Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria

WP:NEWCSD

Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

this header: view • edit

Updated G13

Per the discussion at WT:AFC, G13 now applies to redirects to created pages in AfC space provided all incoming links are fixed. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not objecting to the change, but this should really be discussed (or at least mentioned) here. Hut 8.5 20:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This closure was, in my opinion, rather premature given both the scale of the proposal and the fact that the discussion had been open for barely 24 hours. Clear consensus, not least that which requires the re-wording of a speedy deletion criterion, is nearly impossible to gauge in such a short period of time.

On a side note, at some point in the near future Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as rejected AfC submissions will need to be renamed to reflect the widening of G13's scope. It may be better to put off a WP:CfD discussion until after the formal description of the new criterion has been fixed. Super Mario Man 00:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The discussion was not well advertised. It was too short. On first glance, I think I would be likely to oppose as of no benefit to anyone and of some harm to the original authors (they remember editing there, but now it is gone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, a new discussion is below. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of G13

The exact wording and the links in WP:G13 have been changed twice recently. The most recent change has links that are misleading. Specifically, CAT:PEND does not include rejected and non-submitted drafts. To the contrary, it includes those that are actively awaiting review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1&target=Template%3AAFC+submission&namespace=

was used as the link up until recently but it is a "super-set" of the pages we are interested in. In particular, it includes project pages that should not be deleted. There is no single "catch-all" place to look for such pages at the moment.

Perhaps de-linking the phrase "Articles of creation pages" and adding the following as a new line would help:

Possible declined submissions and unsubmitted drafts.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We really need a bot to create a list and update it at least weekly until the backlog is down, then run it at least daily. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opened new proposal below. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AfC related discussion

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Apparently my closing of the previous discussion was too "premature". So, once again we are back. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please support only one proposal (no opposes, please), and if you are opposed to all three please leave a comment in the discussion section explaining why. Thank you.

Proposal 1

G13 will be updated to delete redirects provided incoming links are fixed and the redirect hasn't been edited in six months.

Support - My intention in the first place. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed my mind, and I actually support proposal 3 (which I did back at WT:AFC, no idea why I switched to this one). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

G13 is left as is and a new criteria is created to delete redirects provided incoming links are fixed and the redirect hasn't been edited in six months.

Proposal 3

Redirects are left as is and not deleted, no CSD policy changes.

Support. WP:CSD#G13 is concerned with abandoned, statistically hopeless draft material. Successful AfC submissions, and the default redirect they leave behind, are out-of-scope of G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SmokeyJoe. Redirects are the result of successful AfC submission and are thus completely irrelevant to abandoned drafts and any problems they may or may not cause. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my oppose to proposal 1. Dpmuk (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support no particular reason to delete these redirects, and they are potentially useful. Hut 8.5 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -necessary in article histories Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For article creation stat tracking purposes. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above. I see no reason why this is even an issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave them be Why worry about trying to housekeep these redirects? We've already got enough housekeeping to do at AfC! The redirects have function and are not harmful. This must be the third or fourth time we've had this discussion in the past 2 years. Let's stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Pol430 talk to me 20:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The following opposes were in proposal 1 and moved here because they were actually supports for this proposal.

Oppose. Redirects to continuing, proper articles that began in AfC are fine to be left as they are. There has never been a problem with AfC successes, as this proposal assumes. It's nice that it assumes that all internal incoming links will be fixed (a good idea), but you have no control over external incoming links, such as from the authors bookmarks. It is reasonable to assume that many writers of good AfC drafts work with drafting notes offsite, and deleting the redirect could hinder them, and deleting redirects has no suggested advantage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Redirects to deleted AfC submissions are eligible for G8 deletion already, and redirects to successful AfC submissions are not abandoned and are thus out of scope for G13. I also endorse everything SmokeyJoe says. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No advantage to deletion - they're not doing any harm and redirects are cheap. Some possible advantage by keeping in that editors may have links to the page, talk page messages may reference it etc. Dpmuk (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these redirects do have some potential value, in that a new editor who goes to check what happens to their submission will get sent to the created article. Nobody in the previous discussion articulated any particular reason for deleting them. Hut 8.5 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -necessary in article histories Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These were moved from proposal 2.

Oppose. There is no problem with redirect records of successful AfC drafts serious enough to justify a new CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SmokeyJoe. What problem is this intended to solve? What benefits will it bring to Wikipedia? How will they outweigh the harm from broken external links? Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per my oppose to proposal 1. Dpmuk (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per oppose to proposal 1. Hut 8.5 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -necessary in article histories Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End moved opposes.

Support If it's not broken, don't fix it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ramaksoud2000 - redirects are cheap and these ones can do no harm. Unlike the stale drafts currently subject to G13, redirects cannot contain copyvios, blpvios or other harmful content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Why in the world would we need this new proposal, by RFC, re-visiting the underlying issues again, when we have consensus and all we are here about is the wording to implement it? I see no one objecting to addition of redirects to G13, per the discussion you closed at WT:AFC. So let's discuss the wording, not recreate the wheel and use community resources on a settled issue that just needs its window dressing selected and hung.

This was the wording prior to your revision:

Header: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions.

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

After closing the AFC discussion, with consensus to add redirects, you changed it to:

Header: Approved Articles for creation housekeeping.

Criterion: This currently includes:

Rejected submissions that have not been edited in six months.

Unsubmitted drafts that have not been edited in six months.

Redirects to created articles assuming six months have passed since creation and all incoming links have been fixed.

I did not like the broken up way you added redirects to it, which was out of keeping with the way we format and word all the other criterion, thought the preface of "This currently includes" was unneeded and indicated the criterion was in flux and and also did not like your changed header (I don't understand what the word "approved" refers to in this context, though I might not object to some form of "housekeeping"). I accordingly re-worded both the header and criterion. I essentially used the prior version (two above), as written, but tweaked both to add redirects, as follows:

Header: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions and AFC redirects to mainspace articles.

Criterion: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation (AFC) pages that have not been edited in over six months, and redirects from AFC titles to mainspace articles created more than six months ago provided all incoming links have been fixed.

You then did I copyedit, with changes I mostly find to be fine, though I think the former header is better. David then reverted for discussion of the language, and you reverted that (I'm not sure why), which brings us full circle to here. Davidwr makes some points above about links to include. Combining all of these edits and suggestions together, I propose the following, which we should discuss and modify, with no need I can see for the above RFC:

Header: Abandoned Articles for creation submissions and AFC redirects to mainspace articles.

Criterion: Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation (AfC) drafts that have not been edited in over six months or redirects from pages in AfC space to mainspace articles, provided all incoming links have been fixed and the redirect has not been edited for six months. Links to possible candidates meeting this criterion may be found here: declined submissions and unsubmitted drafts.

Finally, I don't think we want to get bogged down in a new discussion of additions to the criterion, but just note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion#G13 undeletions that might form the germ for some future modification.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC above was created after the #Updated G13 section was met with several angry people who wanted to see an "official" RfC. So, I opened one. At this point, I'm annoyed that people are putting a Support or Oppose in a certain proposal, with the rational being one that was essentially one of the other proposals. I have to clean it all up now. :( --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of G4 criterion

WP:CSD#G4 deletions (deletions of recreated pages) are quite often appealed at DRV. Some DRV participants think G4 is appropriate if a page has not been significantly improved from the deleted version or if the reasons for deletion at the XFD still persist in some substantial way. Others take a highly literal reading of the G4 criterion (because CSD criteria are to be observed strictly) and argue that if the two pages are “not substantially identical” then deletion is not allowed a priori. This difference of approach can result in a discussion not focusing on the real issue. It seems to me that consensus at a long series of DRVs has been to adopt the less literal reading. Even so, many discussions have resulted in “overturn”. Because I am in the “literal reading” camp and would like to become more consensual I am suggesting a change to the wording of G4. I am only going to suggest one clause is changed.

In the second sentence of G4

“This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version”

should be changed to

“This excludes pages that have been significantly improved from the deleted version”

The main G4 reason in the first sentence (“A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy …”) would be completely unchanged. I believe this rewording better reflects not only administrative deletion practice but also consensus opinion at DRV. Thincat (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems closer to current practice. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this makes sense. Suppose an article is deleted at AfD for notability reasons, and is subsequently recreated with exactly the same sources and no new claims to notability, but with completely different text. Although it is not substantially identical to the the deleted version it ought to qualify for G4. Hut 8.5 22:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no way of judging "significantly improved" without a discussion--it can mean whatever one wants it to mean, and . except for the most obvious cases, that sort of judgment requires consensus. That discussion is best held where it now is held, at AfD or DRV, not judged by a single administrator. In general, the ones taken to DRV are the ones that are disputable. Disputable deletions do not belong at speedy. At present, about 1/3 of such DRV applications result in the speedy being overturned, and, generally the article being relisted--or even simply accepted. We should encourage the improvement and review of unsatisfactory articles. There is already an enormous bias from the invisibility of the previous version to all but admins--probably a good many more G4s should be appealed. the proper standard for G4--analogous to all other speedies-- is that no reasonable person would think the article needs another chance at consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DGG - "significantly improved" is a criterion that cannot be judged quickly by one person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If a page HAS been "significantly improved", then it isn't substantially identical to the previous version. G4 is for things that are as close to the previous version as damn it is to swearing. If there are significant changes, be it for the better or for the worse, the article needs to be reviewed for what it is, not for what it was. I don't call it significant change if just a couple more links to YouTube or Facebook have been added... Peridon (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peridon and that "significantly improved" is a subjective term that requires discussion. Pol430 talk to me 09:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppse that introduces vagueness that begs for discussion. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 12:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still going to be an angels dancing on the head of a pin question: To me, "substantially identical" means "none of the changes address the issues raised at the deletion discussion", and I will stand by that definition. Someone that wants to discuss the same article over and over again at AFD as each new author produces a new variation on a bad article will argue that the definition of "substantially identical" should focus on whether or not the sequence of words is largely the same. "Significantly improved" is going to have the same split of opinion along largely the same lines.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there is any reasonable doubt about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then, by definition, it does not. For this reason we need to make the criteria as objective as possible, and per DGG the proposed wording here reduces the objectivity. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A "page[s] that have been significantly improved" {proposed text}, by definition is not a "identical and unimproved copy" {current text}, so G4 already should not apply to significantly improved pages. Removing the (more or less objective) criterion of excluding "pages that are not substantially identical" {current text} by a explicit need for beeing "significantly improved" {proposed text} may lead to *more* G4 deletions (as in: oh! It is not identical, but it was not an significant improvement, so it is deleteable) which I doubt is the intent here. - Nabla (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rigorous interpretation of "substantially identical" also excludes "substantially" worse recreations. (I don't remember any G4s of terrible recreations being overturned.) Hiroyuki Tsuchida was obviously not improved, the sourcing was worse (Anime News Network versus Murderpedia and Anime Source), and the new claim about a "moral panic" against otaku was unsupported. At WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 21, several editors insisted on sending it to AfD. It was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Hiroyuki Tsuchida (2nd nomination) after no one argued to keep it. Of those recommending overturn and/or relist, only User:Hobit participated. Recreator User:Kotjap persistently misused sources. He claimed to be Japanese, but he asked other editors to find Japanese-language sources. Kotjap was ultimately blocked a month later as a sock of User:Timothyhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absolutely not the job of speedy deletion to evaluate a source because no one admin can be expected to know whether a given source is reliable or not, so if different sources are used then it is not a G4. If there is a claim in the article that was not in the version discussed at XfD (whether sourced or not) then it is not eligible for speedy deletion because that claim needs to be evaluated at a competent venue - i.e. XfD. The case you link to is an example of DRV working exactly as it should do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As someone with the "speedy deletion is narrow" view, I can't support this. That said, if we see persistent recreation of the same article, speedy or salting might be the best option. Basically one person shouldn't be making the call if there is any degree of merit to the new article unless someone is clearly abusing process. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If a page has been significantly improved, then it's not identical to the previous version ? ....... -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from OP. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. I was relieved when the first !votes were supportive but as time went by I began to be rather pleased in many ways that so many people were opposed to the change. The existing wording is OK by me also except I feel it does not describe too well what has been happening when G4 speedies arrive at DRV or, to a lesser extent, how DRV responds to them. For unappealed G4 speedies I simply don't know. Just a thought – perhaps of all policies CSD should be read as being normative rather than descriptive. Thincat (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U1 repeal proposal

I see that there is a criteria U1 "Personal user pages or subpages on request of the user". However, there is already a criteria G7 that states "Author requests deletion". In theory, general criteria apply to all pages, including userspace. If that is true, then U1 is easily made redundant by G7. Therefore, I propose that criteria U1 be repealed on the grounds that criteria G7 made it redundant. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G7 is limited to pages for which "the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author". U1 is not. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Users are allowed to request the deletion of pages in their userspace even if they didn't write them or if other people have contributed to them. G7 doesn't allow this. Hut 8.5 20:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but U1 still seems redundant. If it is possible, can we merge U1 with G7? (If it's not, it's not.) Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like, say, change G7 to say "All pages that are not userspace are not eligible if others have done major contributions"? Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User space is different; the user has unique rights to that content, and having specific userspace criteria helps to explicitly specify and limit that distinction. I can think of no way in which conflating U1 and G7 is in any way helpful, and it has a distinctly deleterious effect. Let's leave well enough alone. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they're merged, I reckon it'll increase confusion. It is possible for a user page to fit both U1 and G7, but what's wrong with that? Something in article space could fit A7 and G11, and G12 as well. You can't merge all of them into one. It ain't broke, so why bother trying to fix it. Peridon (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, U1 is simpler for the reviewing admin, who need only check that the request is made by the owning account, and need not go through the history to see whether others have made substantial contributions. JohnCD (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I think it better to use G7 for G7-U1 deletions, because G7 eligibility is pretty obvious from the contribution history, and U1 can be misused by applying over a previous page move. U1 nominally applies to a usertalkpage moved to userspace, or a mainspace page userfied, or someone else's userpage, when it shouldn't. A deleted then userfied page should be easily and quietly deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reviewing U1 deletions for some time now, and it is very rarely misused - and if merged, G7 could be misused in exactly the same way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would think so. I've not heard of anyone moving some other page into their userspace and then trying sneakily U1, and I expect that the reaction would be strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While these two criteria are similar and have some overlap in scope, each has specific situations where it applies and does not apply and I don't see any benefit to merging them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two are significantly different - one is userspace, one is articlespace. U1 is also far more "lenient" because it's in userspace (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merge, because I have found it very useful to have the two separate criteria. As pointed out, U1 is not restricted to "no other editors" and is simpler to check. All a review of a U1 needs is a check that it is the user making the request and that the page has not been moved from a user talk page (and I think the latter would be less likely to be checked if merged into a more generic G7). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where this is coming from, but I also can't really see the ened for it. As JohnCD said, it makes it easier for the admin because they just have to check it's the same person making the request as is the userspace; no need for value judgements or anything else. Ged UK 13:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD templates and AfC articles

Not quite sure if this is the right place or it should be on the template talk page, but it'll probably get seen here by the right people. I just deleted an AfC (for spam and copyvio). As usual I check to see if the discussion page has been started as there might be a contested edit. But of course, it's an AfC, so it's all on the talk page.

However the 'contest' button is still there. On pressing it, it took me to the talk page edit screen, thus blanking the whole article (had I submitted). It seems to me that the 'contest' button shouldn't appear on AfC taggings, but to be honest, I don't know if it's possible to be that page specific, or whether we need another separate set of templates for AfC, or whether this is a solution in search of a problem that's never happened. Any thoughts? Ged UK 13:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If desirable it should be pretty easy to change the behaviour of the template in the Wikipedia talk namespace (although thinking about it the same issue will happen in any talk namespace). My off-the-top-of-my-head suggestion would be to automatically start a new "Contested deletion" section on the page, either at the top or the bottom. Ideally the template would check for the existence of such a section to flag it up to the reviewing admin, but I don't know whether it is possible. Alternatively, something stylistically similar to the endorsed prod system could be used, but that might be more complicated for new users to get right? Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]