Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Proposal to broaden A9

Currently A9 covers articles "about a musical recording where none of the contributing recording artists have an article and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I don't see why this is limited to the medium of sound, can we expand it to cover books, films, etc. as well? Everymorning talk 18:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose this. We were getting huge amounts of "songspam" articles about non-notable albums or singles by non-notable performers, often with no more than a track listing. Also, for popular music at least, it is petty much given that if the artist isn't notable, the song/album won't be. This is far less true with books, films or other creative works, where a single work may well be notable but the creator isn't or is notable only for the single work. Thus false positives are more likely with other kinds of works, and the need is much less. So the cost/benefit balance is not in favor of extending A9, in my view. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, it's a lot easier to have a notable book by a non-notable author than it is to have a notable song by a non-notable artist. In the case of films you have the additional problem that the film isn't clearly identified with a single person or small distinctive group of people, but with a much larger number of actors and production people who probably won't work together on anything else. Hut 8.5 18:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as pointed out above, films need to be taken individually rather than as a category. However, books that are by non-notable authors (that is, no WP article as in A9 already) and which are self-published (quite an easy standard to check on - if there is doubt about the status it would default to needing prod or AfD) could well be included. A9 already states that the recording must be non-notable in its own right, so if a self-published book has sufficient coverage, it would not be eligible (and would be rather out of the ordinary to boot...). This would NOT mean that all books that are with regular publishers would automatically be classed as notable - just that those that have no reliable independent coverage, a non-notable author, and self-publication would be liable to speedy rather than waiting for prod or AfD (where they get deleted anyway). I'm not against self-published books per se - I have worked with a self-published author who would definitely not consider his works to be WP material - but the purpose of most articles here about them is promotion. Peridon (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And of course for painting and sculpture, it is quite common to have highly notable work where the artist is unknown or only conjectured. But also important is the issue of frequency. CSDs should only include areas that get a lot of deletable contributions, thus significantly reducing the load on AfD, or areas where quick action is vital, such as copyvios and attack pages. Apparently non-notable books and films fit neither criterion. DES ^(talk) 19:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Peridon, do please recall that neither A9 nor A7 deal with non-notable items per se but with items where no plausible claim of significance, a different if related standard. Adding self-published would make an extension more reasonable, IMO, but is threre enough volume to warrent a CSD for such? DES ^(talk) 19:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what I meant. I would think that as an addition to A9 rather than a new A number, it would merit inclusion. With both self-published books and A9 recordings, there appear to be peaks and troughs. I would foresee more use than A2 gets, for instance, and at least equal to hoax (which seems to me also to have peaks and troughs - and to be declining in 'quality'...). Peridon (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I know what I hope you meant, but its amazing how many experienced editors confuse the standards. Anyway, IMO the grounds for extending an existing criterion are pretty much the same as for adding a new number. If this were to be done, I'd like to add a requirement that the book must be fairly recently published. There was a time (in the 19th C and before) when self-publication was common for respected authors, and didn't in any way imply vanity publication (Alice in Wonderland and most of Carrol's other books were self-published, for example). Even after that, prior to the recent flood of self-published POD- and e-publication, there just wern't all that many such books. I'm not sure where to set the limit. Having an additional condition might mean that this should be a new number if it is adopted. DES ^(talk) 20:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

1950 would be a safe year - most of the surviving self-publishers from then will probably have forgotten all about it (or wish to...). In practical terms, the start of the internet would also be OK as a cut-off point. It's with the ease of computerised print on demand and type setting that the flood gates opened. Before, it cost quite a bit to get a vanity book out. Now, while some firms charge an arm and a leg, others do it almost for the profits of the on demand printing. This is, of course, another thing that lowers the quality of recent self-published work - no pro involvement in the setting and proofing, apart from no editorial input (or out-take). Peridon (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

While vanity publishing is a problem, we should remember that there are notable authors who self publish today, and the number of self published e-books that achieve commercial success is on the rise. Now the examples I could find are all blue linked authors without articles for each book, but I think it is very possible we could fine a notable, self published book, with an author that is not independently notable. Monty₈₄₅ 00:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but if the book were independently notable, it would not meet the criterion of not being significant AND not having a blue-linked author. Like A9, it would be a two part thing. The target here is the stuff that was published last week, through CreateSpace, lulu or such, by someone who is not significant (and not even showing any sign of becoming significant), and which is only referenced to Amazon and Goodreads (possibly to Barnes and Noble as well, or the Medicine Hole Weekly Observer publishing a puff piece about a local author who has lived in Medicine Hole, AZ, for five years). The plot often looks directly derived from something well known. On occasion, the book in question is only part written. I would think that book equivalents of They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa! (notable recording - redirect only artiste) are likely to be in the hen's teeth bracket. Peridon (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(reset indent) Peridon, you write "...if the book were independently notable, it would not meet the criterion of not being significant..." The problem is that what a speedy tagger or patrolling admin will know is not whether the book is significant, but whether the creator of the article managed to explain something of how or why it was significant. The real question is, how often does the inital draft of a notable book fail to clearly assert its significance? Also, speedy deletion is an almost inherently WP:BITEy process, and so we shouldn't use it where we dont really need to. Les e some stas, just how many articles about books are getting deleted at AfD, and how many of those would have been caught by this new propesed criterion (or extension if you prefer)? DES ^(talk) 13:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional instruction in regard to Removing speedy deletion tags

Earlier today Gparyani added to the section of the project page that instructs article creators not to remove Speedy Delete tags the text "; using multiple accounts to deceptively do so is considered sock puppetry and will not be tolerated.". JamesBWatson reverted this as instruction creep. Staszek Lem reinstated the text, noting that "Usually it is done by smartass newbies; and for them cross-referncing various policies is actually a good idea." Beeblebrox reverted back to the stagte before the first of these edited, citing WP:BRD. So, in the spirit of WP:BRD let us discuss. It seems to me that JamesBWatson has a point, our policies (specifically WP:SOCK already say that using a sock to make it appear that actions are by separate people when they aren't is deceptive and not acceptable. But perhaps Staszek Lem has a point also, in that it can be helpful to have a single place to point a newbie or a wikilawyer at, and newbies might possibly read WP:CSD but honestly be unaware of other policies such as WP:SOCK. Is adding this admittededly redundant text helpful to good faith but naive editors, or to those working with such editors or with possibly bad-faith editors? I'm not sure, myself. DES ^(talk) 19:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WOW! Are you accusing me of being sock of Gparyani? Did you notice that I already agreed with JamesBWatson, assuming that he made a honest mistake, and now you are telling me that JamesBWatson did take me for a sock? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that you staring BRD, I can only repeat my edit summary "cross-referncing various policies is actually a good idea". And contrary to JamesBWatson's opinion, it is not an "instruction creep": the disputed edits don't add new instructions; they merely clarify policy interplay, i.e., the edit decreases confusion, rather than increases it. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not in the least mean to imply that anyone was socking here, I was merely trying to accurately recount the course of events. I am sorry if what I wrote could be taken that way. I wrote "Staszek Lem reinstated the text" meaning that you reverted to the text that Gparyani had earlier added. I tried to be very explicit and exact about who did what. What anyone else thought I don't know, no one else has said anythign about anyone here being a sock.

As to the substantive point, I agree with you, Staszek Lem this is not instruction creep per se, because it doesn't add any instructions or policies or procedures. It merely repeats a policy from another page. It does make this already long policy page a sentence or two longer, the question is if the gain is worth that (IMO rather small) cost. DES ^(talk) 20:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The length of a guideline page per se is not a problem, as long as it is easily navigable and clearly sectioned. TL;DR usually applies to long rambling structureless paragraphs. In our case a quick look into the page reveals that each section is short and clear, way below the TL;DR limit to worry about text length, so that there is enough slack for extra clarification. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, I've been thinking that this clarification (118 characters) may be shortened and made less threatening. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• May I suggest added the proposed note as a footnote, rather than in the running text? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that gets us the worst of both worlds, Oiyarbepsy. The page bcomes longer and more complex (at least a bit), but the chance of someone actually reading such an instruction and being detered by it are even smaller than if it were in running text. DES ^(talk) 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain "it is not an 'instruction creep': the disputed edits don't add new instructions"? The whole point of instruction creep is that it happens gradually, by adding a few words one day, a few more a month later, a few more two months later... The fact that it is merely duplicating instructions that exists elsewhere, rather than adding anything new does not in any way at all negate or even reduce the fact that this is adding yet one more bit of content to the whole body of guidelines, policies, "essays", etc etc: that is instruction creep, and it all contributes to making Wikipedia just one bit less easy for new editors. Indeed, the fact that it adds nothing new makes it less justifiable, as the increase in volume of text is less necessary. Anyone who knows what Wikipedia policies and guidelines were like eight years or so ago, when the total body of guidelines and policies was a small fraction of what they are now, will be likely to understand what I mean. And the worst thing is that the vast majority of the increase has not been because the community has introduced a lot of new policy "rules": over 90% of it has been because people have time and time again added just one more little bit of "clarification" or information regarding what for the most part is essentially the same basic policy or guideline. Step by step, each step being so small that people can sincerely think that the step is so trivial that objecting on the grounds that it adds more length is unreasonable, but a lot of tiny steps add up to a huge staircase. But really, really, really, what purpose would this serve? If the creator of a page is not allowed to remove a tag, then nobody can reasonably think that that means "unless they pretend to be another person". Anyone using a sockpuppet account or IP-editing to evade this policy knows damned well that he or she is dishonestly trying to evade the policy, and doesn't need to be told so. Also, anyone dishonest enough to do that is dishonest enough to do it even if the policy says "..and it doesn't make it all right to do this because you pretend to be a different person". To add yet a little bit more to the gradually expanding volume of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is something that is sometimes necessary, but in a case where it cannot possibly achieve any benefit, it is neither necessary nor desirable. We should be looking for ways to simplify and shorten our rule book, and adding to it only with reluctance when there is a serious benefit to be obtained by doing so. When I joined Wikipedia, I found the forest of guidelines and policies intimidating and confusing, and it must be far worse for new editors joining now. I don't agree at all that " there is enough slack for extra clarification": it is a mistake to judge this by the length or complexity only of one paragraph, or even one page, as the problem with instruction creep is, as I have already indicated, it gradually adds to the whole corpus of instructions that a new editor has to try to cope with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JBW. This really is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

New issue with userpage deletions

This came up at WP:VPT#Is CSD:U5 dead?. It's not dead. However, if you delete a userpage, and it happens that the user has a userpage over at meta, it will be recreated here. It may even be the same garbage page you just deleted. This is thanks to the WMF introducing the well-thought-out-nothing-could-possibly-go-wrong-as-usual idea of global user pages.

It's unlikeley we can do anything about it, but we need to be aware of it as there is a simple solution, which is to re-create their userpage locally as a blank page. This will apparenrtly override the global page. I don't expect this wil happen all that often, as most of the type of users whose userpages are being speedy deleted won't have a userpage at meta as well, but it can happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I starting seeing these almost as soon as the misfeature was rolled out. The admins at meta will delete the user page over there as G7 if you tag it, but not at all promptly. —Cryptic 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we can or should count on meta being much help with this, we need to keep an eye on it ourselves. We can ask them to do the right thing, and sometimes they will even do it (provided the right admin shows u to deal with it), but that's about as far as it goes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm The WMF needs to hire someone whose only job is to listen to new ideas, and come up with the ways it can go horribly wrong. Monty₈₄₅ 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the best part: The creation/transclusion/whatever of the copied user page does not show in the page history so watchlisting is useless in detecting when this is ocurring, only opening the page and looking at it will allow you to see if it has been recreated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps from now on when deleting a blocked user's UP, we should routinely create a page with a 'This user is blocked" template? DES ^(talk) 21:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea in the case of blocked users, although the majority of them aren't going to have a meta user page. This has apparently been going on for several months and I just became aware of it today, so it's not too common....yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe adapt the current block templates to be placed on the user page instead of user talk? I've always thought them redundant to the Mediawiki interface and block log message; at least on the user page, they'd finally be doing something useful. —Cryptic 21:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's always the old trick of creating a page with a dot on it, which will keep the meta one out without needing to say anything... Peridon (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the fuss here is all about. Inappropriate userpages from meta can be nominated for speedy deletion. There's absolutely no need to create a blank page or a single-dot page or anything. You don't even need to memorise meta's CSD criteria, since you can just use the {{delete}} template with a custom rationale. Cryptic, Beeblebrox, why exactly does the deletion need to be prompt? What harm could a user page do if it stays here for one or two days extra? If anything's really serious, like a blatant attack page or a dangerous copyvio, what you do is to contact a steward using the emergency IRC channel and the page would be deleted instantaneously. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The fuss is that this is yet another way the Foundation's going out of its way to make us an attractive target for spam while making it difficult for encyclopedists to detect and remove it. —Cryptic 15:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you know? This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That stills seems to take priority over making it a valuable encyclopedia. In a choice between restricting authorship and improving quality, the WMF always backs user count. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why not just ask Pathoschild to add a feature where local administrators can have Meta:Synchbot delete user pages on meta that violate policies? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion needing eyes

A discussion is open at Template_talk:Db-meta#F2_issue:_template_and_policy_disagree which could use some eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to criterion F2

It has come to my attention (see e.g. section above this one) that there is misunderstanding about what qualifies as an F2 speedy deletion and some disagreement that everything it currently covers should always be deleted. This is with regard to the image description pages portion of the criterion ony. To try and resolve this, I propose tweaking the wording of the criterion to resolve these issues.

Current wording:

F2

Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes image description pages for Commons images, except pages containing information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}}).

Proposed wording:

F2

Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes file description pages for files hosted on Commons that exactly duplicate the description page there or where the only additional information consists entirely of material that consists entirely of patent nonsense, vandalism, copyright violation(s), or material that would be speedy deleted under criteria G10 or G11 as a stand-alone page. Pages that contain categorisation, status or project templates relevant to the English Wikipedia (e.g. {{FeaturedPicture}}) may not be deleted under this criterion.

I am unsure though whether to recommend file description pages that do not meet this criteria should be sent to FfD or MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would favor this, althogh as i matter of style i would like to reword it so that we didn't use "consists entirely of" twice in the same sentence. DES ^(talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

perhaps:

Modified Proposed wording:

F2

Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes file description pages for files hosted on Commons that exactly duplicate the description page there or where the only additional content consists entirely of patent nonsense, vandalism, copyright violation(s), and/or material that would be speedily deleted under criteria G10 or G11 as a stand-alone page. Pages that contain categorisation, status, or project templates relevant to the English Wikipedia (e.g. {{FeaturedPicture}}) may not be deleted under this criterion.

How is that? Does anyone have any subsantive objections? DES ^(talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, it looks good to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed simplification of the "useless extra content" part:

F2

Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information. This also includes file description pages for files hosted on Commons that exactly duplicate the description page there or where the only additional content would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion. Pages that contain categorisation, status, or project templates relevant to the English Wikipedia (e.g. {{FeaturedPicture}}) may not be deleted under this criterion.

I see no reason to specifically mention G10 & G11, which suggests that a description page that's vandalism can't be deleted, since the wording could be misread to suggest that only attacks pages and spam could be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like that simplification. My initial thinking was that other pages would either be caught by the listed factors or be eligible as a whole regardless of the partial duplication (e.g. G6 and G7), but the simplification is better way of expressing it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The wording should not mention other speedy deletion criteria. If the page qualifies for deletion under another criterion, then you can simply tag the file for deletion per that criterion, regardless of what this criterion states.

The wording 'file description pages for files hosted on Commons that exactly duplicate the description page there' is inappropriate. The speedy deletion criterion currently allows deletion provided that the file information page doesn't contain useful information such as DYK templates or certain other templates. I see no reason to change this. If there is some information which doesn't exactly duplicate the information on Commons, then it sounds like a good idea to speedily delete the local page anyway, provided that the information isn't useful for Commons. If some of the information is useful for Commons, consider amending the information on Commons prior to deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The criterion states "information not relevant to any other project (like {{FeaturedPicture}})". Information doesn't have to be about the subject; it can also be about the image itself, and its position within the English Wikipedia. Such information is not relevant to other projects. As such, DYK templates, portal templates, and FP templates are all exceptions to F2 (rather than things which must be deleted). Please quote the entire criterion, rather than just the first sentence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's what the criterion currently says, but it is not what the two proposed new wordings are saying, which looks attempt to extend the exemption to a lot of other irrelevant information. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • All of the proposed wordings provide a paraphrased/more explicit version of the exception. What you consider "irrelevant" (what, exactly? Categories? DYK templates?) are already covered by the current exception. They're just made more explicit by the proposals above. As for "file description pages for files hosted on Commons that exactly duplicate the description page there", that is just one example in the criterion. It's not the only possibility. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • All of the proposed wordings provide a copy of the exception and also an additional exception: if there is a local file information page with some other information (for example an extra {{information}} template with slightly different information), then the file information page won't satisfy speedy deletion per F2 unless the information already is on Commons, regardless of whether this extra information would be useful for anyone. The proposed wordings also contradict themselves: according to both proposed wordings, it would be possible to use {{db-f2}} whenever all of the information on the local file information page also is available on the file information page on Commons, but it also says that it wouldn't be possible to use {{db-f2}} when {{featured picture}} is used, which is a contradiction as all information on the local file information page typically also is on the file information page on Commons when {{featured picture}} is used locally. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand the proposal to include the words "exactly duplicate the description". Does this mean that if essentially the same information is given, but differing in some minor way such as using different wording, then it should stay? If so, why? If not, then what is the word "exactly" supposed to convey? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We need a CSD criterion for blatantly unencyclopedic drafts

There are too many cases where the draft namespace is misused for hosting blatantly unencyclopedic content and WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. This is especially a problen since even IP address users can create draft pages. CSD G13 can only be used for deleting pages that are more than six months old. Even then, G13 deletions are technically eligible for undeletion upon request. And unencyclopedic content doesn't need to be restored. We need to clean up the draft namespace and optimise it for constructive purposes.

Current practises: Whenever a reasonable user comes across a draft page with purely unencyclopedic or WP:NOTWEBHOST content, they would nominate it for G13 deletion (assuming it is 6 months old, which is often the case as draftspace stuff without the AFC templates are too slow to be discovered) rather than take it to MFD. Even when a page isn't 6 months old, a reasonable user would shop for another criterion such as G2 (test page) or G3 (vandalism). If nothing works, then the page is CSD'd with a custom rationale.

All these practises are rough and the need of the hour is to introduce a new criterion to deal with such drafts, a sample of which are listed below in the collapsed box. To be called CSD D1 or G14 or whatever, I belive it meets all the requirements of CSD criteria as it's clearly objective, is unambiguous, is frequent, and mostly nonredundant.

Of course, this criterion would be used for clear and unambiguous cases only (as with G11 and G12 - for unambiguous advertising and copyvios). Everything else will have to be taken to MFD. This criterion covers pages in the draft namespace as well as subpages od Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation.

103.6.158.193 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sample template message
Feel free to edit this.

• This is a discussion worth having, perhaps promoting WP:U5 to a general criterion. However first I'd like to point out that all of the sample pages listed already qualify under WP:G8, and none are in Draft: space. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, see WP:G8. WT:AFC subpages are explicitly exclided from that criterion. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• I removed the sample invocation of {{db-meta}}; it's causing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (among other pages) to show up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. Waiting 6 months to allow people a chance to develop possibly valid articles does no harm, and I can see a lot of trigger happy patrollers declaring as "obvious" drafts not acceptable as they stand, but that with the addition of proper references can be perfectly valid articles. I have seen some very poor drafts become decent articles, particualrly if an experiencd user helps the drafter. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  I would add that I strongly disagree with the description of "current practices" above. A page that is a good faith attempt at a draft of an article, even if it is clearly non-notable and never going to be acccepted, is not a "test page", and good faith additions are never vandalism. And a "custom" CSD rationale is simply out-of-process and should be rejected unless one of the actual criteria happen to fit the case. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • DES, I feel that you're missing the point completely here. The criterion covers only those pages that consist of unencyclopedic content in its entirety, as well as blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. Clearly, any attempt to create an actual draft is not included. I suppose you've not looked at the pages sampled in the collapsed box above. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • No I don't think so, 158.193. I will assume good faith that you intend this to apply only to junk that does not in any way represent even a possible draft. But I have very frequently seen the term "unencyclopedic" used in CSD, Prod, and AfD discussions. Many editors, no doubt quite honestly, use "unencyclopedic" to mean anything tha tthey think isn't notable or even anythign they don't think belongs here. Those who dislike pop-culture articles often describe their subjects as "unencyclopedic". I have also seen people attempt to apply WP:NOTWEBHOST to pages that were in fact unsourced article drafts. A CSD criterion must be clear and objective, somethign that almos all reasonable admins and most reasonable editors will agree on in any given case. If it needs to be a judgement call, then it need consensus and therefore discussion. DES ^(talk) 20:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

      Here is an example for you. Had it been in Draft instead of mainspace, would you think of this as deletable under your proposed new criterion? If so, consider this later version. (This was actually tagged for an A1 speedy as "no context". A 30-second web search found sources.) DES ^(talk) 20:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

      No, I don't think it meets the proposed criterion simply because it isn't unencyclopedic. (Articles about films are well within our inclusion policy.) Also note CSD A1 is not valid for that stub as it clearly provides context as to what the subject is. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Is it that time of the month again for the perenial Draft namespace deletion discussion? Referring back to Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Header: A CSD must be objective, unconstestable, frequent, and nonredundant. The carte-blanche request for the ability to CSD these without a demonstration of the above objectives. The main one is we need to see frequent use. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "blatantly unencyclopedic" is far too broad and subjective for my liking. Deleting drafts drives off editors, we shouldn't be encouraging admins to delete good faith efforts. Sam Walton (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The proposer is mistaken about the application of G13. It is only relevant to drafts that have been reviewed and declined by the AFC process. In addition such drafts must have been untouched by human editor for at least six months before they are eligible for G13. Merely being "six months old" does not qualify a draft for G13 deletion and if it does not have an AFC template it is never eligible for G13. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not quite, Dodger67. G13 reads "Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months..." (emphasis added by me). Drafts neveer submited for review and left untouched for 6 months are eligable. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. The point is if a draft never had an AFC template at all it is outside the scope of G13 - otherwise several of my own drafts might have been deleted already - some I've been working on very slowly for years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again :) See {{db-g13}}, which says This applies to all pages that contain an Articles for Creation template or are located in the Articles for Creation namespace. I have frequently nominated such pages (only the hopeless ones) and they've always been deleted. Your drafts are safe if they're in your userspace though. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

103.6.158.193, as one who helped design G13 and implement the main workhorse of G13, I can speak with authority about G13 and it's interpertations. You are misreading them. G13 applies to all pages that are under Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ pseudo namespace, or any page that is tagged with the AFC banner that have recieved zero edits in over 6 months. Those are the two criterion. Your attempt to lob every page that lives in Draft namespace under the G13 criteria is wrong and will get you chased off with pitchforks and threats to indefinite block. I've tried multiple times to advocate for some procedural rule for how long we'll let a draft remain before we sweep it up, each time getting swatted down. This new criterion is overlaping many tools already in the toolbox, and must demonstrate it's needed factor. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary. The current G* criteria catch the very worst, and the rest should be speedily noindexed, generally via {{subst:AFC draft|username}}. (Though I'm unclear on why the whole Draft namespace isn't in robots.txt, like all of Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ is. Can anyone point me to a discussion?) —Cryptic 23:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  According to Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing all of the Draft: namespace is automatically noindexed. My memory (which could be wrong) of the proposal that created draft was that it was supposed to be noindexed. I can't say if it really is. DES ^(talk) 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose First I'm opposing on principle. Since there is no review process or public access to the content CSD for any reason, I do not think we should broaden the grounds in any way. This double secret purgatory you send the articles to is so easily abused and there is no recourse provided to the average editor, much less the average reader. Go away, nothing to se here. Additionally, as stated above this is "blatantly unencyclopedic" and is far too broad and subjective. As we have seen with other guidelines, give them an inch and they will take a mile. Trackinfo (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  While I agree with your conclusion, I must point out that there is a review process. Any speedy deletion can be taken to deletion reveiw. There it will often be temporarily undeleted so peopel can see what is being discussed, unless it was a copyvio or an attack page. This is not a perfect system, and I agree that the criteria should be kept narrow, clear, and focused. But I don't see a better alternative. DES ^(talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no public review process. Its not kept in an unknown vault where only someone who searches can find it, that would be bad enough. Unless you have administrative privileges, the rest of the public has no idea what content was deleted, only a record that one editor thought it was important enough to delete. If we were fortunate enough to have been involved, we know the content. That is extremely rare. You can't defend an article at DRV if the content is unknown. Literally an article can appear and be removed from sight within minutes. CSD can very easily be used as a unilateral censorship system. We don't have a check and balance system to prevent that.

There should be a holding place for public review and the potential to open a discussion if a contentious deletion exists. Currently, only if an administrator chooses to look into the matter and decides there is a problem does a CSD come under any tiny bit of scrutiny. And if reversed, offending abusers are not punished. Trackinfo (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Although irrelevant to this discussion, I strongly agree with your observation that there is no transparent process for review of CSD deletions. It's also sad that those who make controversial CSD deletions are not punished. Again, the root of this problem is that there is no easy way for desysoping administrators. The bar for ArbCom is too high, discussions with the admin on their talk page are always futile, and of course, such discussions on the drama boardz are speedily closed and hushed up. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an argument to avoid. Andrew D. (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. See #14 on WP:DEL-REASON. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia is a valid reason under Wikipedia's deletion policy. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If editors can't even agree whether it's a good argument in a discussion, how could it be acceptable for speedy deletion? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as it hasn't been long enough for WP:CCC yet in my opinion on this perennial suggestion. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language articles

Would it be reasonable to develop a speedy deletion criterion for foreign language articles that have not been translated for two weeks or more? The current wording at WP:PNT#Standard procedures states that all articles of this type should be listed for deletion. An untranslated article that does not get translated for two weeks comes up fairly frequently at WP:PNT and I can see no reason at all to keep them. A criterion like this would take at least a little load off the other deletion processes, since there is a consensus to delete them anyways. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 18:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You can just PROD them. PROD is ideal for uncontroversial deletions and has the advantage that if someone is working on it (or planning to work on it) then the article won't be deleted automatically. I doubt there are many such articles, WP:PNT doesn't have that many listed. Hut 8.5 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A criterion such as this would only apply if the article has already had its two-week grace period. Two weeks is plenty of time to allow a chance for anyone working on the article to publish their results. Forcing every article of this nature to go through the PROD process would effectively legthen the intended two-week grace period to three. There doesn't need to be two separate measures to ensure that people working on the article have a chance to publish their work. Two weeks is plenty. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 21:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PROD it after a week, then, and it'll get deleted in two weeks or so. If somebody's wqrking on it, speedy deletion is a bad idea - if no one's working on it, no one'll contest it, so PROD'll work fine. No need for pointless rule bloat (especially given that CSD is way, way harsher on new users than PROD). WilyD 09:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've never tried PRODing after one week to ensure that it gets deleted in two. However, I have a hunch that it won't work very well since the process can be so easily terminated by anyone (even those who do not intend to fix the issue) and cannot be restarted even if the problem is still there. This would force these articles to AfD, which is not very efficient. I can try the PRODing for now, and I'll return with a new thread if I see a problem. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)