To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all CSD template talk pages redirect here. For discussions on each individual template prior to July 2008, see the histories of each talk page. For discussions about the template for criterion G1 from March 2004, see Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1. For discussions about the template for criterion G13 from September 2013, see Template talk:Db-g13/Archive 1.
This talk page is for discussion about the CSD templates themselves (technical questions, maintenance, etc.) Discussions about any CSD criteria (adding, removing, amending, etc.), should take place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, instead.
WP:CSD says there will be a button saying Contest this speedy deletion to allow someone to object to a deletion request. However, for G6, there is no such button. It was just pointed out to me that this is because the presence of the button was removed four years ago. Either the button should be put back in, or the instructions should be changed so they don't tell people to look for a non-existing button. If there is no button provided, the instructions should provide some alternative way that people can express an objection. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think its because since the G6 criteria is for technical cases, there is no reason to contest the speedy deletion. --TL22 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless the nominator is wrong about the applicability of G6, of course. Then the person who studies the situation and wants to object is told to look for a button that does not exist, and is also told "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." Then they are stuck in a Catch 22, and foreclosed from doing anything.
The bottom line is that there is a very valid reason to contest a G6 speedy deletion: cases where the G6 claim is wrong.
I can see the button being used occasionally. More importantly, from a costs-benefit analysis I don't see any reason not to add the button back, so I think we should do so rather than changing the instructions. Even if the majority (or even almost all) G6's are entirely technical and uncontroversial and not likely to be contested, I see no problem – no potential for harm and extra bureaucracy – created by having the button in, regardless of whether we expect it to mostly lie fallow.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)