about that because there is no deadline. SpinningSpark 11:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unilateral draftification is an end-run around deletion policy, yes. It’s a hole for abuse. I was very worried about that. I wrote some sort of practice-based guideline at WP:Drafts#Moving articles to draft space, not very well publicised, but basically what NewPagePatrollers we’re doing already. I’ve watched and not seen any abuse. Basically, everything draftified would be deleted, whether via AfD PROD or CSD, if it weren’t for DraftSpace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X2 cleanup

S Marshall boldly deprecated X2 earlier today. I have no issues with this deprecation, especially since S Marshall is by far the most active editor in dealing with CXT cleanup and I fully trust their judgement, but there will need to be some significant cleanup to update tools, templates, categories and documentation. How should we handle this? I am willing to do the cleanup since I'm probably the person who knows best what needs to be done seeing how I did the same for T2 a few days ago, but I would really prefer not having to do a mass revert if the removal doesn't have consensus. --Trialpears (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little uneasy about this deprecation. SMarshall noted in his summary that there was consensus to draftify the remaining articles in the X2 eligible category. As far as I'm aware, this never happened, and there are a bunch of articles that are problematic as a class still sitting unchecked in mainspace. After this deprecation, there is no special tool available to deal with them. If the consensus to draftify is valid, let's implement it, then depricate the criterion. If that consensus is too old, or otherwise inadequate, let's establish a consensus for what should be done with those articles in a quick discussion, then implement that. I'm not going to revert the deprecation, because I haven't been active on-wiki recently, so I may be missing context, but I am going to ask for a tapping of the brakes. Tazerdadog (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly welcome your help with the implementation, Tazerdadog. But AFAICT X2 hasn't been used for ages.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm not arguing to let X2 linger, I just want to make sure we've dealt with the base issue. Do we need to re-establish the consensus to draftify, or can we move straight to asking for a bulk move (probably bot-assisted) to draftspace? Tazerdadog (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus to draftify is still very safe. Of the initial 3,600 there are about 1,400 left; but no-one's using X2 to deal with them any more. I prefer to do it manually because I'm finding myself deciding about half of them can stay in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to quarry:query/46313 it looks like the last deletion using "X2" in the deletion summary was Oval Dreams back in January. I'm a bit suspicious about this data since it indicates that only 142 pages have been deleted with X2 which seems way too low. Perhaps many deletions didn't actually include X2 in the deletion summary before templates and tools were set up to handle it properly? Nonetheless I think it isn't used much and draftification is a suitable option in the remaining making it safe to deprecate. --Trialpears (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed to see that there were no X2s at all in 2018. I didn't edit that year; I had a long old Wikibreak.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of dual fluency in the source language and English was quite high, and probably severely narrowed the number of people who could do it. Any objection to moving them all manually, then depricating X2 after that is done?Tazerdadog (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No actual objection, but I would not understand the purpose of the delay. There's consensus to stop using X2.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just becoming more convinced that this was a good decision from the above. Given that the X2 log is basically a subset of S Marshall's CSD log and they think it is obsolete there is no need to retain it. If it hasn't been reinstated or this discussion becomes significantly more controversial by this weekend I plan on updating templates tools and documentation to reflect this change. --Trialpears (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and do it now. Didn't think we would deprecate two criteria in the same week ever considering that we've only deprecated one in the past decade. --Trialpears (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G2

Has anyone else noticed (mis)use of G2 as a catch-all (especially in draftspace) recently? Adam9007 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into a couple, yeah. I think a common problem is that people come across a blatantly unencyclopedic article in draft space, often something like a one-sentence autobiography. In many cases, these would be slam-dunk A7s in mainspace, but there's no criteria obviously suited to them in draftspace. The patroller is sure it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and G2 can often be stretched to meanings of "This person doesn't know what they're doing here", so they tag it and hope. The reality is that a blatantly terrible draft sitting there just doesn't matter, it is NOINDEXed so it won't show up in search, and it will either be worked on or it'll get G13ed down the line, and MFD is there for any corner cases. By all means politely call people out if they're making inaccurate speedy tags, as you would in any namespace. ~ mazca talk 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects

Hi,

I've noticed that we have R2 for inappropriate redirects from mainspace to other namespaces, but other inappropriate cross-namespace redirects are often handled by G6. Is there a reason we don't just have one criterion that covers all inappropriate cross-namespace redirects? Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two criteria can service different purposes. If I move Example title to Draft:Example title and leave the mainspace redirect up temporarily so the user who created the page has an easier time finding the draft, but I forget to remove the redirect after a short time, then it makes sense to delete that G6. On the other hand, if somebody creates a redirect in mainspace that points to Wikipedia, User, or even Draft space, then R2 makes more sense. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007 and C.Fred: Also, there is a general consensus that there should not be redirects, or (for the most part) links, from the main article space. MOS:DRAFTNOLINK says: Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid). There is not any such consensus for redirects or links between other namespaces. When a page is moved from draft space (or from a userspace draft) to the main article space, a redirect is normally created and may well stay in place indefinitely, possibly for years. Mostly I use G6 to delete redirects only when they obstruct a page move, not just because they are cross-namespace. There will be some cases where a cross-namespace redirect is inappropriate, but that cannot be automatically assumed, and probably should be done by discussion, not by speedy deletion, in most cases. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: That consensus is why CSD R2 exists. There are still cases where a redirect might be appropriate. In many such cases, there will be a comment on the page explaining why the redirect is there. I make sure to check page history before deleting a redirect, since sometimes the page is only a redirect because the previous content of the page was blanked and replaced with a redirect. Speedy deletion is appropriate particularly in cases where it's new redirects. There are many cases, though, where other criteria also apply, including G6, G11, and G3. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred I think we are in general agreement. I would put it that a redirect out of article space is almost never appropriate, and that is why we have R2. A cross-namespace redir that is into article space, or that does not involve article space at all, may sometimes be inappropriate, but often is perfectly appropriate, and any deletion, whether speedy or not, must be individually justified, and R2 cannot be used as the reason. Would you agree? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @C.Fred: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNRs to other namespaces than draft, user, etc. shouldn't always be handled by G6, IMO. Deletions of them are often controversial. Glades12 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed being a CNR isn't, in and of itself, harmful. The harm comes from potential confusion if someone expecting an article arrives at something that isn't reader-facing. RfD recently had a few article → category redirects nominated, a couple were kept, one was retargetted to a template and one was retargetted to an article. Wikipedia ←→ Help redirects are almost always appropriate, Draft → Article redirects are usually kept when nominated, redirects from user subpages to almost anything else are almost never deleted without a request from that user (and many of those that aren't kept are converted to soft redirects, which is what happens to most main user pages that redirect elsewhere). So it's clear that simply being a CNR does not mean it meets the G6 criteria and so should not be routinely deleted unless they really are obvious errors or in the way of page moves. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy send most post-speedy contests to XfD

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 1#Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10), User:DESiegel told me to come here with my opinion that contested speedy deletions should be auto-referred to XfD.


I think this is simple logic, IF the editor making the contest could have removed the CSD tag before the deletion. I think it is further a good idea, if the contest is good enough to be worthy of a discussion.

In practice, this happens sometimes. More often, a discussion occurs on the deleting admin's user_talk page, which is non-ideal if the substance of the discussion are the details of the topic. Important topic source discussions are not easily found when located in user_talk. Very often, the discussion progresses to WP:DRV, where it bogs down to an AfD-style debate, but on unclear lines of debate with respect to whether the test is normal deletion (should it be deleted) or speedy deletion (was it so clear cut that speedy was right). This makes the discussion quite confusing. This is the case at the [[Weavers' cottage DRV. There are reasonable statements such as "this isn't technically speediable, there's also no chance it could survive a proper deletion discussion at AfD", but that is a technical side point to the purpose of DRV.

A speedy deletion should not be sent to XfD if:

(1) The complaint concerns failure of the deletion process itself, or the behavior of the deleting admin, etc
(2) It was a G10 or a G12.

I propose that the following statement, or similar, be agreed to: "For most speedy deletions, if the deletion is contested by an editor in good standing, it is usually better to immediately list it at XfD, and to have the discussion in the XfD format."

If that is agreed, I would proceed to encourage "Speedy close and list at XfD" of DRV discussions like this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we should go further and say: Any user other than the creator may appeal for an article to be restored at WP:REFUND. The attending admin should evaluate the situation and either deny the request if they believe the deletion was clearly correct or restore and list the article at AfD otherwise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, but this is often coming from contests by a creator, and where the benefit of discussion is explaining to the newcomer what acceptable sources are. At AfD, the sources are the focus of discussion. At DRV, the discussion turns to CSD nuances, and this does not help the newcomer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to this idea but I think it plays out much more clearly when we're thinking A7, A9, A10, and G11 than many of the other criteria. I do have some questions. So if I delete someone's test edits as G2, I'm obligated to restore and send to AfD? Am I also obligated to do a full BEFORE as I normally would do before nominating something for deletion? And just what is an "editor in good standing"? At what point does an editor asking why an article was deleted turn into a contested deletion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barkeep. Definitely talking mostly about borderline A7 and G11. Also files I expect, but few file speedies go to DRV. Not A10, lets stay clear of A10. A10 disputes are worth the level of attention found at DRV.
If you delete someone's test edits per G2, and they explain to you that they they were not mere test edits, and you disagree but it could be debatable, then yes, undelete and send to AfD. If you think something is speediable, surely that is a trivial BEFORE task? Check the history for vandal content removal.
What is an "editor in good standing"? It is a Wikipedia term of art. Minimally, a non-blocked, non-banned editor, but it allows discretion to ABF with an IP or an account with no edit history. It couples with "reasonable contest", it is subject to interpretation and discretion. If you get a clueless protest on your talk page, don't send it to XfD. However, if a reasonable protest gathers any sympathy at a formally launched DRV, it belongs at XfD first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No BEFORE is a trivial task. There can be test edits on a notable topic and if I'm sending something to AfD, G2 or otherwise, I'm spending the time to do a BEFORE the righ tway. As for editor in good standing, I don't think an editor of 1 month with say 30 editors who attempts to write an article that fails A10 is necessarily here in bad faith. I also don't think they have the standing to make an accurate challenge. The proposed wording doesn't talk about the protest itself. It talks about the editor making it. I would much prefer something akin to what you wrote in this reply than what you originally wrote. I still think I could get behind the core of this proposal if limited to the four CSD I listed before and with some other improvements to the wording (though Wily's point below about the value of DRV is a really good one). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to this. Especially where G11 is concerned, this could keep articles that need to be deleted on the site for up to an additional three weeks just because someone disagrees with the speedy. Contested is different than controversial. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from the principles at the top of this page: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion and It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. "Most people" and "consensus" don't translate to "unanimous", and it is very frequent for someone to object, such as the creator. If some page genuinely meets the criteria for speedy deletion then it's unacceptable in its present form and shouldn't be kept around. Allowing PROD-like contests for speedy deletion would lead to perverse consequences of the type that speedy deletion is supposed to prevent, e.g. an article written by a kid about his pet hamster, a promotional article written by a spammer or even a piece of blatant vandalism would have to be kept around for weeks just because somebody objected to speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 06:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand where the sentiment comes from - a deletion being contested is often a sign that it is controversial and CSD is only for uncontroversial cases - I don't think that any disagreement automatically makes a decision "controversial". I'd expect that many spammers would try to string the removal of their spam along if such a rule were to become reality. Also, many times creators of a CSD-ed page contest the deletion because they don't understand our expectations. That means that they need to be educated on our standards but it doesn't imply that the deletion itself is controversial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I would not want spammers and unrepentant copyright violators to be able to force an AfD even when the CSD criterion clearly still applies. This proposal also seems to mandate an XfD discussion even when a speedy is contested and the reason for deletion no longer applies. Reyk YO! 09:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kinda dislike this for another reason - DRV reviews give some feeling for what is and isn't an appropriate deletion for those of us closing XfDs and/or processing speedies, so I like being able to see what "controversial" deletions are seen as appropriate and which are inappropriate, you know WilyD 09:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed to this idea for several reasons, although I would accept it if a wide consensus for it develops, and possibly i could be persuaded to change my view.
    First let us consider the current process, which is fairly clear IMO, but perhaps should be better documented. If an article or other page is speedy deleted, and an editor objects or questions this, the editor should normally go first to the user talk page of the deleting admin. In some cases the admin, considering the objection, may restore the page. I have gotten a number of pages restored in this way, and I have seen less experienced editors get such a result also. More often the admin will explain the reasons for the deletion mo9re fully, and the objecting editor will accept them, or at least decide not to take the matter further. In the majority of cases that ends the matter one way or the other without a full-dress discussion at any venue. I think this is highly desirable.
    If an editor is not satisfied, or if the deleting admin i8s not available, the matter may be taken to WP:DRV. That forum serves, in significant part, as a review of admin actions in doing speedy deletions. When an admin becomes over-hasty with the delete button, DRV can say so. DRV discussions were a significant part of the evidence in a recent ARBCOM case where an admin was de-sysoped for a patter of over-hasty deletions. I hope this will be rare, but DRV discussions can also serve as precedents for what is and what is not a valid speedy deletion. IMO it does a reasonably good job at this, better than an AfD, where the prime emphasis would be on the merits of an article, would do. DRV might find that an A7 speedy, say, was not justified, even though AfD later found that the topic was not notable. These are two different determinations, with different standards, and it makes sense to have them made in different discussions. A wide admin will take note if a speedy deletion is overturned at DRV, and consider that in making future speedy deletions. (WilyD said much the same above.)
    I should mention that DRV recently clarified its procedures so that consulting the closing admin, while strongly recommended, is not required. If the requesting editor feels, from past interactions, that no useful,purpose would be served by consulting the deleting admin, that step may be skipped. Or it may be skipped for other reasons, or though ignorance of the procedure, without leading to a speedy close of the review for not touching second base. Thus the deleting admin is not a gstekeeper who can block a review, or delay it indefinitely.
    Now let us consider the overall purpose of speed deletion. It is largely to avoid a full-dress XfD in cases where there is a wide consensus that certain kinds of pages should be deleted, with no need for individual discussion. If any editor can force a full, XfD on any page after a speedy deletion, it doesn't save so much. Hut 8.5 is right about this in comments above. Also, speedy deletion allows for quick removal of pages that we really are not willing to tolerate during a full discussion. A10 attack page, G12 copyvios, G11 spam, and G3 hoaxes come to mind, particularly in article space. An Afd would require that these be undeleted, and moreover be open to editing, for a full week or more, as a significant part of an AfD is the ability to improve an article while it is under discussion. That would mean it would not be hidden behind {{tempundelete}} as pages restored for DRV discussion are, and would be picked up by search engines. This is a significant cost -- is any gain worth it? Or do we need to have a complex of rules to specify when a contesting editor has the right to force an XfD, and some forum to determine how these rules apply in a particular case? I think DRV, which can and does asses whether a speedy deletion was valid, and if it is found not valid, may restore the page or send it directly to an XfD, does this better than any such complex of rules would. We are not being so overwhelmed with DRV discussions that we need to send them to XfD instead, in my view.
    In short I see several problems with this, and not enough gain to make it worth while. I also think that it would be a sufficiently major change in procedure tom require a centrally advertised RfC, but that is a detail. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is reasonable for some pages - categories, files, redirects; perhaps user pages, drafts, and A7s - but ranges from nonsensical to utterly disastrous for most speedied articles. In particular, applying this to G11s would be a major victory for those abusing our encyclopedia for self-promotion. Speedy deletion explicitly considers only the current and past versions of a page, while AFD evaluates a topic. Meaningful improvement while at AFD and deletion on solely WP:TNT grounds are both rare, especially compared to a typical 75-100 G11 deletions per day; and taking something to AFD based on utter lack of NPOV almost always results in the "keep, is googleable, AFD is not cleanup" fallacy. —Cryptic 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, when Cryptic says perhaps user pages, drafts, and A7s might be appropriate for XfD on demand, one should recall that A7s are frequently restored, either to article space or to draft space, on request at WP:REFUND. Drafts are often deleted for G11 and g12, and sometimes user pages are also, as well as U5. I actually think U5 is overused, but the creating user is likely to be the one complaining, and their views would probably not be trusted to restore an alleged U5. So I'm not sure that even this list of exceptions isn't too wide. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My experience over 12 years is that most admins are more conservation about deleting speedy, now that so many other routes are available. Most A7s are not restored, and the ones that are, generally do get fixed; very few other speedies are restored. Anyone can in good faith appeal, and that is all that's required. Most admits are receptive to appeals that make any sense at all, though I recognize that some admits never restore an appealed speedy regardless ofthe merits; Having every appeal automatically go to AfD is an attempt to solve a minor problem by creating what could easily be a very major one--afd is now, and always has ben, too busy to give most items sent there adequate attention. Sending hopeless ones there will not make things better. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Ok, thanks. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: db-web should include mobile apps

There have often been articles created about unremarkable mobile apps. Instead of having a new criteria, or using a generic criteria, including them in db-web would make the most sense.

Adjusted wording could be "This template may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, mobile app, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7."

Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last substantial discussion about mobile apps I can find was in 2014, with a brief and ill-informed followup in 2016. (We've discussed and rejected both web apps and software in general more recently.) This seems ripe for reexamining.
    I think most admins are able to identify and agree on importance/significance indicators for mobile apps these days, especially compared to six years ago; that's always been the major hurdle for enacting a speedy criterion for software in general. However, I can't remember the last time I saw a mobile app article IAR-tagged A7 that wasn't also written so promotionally that I felt no qualms about speedying it as a G11. I also don't watch AFD or prod very closely these days, and it's been many many years since I looked directly at the new pages feed, so I don't have any handle on how frequently such articles are deleted by other means, or should be deleted but survive because the red tape at AFD is too much of a hassle.
    (The proposed wording is unsuitable, of course, since mobile apps aren't web content. But we can worry about that later.) —Cryptic 21:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cryptic, We've discussed and rejected both web apps and software in general more recently If that's the case, then we ought to remove browser games from db-web, seeing as they're web apps. Adam9007 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mobile apps are not web content; they are software. If mobile apps were to be included in A7, we'd need a new template: e.g. db-app or something like that. Adam9007 (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should just include any content or product which is distributed exclusively over the Internet. So A7 would continue to exclude software sold in CD form, for example. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be most software entirely in this day and age, and that seems like a pretty large expansion. (That's even if it's obvious from the article as-written that there isn't an alternative distribution.) --Izno (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should just include any content or product which is distributed exclusively over the Internet. That was indeed the old definition of web content, as it was stated at WP:WEB. It was changed after an RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#RfC:_How_can_non-web_content_be_classed_as_web_content?. Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would cover Netflix etc, so just keep to the present definition as G11 captures quite a lot, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I long believe that people are way overusing G11, tagging articles that were merely written by people with a COI or having a little bit too positive of a tone. A lot of them would also be eligible under an expanded A7, and the ones that wouldn't belong at AfD instead of being speedily deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add criteria for MediaWiki namespaces

MW1: Blank JSON, CSS, JS and Lua module pages. MW2: Content same as other pages or modules. Reason of proposing: Some user MW pages can be useless and will clutter up the server. Although ENWP does not have the Delete page permanently extension, those stuff should be removed from users. ThesenatorO5-2argue with me at 02:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure if there is an actual problem here, or if we are just setting up more stuff for admins to delete to an already long list. G2/6/7 seem more than capable to handle these two proposed criteria. Either way, if server space is a problem, the devs would tell us. -- Amanda - mobile (aka DQ) 03:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=972095306"