Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Pages created in error

Pages created in error, "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" is probably the worst line currently in the policy. It implies "pages created in error by someone else that I am fixing" because if it was the one editor involved, then G7 should be used. If there are multiple editors in its history, then all should be consulted, and if just one of them does not agree that the page should be deleted, then it should go via a deletion discussion not CSD. The wording is far too undefined. What is "in error"? Does that include the other editor editing while rushing? Why should a different editor be fixing it for them, using administrative tools. This line should go. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed here.

This is not objective, nor a good idea. Just sloppy. Use G7, or a defined criterion, or talk to the one making the errors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I halfway agree with you. Something misspelled in the article space and then corrected by someone else a year or two down the line probably should be considered through one of the R-criteria or at RFD. However, if a new editor starts a page in the Wikipedia space, and a patroller moves it to the Draft or Article space (as appropriate), the WP-space edit was clearly made in error and there is zero reason why it should not be deleted (see Wikipedia:Fawwaz Rafif/Masashi Yokoi and Wikipedia:Masashi Yokoi for two that I deleted recently). And to echo one of my statements earlier, I wholeheartedly agree that these use cases should not be in G6, but we have no other suitable criteria at the moment to cover these pages; until we do, it should continue to be deleted under G6. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Meeting halfway?

If the page is moved, it is not deleted. The trailing redirect is created by the page mover, it meets G7, and possibly R2 and R3. If a patroller moves the page, there is no use for a "Page created in error" criterion. Also note, pagemovers, including yourself, can suppress the creation of the trailing redirect. Your examples show you mistagging. You should use the most specific criterion (a rule I know elsewhere, is it a written Wikipedia rule?). You should be deleting your own creations with logged reference to G7.

but we have no other suitable criteria at the moment to cover these pages? Am I communicating poorly? Eg "Use G7"? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, User:Fawwaz_Rafif and User:Clovermoss did the pagemoves, not you. You should ask User:Clovermoss to tag these unwanted trailing redirects with G7, or request pagemover permission. The first, User:Fawwaz_Rafif, with 181 edits, should he be doing new page patrol? If yes, then as per Clovermoss. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think, by using G6 for quick cleanup, you are cleaning up behind others who don't know they are making the mess. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Having the page mover tag something with G7 is an invalid use of G7, per its own wording (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move). There is no R-cat for redirects moved in this manner, otherwise I obviously would have used it. Primefac (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. G7 does say that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and Primefac: I'm a bit of a loss about what we're talking about? Could we narrow it down to anything in here? I don't think I've ever nominated something for G6 unless you're counting these [1]. My best guess is that someone saw one of my R2s and that's what prompted this discussion? I've mostly been patrolling redirects in the new pages feed because I'm a relatively new page patroller. Is there any advice you have for me going forward or is this satisifactorily resolved? Clovermoss (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You moved the Yokoi page, and GeoffreyT2000 nominated it for deletion; I don't think anyone here did anything incorrectly, though next time you could probably tag the page with {{db-error}} yourself. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: I was a bit confused because I saw this [2] and it seemed to suggest I'm not the one who moved the page, as it shows two page moves started by Fawwaz Rafif. It doesn't mention me in any of the logged actions. But going through my recent page moves, I think I get what happened? [3] Yeah, I would tag typically tag something like that with {{db-error}}, I guess I just forgot in this case. Clovermoss (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Although, I guess not, looking at that template specifically. I don't think I've ever used it since that mentions G6. My bad. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I'm going to go to sleep now, it's been a long night. Clovermoss (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I am attempting to engage in the arcanery of CSD tags and logging, and how it might be better done. Please excuse the ping. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: It's okay. I've been doing CSD-related stuff in NPP school lately so it's kind of cool to see that a new criteria may or may not be established. I still don't quite get what you meant by "per Clovermoss" earlier, though? Was it something I did? Clovermoss (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. While these deletions could be handled through G7 (assuming the editor who created the page is around and understands what G7 is), I don't see any particular reason why we should insist on it, it would add petty bureaucracy, and people would likely continue to use G6 for these pages anyway. Furthermore "This could be handled through G7" is true for any speedy deletion criterion. Hut 8.5 17:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed R5: Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in error

There are two situations where speedy deletion relating to unambiguous errors is definitely uncontroversial:

1. Redirects created as a result of moving a page with an unambiguous error in page naming or namespacing, whether moved by the original author or not (and the page may have had multiple authors before the move)
2. Pages created with an unambiguous error in the page name or in the wrong namespace where the correctly titled/located page was created directly, by the same editor, rather than the first page being moved. The creator may or may not be the one marking the erroneous page for deletion.

These are both currently part of G6 but they don't have to be and they don't necessarily have to be part of the same criterion. If split, the first should be an R-series criterion, the second would need to be a G criterion and so would a new combined criterion. I'm unsure however whether the second is common enough to meet WP:NEWCSD point 3, especially as some instances will fall under G7 and/or U1 (if it's in somebody else's userspace just ignore it). Accordingly perhaps the first could be moved out of G6 to R5 as

Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in the wrong namespace and/or with an incorrect title a short time after creation. This criterion does not apply if the redirect:

• Is a plausible search term
• Has a non-trivial history
• Has been the subject of a discussion in which one or more editors did not support deletion or moving away from this title.
• Has incoming links intended for the redirect target

This criterion applies to redirects in all namespaces except:

• Redirects in the user: or user talk: namespaces (use criterion U1 for redirects in your own userspace)
• Redirects from the draft: namespace to any other namespace.

The "short time after creation" is intended to mirror language in R3 about recent creation, as it is quite common for these not be discovered until months or years later. The draftspace restriction is to prevent redirects to drafts accepted at a different title being deleted as errors but allowing draft:fooo → draft:foo redirects to be in scope. The userspace restriction is to prevent unnecessary deletions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. As one of the few people who patrols niche namespaces, the vast majority of the content delete-able under G6 tends to have the issue that it either is a near-duplicate of something that the user has created elsewhere (either their userpage or an article/draft), or that it would be eligible for CSD as an article. I don't see any benefit to redefining this to be much more narrow while ignoring how it actually gets used in practice (if there would be a benefit to moving the page to the correct namespace, that is almost always what is done). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not replacing all of G6, including basically none of what you mention, but separating one of the many aspects of G6 into a separate criterion. Redirects like this cover pretty much everything I personally delete under G6. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, of the 7600 deletions listed in #New taxonomy above, only 63 (<1%) were deleted as db-error (i.e. this new R5 proposal). Primefac (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Does this make any sense to make a part of R3? —Cryptic 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think putting something in the wrong namespace would count as implausible typos or misnomers after it was moved. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is not common enough to justify a new criterion, it could be added to an existing criterion. However, I feel that R2 might be a better choice because it already deals with inappropriate cross-namespace redirects, which would be the case when moving pages created in the wrong namespace to draft space—IMO a closer fit than "implausible typos" (R3). Perhaps amend R2 to include "redirects to the Draft: namespace from any namespace except the User: namespace" and "redirects to the User: namespace from any namespace except the Template: namespace where the target is a userbox, the Wikipedia: namespace when the target is an essay, and the Draft: namespace". Are there any other instances when cross-namespace redirects to user/draft namespace are appropriate? ^Complex/_Rational 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, we could just expand R2 a little. Criteria 1: invalid XNRs from main to elsewhere. Criteria 2: invalid or obviously incorrect XNRs from any other namespace (e.g. drafts created in the Template or WP spaces). Primefac (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The most common examples of incorrect namespaces I come across are pages being moved to Wikipedia: space when attempting to move them to article space (maybe most commonly originally from user:) and then being moved correctly to the article namespace. The second most common are pages being created in the article namespace because the editor typoed "Wikipedia" or "Template". However incorrect namespaces are a small proportion of the errors I see, which are most commonly typos within the same namespace, so this would be a very significant expansion of R2. As these are often discovered months or years after creation, R3 is inappropriate. 63 deletions in three months seems more than enough to justify a speed deletion criterion imo, and it would be much simpler than trying to shoehorn it in to an existing one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

As a good example of the thing this is intended to cover, see RAchel Costello and the history of Rachel Costello. This was created with a typo and moved to the correct title a minute later by a different editor. This happened in 2010 so R3 is not applicable. G7 does not apply since the creator and page mover are not the same (and they haven't edited since 2010 and 2015 respectively). Only the article namespace was involved so R2 is not relevant, leaving only G6. However it would be clearer for everyone involved if it were R5. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely we don't want the workflow to be Q1:"Is an implausible typo or misnomer?": A1:"Yes"→Q2:"Is it recently-created?": A2:"Yes"→{{db-r3}}; A2:"No"→{{db-r5}}. —Cryptic 22:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Well no, because that would defeat the point of the time limit in R3. The workflow here was Q1: "Is this an implausible typo or misnomer?": A1: "Yes", Q2: "was it recently created?": A2: "No". Q3: "Was it unambiguously created in error?": A3: "yes". Q4: "Are there relevant incoming internal links?": A4: "No". Q5: "Are there likely to be incoming links from elsewhere?": A5: "No, because it was moved a minute after creation many years ago". Q6: "Is there any other reason why it might be useful?": A6: "No." → G6 (R5). Q3 is particularly important, if it might or might not be an accidental creation then it's not G6 and wouldn't be R5 but could be R3. Typos are also only one type of error - others include moves from the wrong namespace, moves to the wrong namespace, moves of the wrong page, misclicks, misunderstandings, etc.

Nothing in this proposal adds to what can be speedily deleted, only under what criterion it is speedily deleted. The two final bullets reduce what can theoretically be speedily deleted slightly, but in practice they shouldn't be being deleted currently. Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I could get behind this. There's no point in sending things like the example you cited above to RfD, and bad typos of that sort actively make navigation more difficult because they add extraneous predictive text to searches. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We should either create R5 as proposed or clarify G6 to include the above. In particular, although I agree strongly that case 1. above (redirect left by certain moves) should allow speedy deletion, I'm not convinced that the current wording of G6 explicitly includes it. Certes (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Support Makes sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Formerly untitled/upcoming media

Before films, TV shows, video games, and books receive a title or get released, their articles/drafts are usually titled Untitled _____ film, Upcoming _____ film, _____ (upcoming film), etc. In most cases, a redirect is left behind at those titles once that project receives a title or is released, which is misleading, unhelpful, and useless to readers since the project in question is no longer untitled or upcoming. These redirects are often taken to RfD ([4], [5]), and virtually all of those discussions end with a "delete" outcome, demonstrating clear consensus. I propose that there be a new speedy deletion criterion for redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming" which point to works that are no longer untitled or upcoming. Exceptions should be made for redirects with a non-trivial page history, per WP:CSD § Other issues with redirects, as well as redirects with incoming links. Page views should not be a problem here, as many redirects that are speedily deleted have a fair number of page views. Please note that a similar but broader proposal was made two years ago, which received minimal response. I believe this new proposal addresses most of the sole objector's concerns. Pinging @Steel1943, who gave me this idea at a recent RfD discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

How frequent is this, really? There's currently 717 redirects in mainspace starting with 'Untitled ' or 'Upcoming ' or containing '(untitled' or '(upcoming', and 95 mainspace pages with such titles deleted so far this year. (Are there any major patterns I'm missing?) Extending the time cutoff for deleted redirects back to the start of 2020 only increases the count to 312, so if anything it's higher than typical this year. I'm a lot more comfortable with proposed new criteria that would average at least two or three deletions per day; the number of current criteria already makes for high cognitive load. —Cryptic 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cryptic: You'd be surprised: I've been dealing with these for almost a decade now, and I'd say on average, there's about 25-50 created a year that have this issue. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes - I just finished saying there's been 312 deleted in about the last 2⅔ years, so 117 a year. That doesn't seem like it's overburdening RFD, even if nominations there didn't default to delete and even if they couldn't be mass-nominated once or twice a year. Something on the order of 750-1000 such redirects per year very well could. —Cryptic 22:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to seem dismissive; I just want to be sure I'm not underestimating the problem. Even extending the pattern to "any title containing 'ntitled' or 'pcoming' anywhere" only increases the count by about 10%, and there's some glaring false positives in there like I am entitled to my opinion. —Cryptic 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Yeah, I read only a part of your comment, then got distracted with real life matters and didn't correct myself. And agreed, I may have been pinged above, but some of the recent situations I have found where it's not so cut and dry make me wonder, and am on the fence a bit, more for support but still not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that this is just your opinion, but "averages two or three deletions per day" is not a requirement for speedy deletion criteria. The point of speedy deletion is so we don't need to waste other editors' time with RfDs, and per the search results I linked there has already been at least a dozen of these this year alone. Seems like a big waste of time to me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Point three of the WP:NEWCSD requirements, included in the orange box at the top of this page, is "Frequent" which says in part If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead.. There is no objective definition of what is and isn't "frequent", but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Cryptic that this isn't. It isn't worth spending much time discussing this imo though as the proposal as written unambiguously fails point 2 (uncontestable) and I can't think of any way of writing an objective (point 1) criterion that doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I commented on one recent discussion, these do generally get deleted but it is important that they are not deleted too soon, so that while people still look for them that the untitled/upcoming title they are taken to the content (one of the main reason why we routinely keep redirects from moves). How long this is varies considerably from a few weeks to many months - I've never worked out a pattern; so it requires analysis of page views, incoming links, etc. that make them completely unsuitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only part of your concerns I didn't address, because I really don't see why someone would include "upcoming" or "untitled" in a search term if a work has been already released or gotten a title, even if it just happened the day before. Also remember, if one types in a non-existent page title into the search bar, it doesn't take you to the redlink, it takes you to the search results page. Shouldn't be a problem for readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see why someone would include "upcoming" or "untitled" in a search term if a work has been already released or gotten a title there are multiple reasons someone might do this, for example:

• They don't know it now has a release date and/or title
• They know it's got a date/title but don't know or don't remember what it is
• They know it has a date/title and what it is but they don't know that our article has been moved
• They know or guess that our article has been moved but don't know what title it's been moved to (the more common the title the more likely this is)
• They have followed a link that hasn't been updated yet, this might be from another website, a search engine or bookmark

Also remember, if one types in a non-existent page title into the search bar, it doesn't take you to the redlink, it takes you to the search results page. the internal search engine is only one of many ways people use to find Wikipedia content. Depending on the combination of which method you use, the device/browser you are using and whether you have permission to create a page at that title you will get either

• Search results
• A message inviting you to create a page and/or search (search results are 1-2 clicks away)
• The page creation editing interface (you have to explicitly type your search in the search box, or use your other preferred method of searching Wikipedia, there are many)

It is also far from guaranteed that search results will include the relevant page, particularly as the film will no longer be untitled and/or upcomming so those words will not be in the prose. Remember also that search engines not being updated is one reason that you might have arrived here in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, would you support this proposal if we added a "transition period" of 30 days before speedy deletion can occur? I think 30 days is reasonable enough. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No, because I've noted at least twice previously how long people continue to use a redirect varies from a couple of weeks to many months with no predictable pattern. The redirects need to be kept for at least as long as they get significant amount of use, and it's simply not possible to put a numerical value on that which will always be correct, regardless of what value you choose. "Significant" is (and can only be) a subjective criterion as well as it includes considerations beyond pure numbers, such as how the figures compare with the target, e.g. if it's only getting a few hits but those are a substantial proportion of the target's viewing figures and/or the pattern of views strongly correlates with the pattern of views for the target then it's clear that it's still a significant positive for the encyclopaedia, whereas a different redirect with the same number of views but which are a tiny fraction of the target's views and there is no correlation in viewing patterns is probably providing much less benefit. I still cannot think of a way to make a speedy deletion criterion for these redirects that meets both the objective and uncontestable requirements, and others remain unconvinced it meets the frequency requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Page views tends to be the most common objection on these RfD discussions, but in the end they still close as delete. The consensus is clear: it doesn't matter even if a redirect gets "significant" views, in the end it's misleading and should be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is explicitly only for matters that are not controversial - i.e. very nearly everybody agrees that everything that could be deleted by a criterion should be deleted. This is simply not the case for these redirects, for the reasons I've tried to explain to you multiple times already. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Video games, and WikiProject Books have been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced this is frequent enough, and sometimes these need retargetting, not deletion. Better to go through RfD. —Kusma (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose in case anyone is counting bolded votes. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

...And tagged another 105: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming". Turns out there are a lot of these (a lot more than even the 105), extending even from as early as 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Which could have been avoided if this were a speedy deletion criterion. And right now, there's also this discussion, this discussion, this, and this one, and this, and this, this, this, this, this, and this. Is that not "frequent" enough?? These discussions are just wasting everyone's time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Except they aren't, because not all of them should be deleted (now), let alone speedily. One I spot checked was used over 5000 times in the last 30 days. This still fails the uncontestable requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not convinced that this can be rapidly, objectively, decisively and correctly assessed, hence likely failing 1 and 2. Frequent? Unconvinced, fails 3. Criterion 4 is probably Ok. But the real reason I'm opposing this is the potential for administrators failing to understand the nuances of the criterion and misapplying it as if it was making WP:CRYSTAL into a CSD criterion. Hard pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• List of appropriately-named redirects. As Jclemens says, I suspect that if this passed, many of the redirects appearing early on it would end up deleted if somebody tagged them, despite pointing to works that were actually released untitled. —Cryptic 05:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  The proposed wording already makes it clear that only redirects that point to works no longer untitled or upcoming apply. Not works that remain untitled, or are intentionally untitled, or have "untitled" as part of the title, or to anything else. This should be clear to InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  In theory, you are right. In practice... Look, I've watched DRV for years, and seen what seems to be every possible misapplication of a CSD criteria. This is particularly dangerous because no non-admin can see anything definitively wrong, and so reporting of CSD abuses is quite scarce. I'd rather MfD kept the load. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note. user:InfiniteNexus has advertised this proposal on every current nomination at RfD (and possibly elsewhere). The notices are neutral so I have to assume good faith, but anyone evaluating consensus should be aware of this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, along the lines of The talk page of one or more directly related articles. In the interest of transparency, I have not linked this discussion to any other places other than the ones I've linked above and the WikiProjects I listed earlier. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and it looks like Steel1943 also dropped a link at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming" the other day, which is now closed (as snow delete, unsurprisingly). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  @InfiniteNexus: My mention on there was in direct response to an editor who stated they were considering proposing a CSD like this, so that was not a problem. However, Thryduulf has a point here with their concern: Repeated mentions of this discussion on multiple pages, and even in several sections on the same page, could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, so you may want to lay off doing that any more. If you really desire to advertise this discussion, consider doing it the "allowed" way: WP:RFC. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I genuinely believe the notifications I posted fall under WP:APPNOTE, but since there have been concerns from editors I'll hold off on more of those. I don't think an RfC is needed at this point, but I'm also open to that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: @InfiniteNexus: In retrospect, this discussion may have been better/clearer if it only included the "upcoming" titles and not have been bundled with the "untitled" titles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would address Thryduulf's "still has value after some time" concern. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support, although it may be better to call it "placeholder" redirects to exclude the genuine Untitled titles and include some other placeholder redirects such as "Next election" for elections that have already passed. Even the latest discussion is generating a lot of support for deletion. The only thing "saving" (and I'm using that word generously) some of these is pageviews. I would support this either way, but include a clause that they have to not have significant pageviews to delete and we'd get to where we're at 100% that are routinely deleted at RfD. That would save some significant time at RfD moving forward, which is a good thing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have an objective, uncontestable definition of "significant pageviews"? Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll defer to you because this is an effort to accommodate your objections. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming" offers a big hint on what you consider to be significant, and I would be okay with something in that neighborhood. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think I can sum up what I consider to be significant in simple, objective terms because it is a combination of the number of views over time, the pattern of those views (which influences the relevant time period), how long since it ceased to be untitled/upcoming and, when that is unclear, other factors such as how long since the page was moved and the pattern of views the target page gets. Even then the number of "weak" !votes and frequency of words like "probably" and "likely" in my comments should give you a clue that it's often a subjective judgement. Extremes like no views in 6 months or multiple hundreds in the last week are objectively no longer useful and still useful respectively, but the grey area in the middle is huge. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've stricken the pageview suggestion in favor of the 30-day grace period that has gathered momentum below. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this discussion is missing the point that these pages should ideally not be created in the first place (or should be created more sparingly). The simple fact is that if someone, whether by a bookmark, an external link etc, links to a page on Wikipedia, then any pagemove of that page will not update any links. Unless there is some drastic change in the technology of Wikipedia this isn't going to change. Taking the attitude that it's not our problem if external links are broken is (in my opinion) missing the entire point of wikipedia, as of course nothing is anyone's problem in a voluntary project, so why should we fix factual errors or misspellings, etc? I think there needs to be an effort to choose titles which will either be more permanent (Untitled fourth Matrix film for example is at least completely unambiguous) , or have some other logical place they can be redirected to while not needed (eg Next Australian federal election could target List of Australian federal elections or Elections in Australia or ideally a section of an article explaining the procedure for determining when the next election will be). A7V2 (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's certainly not uncommon to retarget Next... redirects to more permanent targets wherever possible, and something I recommend when they come to RfD if I can find an appropriate target. It's not always possible though, especially with elections that don't happen on a predictable schedule (e.g. party leadership elections).

  I agree that "upcoming" and "untitled" pages should be better titled where possible, indeed I'd argue that consideration should be made of not creating a stand-alone article until the work has a title, but this isn't really a speedy deletion issue. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Please do this, it would be deeply helpful for many many franchise films which often start of in draftspace or mainspace as "Upcoming/untitled Foo film" before being named and released which means the space needs reusing quite often.★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Hours of effort are often wasted at RfD going over the same arguments. I don't have sympathy for the view that deleting these redirects will break external links: users following those links will get there in the end via Wikipedia Search. 30 days after release sounds about right to me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support with a 30-day grace period. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support we should not be keeping upcoming redirects to no longer upcoming events/media. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• People's opinions as to whether these should be deleted are irrelevant here. What matters is whether there is in fact consensus to delete them. as the actual wording of "uncontestable" says. Thus, if Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming" is closed as delete, then a speedy deletion criterion should be enacted, and if not it shouldn't be. This discussion is turning in large part into a rehash of that one. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whether that discussion closes as delete or not, that the deletion was contested by a significant proportion of commenters means that this cannot meet the incontestable requirement for a new speedy deletion criterion, even if we assume that it meets the frequency requirement (which has met significant opposition here). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Huh? What uncontestable actually says is It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. Not that said discussions have to be uncontroversial, only that they have to come to a consensus to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Only when the discussions always reach a very clear uncontroversial consensus is it possible to be certain that the consensus will always be to delete because speedy deletion is only for the most obvious cases where deletion will always be uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  And now that discussion has been closed by BD2412:

The result of the discussion was delete. It is clear at this point that there is a consensus to delete "upcoming" redirects where there is no project by that name that is upcoming. Relisting has only solidified this consensus, and there is no reasonable prospect that further discussion will yield a different outcome.

That sums up the community's opinion of these redirects. I rest my case. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I've challenged that closure on BD2412's talk page as I can only see a consensus to delete if all that has been done is count noses. Per other comments here from myself and others, even if the closure stands it does not make this a viable speedy deletion criterion.

Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support with some grace period. The untitled redirect is valid until the proper title is announced, but doesn't become immediately irrelevant. It's something that loses meaning with time. Jontesta (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and discussion. If done correctly, it should easy pass all four CSD criteria, especially by establishing a solid timeframe (30 days is fine, or that can be discussed further). TNstingray (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I'd say if there needs to be a 30-day threshold sounds reasonable. For "upcoming", I think the threshold should be for after the initial "non-festival exclusive" commercial release of the subject in any region, unless there end up being no commercial release of the subject. In other words, the 30-day threshold starts immediate after any commercial release in any region ... unless it never happens, then it's 30 days after any release. For "untitled", maybe the 30-day threshold may apply 30 days after the subject is moved from the "untitled" title. Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your suggested criteria is complicated enough that it would take a discussion to figure out if the redirect meets it, and at that point, might as well do RfD Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it's just an idea of what the proposed "30-day threshold" should represent since no editor had attempted to define it yet. Otherwise, yeah, it's unclear what it was supposed to mean or represent. But, by all means, if you have a better idea of how to define a "30-day threshold" for this, by all means feel free to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  We can determine the exact definition of a "30-day grace period" after the proposal passes, if ever. Right now, I believe there's general agreement for "30 days after a work releases" or "30 days after a work gets an actual title". We can wait to discuss anything more specific than that, i.e. what counts as a work being released, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Once it is no longer upcoming/untitled, there is no purpose to retaining old redirects. A short grace period is acceptable. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I certainly understand the arguments for deleting these redirects, but I haven't actually seen a concrete proposal that would be suitable as a speedy deletion criteria. A one-size-fits-all approach will unfortunately rarely work here. Some works get tons of hype during that upcoming phase, while the announcement of the actual title is not heavily promoted, for example. Some works remain upcoming for a very long time (more than a decade sometimes) without a title. Some works are rarely known by their actual title. All of these things require discussion to determine if a deletion is appropriate, and that's what RfD is for. While this is somewhat common, it's not common enough to cause RfD to fail to function, so overall, it's best not to create this criteria. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Some works get tons of hype during that upcoming phase, while the announcement of the actual title is not heavily promoted, for example. Some works remain upcoming for a very long time (more than a decade sometimes) without a title. Some works are rarely known by their actual title. – I don't understand what you mean by this. Nobody uses "Untitled _____" or "Upcoming _____" other than Wikipedia articles for formality purposes, they would use colloquial names such as "Joker 2" over "Untitled Joker sequel".

  While this is somewhat common, it's not common enough to cause RfD to fail to function – it's not causing RfD to "fail to function", but each of those almost-monthly discussions waste hours and hours of time while editors repeat the same old arguments before the redirects are unceremoniously deleted. This is exactly what is happening with all of the most recent discussions I linked above. Those hours pile into days, weeks, and months of wasted time and effort over something there is already consensus for.

  InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  If days, weeks, and months of time are wasted on these, then the only explanation is that these redirects are contestable and thus a terrible fit for a speedy deletion criterion. Redirects nominated for deletion at RFD default to delete; the only person that needs spend any time at all for a truly uncontestable deletion of a redirect is the person nominating it. —Cryptic 17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  As you're aware, redirects nominated to RfD don't get deleted immediately, there's a waiting period. This waiting period is what's time-wasting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's not what "speedy" in "Criteria for speedy deletion" means. —Cryptic 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean by that. Nominating these redirects to RfD is a waste of time. Speedy deletion bypasses this process. Consensus is so clear at this point that no discussion is needed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. As to Steel1943's good point about definitions, I would suggest something like Time-basedGeneric placeholder redirects that are no longer accurate ("Upcoming ____ season", "Untitled ____ movie", etc.) to articles about films, TV shows, or other media, where the work was commercially released more than 30 days ago.<ref>If there is any dispute as to the work's release status, or if the work's commercial release has been cancelled, the redirect should be taken to [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] instead. Note that this criterion does not cover {{em|non}}-placeholder redirects like {{-r|Untitled goose game}}.</ref> My reasoning is, if the release is cancelled, there may be nuances requiring further review, or at least figuring out what the right waiting period is in a given case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC) ed. 19:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  How does "Untitled Joker sequel" (which is held up above as obviously deletable) fit this wording any better than "Joker 2"? The latter seems more "time-based" to me, even after following this discussion; it certainly will to admins clearing out CAT:CSD and looking at each tagged page for a minute or less, let alone those that clear out the category with Twinkle. —Cryptic 17:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  The proposed criterion should only apply to redirects with the word "untitled" or "upcoming". Joker 2 will always be accurate and should not be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Then this wording, and every other wording so much as implied above, is unsuitable. —Cryptic 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: Does the above change address your concern? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's hard to come up with a more generic placeholder name for an unreleased movie sequel than "<moviename> 2".

  Virtually all of the discussion and examples above include either "upcoming" or "untitled" somewhere in the redirect name. Why not make that an explicit requirement of the proposed criterion? Are there any other remotely common generic placeholders that make it worth contorting the wording to include? —Cryptic 20:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's best practice to make a CSD tied to specific words like that. Ideally a CSD should refer to a distinct concep. I don't see Joker 2 as a "generic placeholder redirect that [is] no longer accurate", and don't foresee other admins seeing it that way, but if there really is that much concern about that one edge case: {{xt|''Upcoming ____ season''}}, {{xt|''Untitled ____ movie''}}, etc.; but {{em|not}} speculative, hypothetical, or [[working title|working]] titles like {{!xt|''Movie 2''}} -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Unless we're looking to expand the scope of the proposed CSD beyond media (films, TV shows, books, video games, etc.), I don't believe any other "placeholder" names exist aside from Upcoming _____, _____ (upcoming _____), and Untitled _____. _____ 2 is not a placeholder, it's a legitimate alternate name still used colloquially even after that work has an actual title. The original proposed wording at the top of this discussion specifically restricts speedy deletion to these two words. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Now oppose given the above discussion has made me unconvinced that the proposal is sufficiently objective. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Salted with another title

Do we have a Speedy criterion that applies to "subject is salted with another title"? E.g. Rashid Ali Ghazipuri - Rashid Ali was just created, but the strange title is because Rashid Ali Ghazipuri is salted (and there is Draft:Rashid Ali Ghazipuri as well, so draftifying isn't really an option). This happens quite regularly, but it's not clear what the current approach is. Perhaps a new speedy criterion? Fram (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The current approach is to speedy it under the same criteria it would be deleteable for at the original title (the same as a purported G4 for a page that's only ever been speedy-deleted). The strange title is itself a tell that we may need to consider other tools than salting, typically the title blacklist. This doesn't seem to be quite at that point yet, though. —Cryptic 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just delete it under G4 (if it was via an XfD discussion) or the same criterion it was previously speedied under. Expanding the blacklist to include partial title matches of salted articles would impact way too many legitimate articles on notable topics. Glades12 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) G4 explicitly applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. (emphasis mine). If it isn't sufficiently identical that G4 applies, and it isn't speedily deletable under any other criterion on its own merits, then it should not be speedily deleted and should go via Prod or XfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The original page - at least in this case - was never deleted at AFD, only speedied as an A7. —Cryptic 17:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In which case the title is basically irrelevant and G4 completely is. If it isn't speedily deletable on its own merits its not speedily deletable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Is G14 case sensitive?

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Ian Dingman (Disambiguation) and previously at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects where respective disambiguation pages do not exist there have assertions that G14 both is and is not case sensitive. - i.e. is a page entitled Foo (Disambiguation) that would be unambiguously speedily deletable if named Foo (disambiguation) also speedy deletable. There is no disagreement that these pages should be deleted, only whether they can be speedily deleted.

If the answer is that G14 currently is case sensitive, the question arises whether it should be? If it is but shouldn't be, how should the criterion be reworded?

For the avoidance of doubt this would have no impact on pages with "(Disambiguation)" in the title that redirect to targets that are disambiguation pages (which is an entirely separate matter of contention currently).

Pinging the participants of the two linked discussions: @Tavix, Steel1943, Hqb, Certes, Sonic678, Icabobin, BD2412, CX Zoom, Crouch, Swale, Jay, and Shhhnotsoloud: Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view about whether the criterion currently is case sensitive (although I weakly suspect that it would be explicitly specified as case sensitive if it was meant to be) but do strongly think it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely, if correctly capitalized redirects can be deleted that don't target DAB pages then incorrectly capitalized ones should. I don't see how you could argue that it doesn't qualify because it has an incorrect title which seems not just splitting hairs but ridiculous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• "(disambiguation)" (lower case d) is a special qualifier, akin to a reserved word, which identifies a dab or a redirect to one. Variants such as "(Disambiguation)" and "(disammisspelt)" are not special – but in my opinion, which is not universally shared, should be shot on sight. Certes (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  To answer the actual question: I think G14 as currently worded is case sensitive but it clearly shouldn't be. As Crouch, Swale points out, if a page with a correct title qualifies for speedy deletion then a similar page with an error in its title surely must too. I'd argue that also applies to misspellings, but perhaps that's out of scope here. Certes (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• All capitalisation and spelling variants including "Foo disambiguation", "Foo Disambiguation" and "Foo (disambig)" should be deleted as G14 if the standard version is deleted as G14. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  There isn't always a "standard" version. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Replace "is deleted" by "would be deletable". —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think the answer to this question lies in the pending closure of WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. If it is deemed that "(Disambiguation)" should never exist as a redirect to "(disambiguation)", then G14 is not applicable. The redirect must be assessed independently on the basis of other criteria. In the other case, where "(Disambiguation)" is the logical equivalent of "(disambiguation)", then G14 should be applicable. I had supported the latter view in that RfD, and thus believe that "(Disambiguation)" falls within the scope of G14. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  That discussion is, as noted above, completely irrelevant. That discussion is about redirects to disambiguation pages, this one is about redirects to pages that are not disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I'm sorry, I should go to sleep and come back here later. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I support G14 for any sort of attempt at disambiguation in the redirect if the target is not a disambiguation page. I would say the only issue that I could see possibly occurring is an edge case. The edge case is a page at "Foo (bar)" being moved to "Foo" and "Foo" being moved to "Foo (disambiguation)" as "Foo (bar)" is primary topic. In this situation if there were "Foo (Disambiguation)" targeting "Foo" it would not be properly retargeted as "Foo" won't be a retarget to "Foo (disambiguation)", but I don't think that's common enough for this to not be a G14 standard.

TartarTorte 17:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• My understanding is that G14 is case sensitive, but in my opinion it should not be. A good improvement would be to add "or (Disambiguation)". Other misspellings can be dealt with by G6 (unambiguously created in error). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can we agree that misspellings fall under G6? Most but not all editors at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Badami (disambiguiation) [sic] thought so. Certes (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Misspellings sometimes fall under G6 but not always. If the page was unambiguously created in error (or is a redirect created by moving a page created in error) then it will be a G6 but if it is possible the misspelling was deliberate (regardless of why) then it isn't a G6. A recently created misspelling might be an R3 but again not always. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I support deletion if the redirect is misleading-that is, in this case, if the target isn't a disambiguation page, like I've !voted in two previous discussions. I also second Shhhnotsoloud's point about misspellings being dealt with-I'm not sure they are plausible redirects. However, I don't think G14 should be case sensitive, and people would still be helped if the disambiguator was "Disambiguation" rather than "disambiguation," which might result from things like holding the ⇧ Shift key for too long, like I've argued in various prior discussions. While I wouldn't really encourage people intentionally creating capitalized disambiguators, I don't think it'll be likely to open a WP:Pandora's box of similar redirects-there may be some chance of that, but that's pretty small. But if they were left over from page moves or the like, I'd say to keep those, as they're not really in the way of anything, and I'm not sure I'd shoot them on sight. Unless, of course, the target isn't a disambiguation page or whatever is stated in the redirect-that's the case when they need to go or be retargeted. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support having WP:G14 rewritten to accommodate capitalization and spelling errors in the disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

G14 proposal

Based on the above discussion I propose to add the following note at the end of the G14 criterion:

The requirements of this criterion are case insensitive.

Spelling errors and the like are best handled with a different criterion, G6 currently but hopefully also R5 in the future (see #Proposed R5: Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in error). I'm not sure intentional misspellings are frequent enough to need speedy deletion, but if they are it will need to be carefully worded so as not to overreach. As this seems uncontroversial I don't think a formal consensus is needed and I will add it in a few days if there is no opposition Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I don't think this is even controversial and I'd also include other WP:RDAB errors like missing brackets etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  One missing parentheses is always going to be an error and thus already covered under G6, no parentheses there may be false positives so I'm not keen on including that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Upper case D here is a typo, and it seems ridiculous to delete speedily the correctly capitalised version but not the incorrectly capitalised one. Certes (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose adding extra wordiness, all of these pages are already obviously speedily deletable. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  It seems obvious that they should be deletable, but it's not obvious to everyone that they are deletable: see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24. Certes (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_24#"Title_(Disambiguation)"_redirects_where_respective_disambiguation_pages_do_not_exist looks pretty unanimous to me. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Kusma see also the discussion immediately above where there is no consensus on whether the current wording is case sensitive or not. It not being obvious is the entire reason this proposal is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is always better to apply all our rules with some common sense than to make them lawyer-proof. On speedy patrol, I would certainly have deleted " (Disambiguation)" versions under the same G14 rules as " (disambiguation)" ones. But if you want to change the wording, at least fix it properly by including all spelling variants. It makes no sense to have " (DISAMBIGUATION)" fall under G14 and send " (DISAMBIG)" to RFD. I would support something like

  • A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" or a similar indication for a disambiguation page but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function.

  —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded, but I know others disagree. Certes (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  "a similar indication for a disambiguation page" is not objective enough for a speedy criterion. I agree "(disambig)" redirecting a non-dab page should be covered but it doesn't seem to be common - I've searched the archives and while there were quite a few relevant discussions in 2007, I've found exactly one discussion in the 15 years since (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25#Yakovlev (disambig)). There are currently about 14 pages in the article namespace with "(disambig)" in the title, all of them redirect to disambiguation pages ("Disambig" redirects to Word-sense disambiguation) and precedent on that type of redirect is mixed (most discussions seem to have ended in keep or no consensus but the redirects have been deleted at some point in the intervening years, I've not looked into why). Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think my proposal is more objective than A7, G11, or R3, and having the rule slightly wider is unlikely to delete any page that is truly needed. —Kusma (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it is objective enough (and I disagree) there is still no evidence of need. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Should A11 be expanded to drafts?

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.

---

Often, there are many draft articles on made-up topics or that are bad fiction that don't stand a WP:SNOW chance of becoming an article. Should A11 be expanded to cover these drafts? Two recent examples are Draft:Lysikratum and Draft:Jeremiah_butlers_universal_reset_theory. 2601:647:5800:4D2:6516:28DA:636:8A8A (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there some reason these can't just be left for G13? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s the purpose of draftspace to host stuff without administrative overheads. However, BLPPROD should be expanded to draftspace and all namespaces. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been suggested multiple times previously, and nobody has yet explained how it is compatible with the ethos of draftspace and not redundant to G13. If a particular draft is so problematic it needs to be deleted sooner than 6 months and doesn't meet one of the G speedy deletion criteria then it can be taken to MfD. There is currently only 1 live MfD of a draftspace page and the concerns with that are unrelated to A11, so I looked through all the MfDs of draft space pages since July and found 3 that clearly or arguably would fall under this criterion:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Katherine Rundell Parents is only arguably relevant, it was deleted as an unsourced BLP
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joey and the Pencilcartoons was moved to subpage of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia; it was not obvious enough for speedy deletion but would have been G3 if it was.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bohemian Rhapsody World Tour (Tribute Tour) was kept

Four discussions in just over 3 months is nowhere remotely close to frequent enough, that not all of them resulted in delete shows it also fails the uncontestable requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is compatible with the ethos of draftspace because drafts that meet A11 will almost certainly never become proper articles and are instead likely to be declined or even rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." Draftspace is not a storehouse for a bunch of pages that will never become proper articles, but a place for future articles to be developed. This criterion is not redundant to G13 because drafts that have not a WP:SNOW's chance of becoming articles should be able to be deleted sooner than 6 months. Probably not immediately, but sooner than 6 months. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1C06:7B6A:933D:A228 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Almost certainly deleted" is not good enough for speedy deletion, it needs to be "always deleted, baring very occasional exceptions" and the evidence above shows that only a third of those discussed were deleted. In other MfD discussions about drafts there was a very strong sentiment that drafts, no matter how badly written or how likely they were to be accepted, should only be nominated if there was an actual problem (most commonly this was BLP issues or tendentious resubmission). You need to explain why they should be deleted sooner than 6 months - i.e. what problem is this solving? Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have abusively deleted the "reset theory" incoherent essay thing. Feel free to undelete it you believe that helps to improve Wikipedia, but please make sure it can't be used to attack the individual named in the title. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that if this was done then it would be widely abused to delete poor quality drafts which somebody doesn't like the look of. Standards like "don't stand a WP:SNOW chance of becoming an article" aren't objective enough for a CSD criterion. Hut 8.5 12:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

To reduce abuse, we should restrict the criterion to cases where A11 already applies. A11 is already a pretty strong and clear criterion, which should make the use of this criterion objective. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1C06:7B6A:933D:A228 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No. The main purpose of draftspace is to let editors work on an article at their own pace without having to establish notability immediately. Deleting a draft just because its topic doesn't look important goes against this fundamental purpose and will dishearten and/or anger newcomers. Enwiki's practices are already very intimidating to outsiders, so the last thing we should do is scare off new editors even more. Glades12 (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This criterion is intended to be stricter than what I just mentioned above. It would be about drafts on topics made up one day, or pages that use Wikipedia as a webhost. As for biting the newcomers, that could be solved by creating a very gentle deletion notice that at the same time points new users to relevant guidelines such as WP:NOT. 2601:647:5800:4D2:1C06:7B6A:933D:A228 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know you want to expand A11 to include drafts. You don't need to repeat the section title. The problem is that such an expansion would defeat the purpose of drafts by making the standards for them excessively strict, something a nicely worded message is frankly not enough to solve. Glades12 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Much of the most blatant, most problematic made-up stuff can already be speedy deleted under G3. The "no credible claim of significance" part is the issue with an expansion of A11: won't work in draftspace because it would block a lot of potentially valid articles in their early stages of development, and it could very easily result in A7 covering drafts as well, which would then defeat the purpose of draftspace. If they're not in mainspace and not problematic enough to fall under a G criterion, there's generally not much harm in letting them sit around. ^Complex/_Rational 02:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• No as said previously with thes likes of A7 G13 takes care of these and MFD can deal with those being edited to avoid G13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Could a draft be deleted as a test page?

I want to WP:SALT the page Draft:N as repeatedly recreated. What's the best way of getting rid of the rubbish presently sitting there? Might it be a G2? If it were in mainspace, I'm sure that WP:CSD#A1 would apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'd personally G3 and to heck with the bureaucracy — that content won't be missed — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleted, salted. I know it when I see it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)