Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 84

< Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SmokeyJoe in topic G4 and salted articles
Archive 80←Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86→Archive 89

Is G14 case sensitive?

Latest comment: 2 years ago32 comments10 people in discussion

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)
  • 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)

Clarification on "extant pages" for G14

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

When "extant pages" are referred to in G14, does this mean extant on English Wikipedia or extant on any-language Wikipedia?

A G14 tagging I made at IGEM (disambiguation) was contested with the standard reason "Page is not a disambiguation page, or disambiguates two or more extant pages", though one of those pages is only an interwiki link to Russian Wikipedia without a corresponding page here, so it essentially only disambiguates one extant English article. Is this, in general, enough to render a page ineligible for G14? If so, I think it would be a good idea to explicitly codify it in the criterion. Complex/Rational 00:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I always understood it to be pages on enwiki, too. (And shouldn't that entry have been removed anyway, as a partial title match?) —Cryptic 02:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. I would be curious if this kind of misunderstanding arises frequently enough to justify explicitly saying "extant on English Wikipedia" in the criterion, but good to note in any case. Complex/Rational 13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The wording of G14 is plain and simple, but not very accurate and often leads to confusion. The main point is that the entry is a valid one according to the guidelines (WP:DAB and MOS:DAB). This will almost always involve the requiring a link to an English Wikipedia article, but interwiki links are an edge case: they are, in principle, allowed on dab pages (WP:DABSISTER), arguably even when there's no local article linked. My experience has been that in most cases, instead of seeking to delete the whole page, it's better to find a relevant English article to link to in the description. – Uanfala (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Blatchford

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The page Laurel Blatchford has been developed as the subject was a nominee for a (US) government job. It was then tagged for speedy delete, presumably because she recently withdrew the nomination.

For clarity, I've removed the tag as I was wondering if we need to talk about this before the page is deleted. What's the procedure? Should I nominate it for AfD so there is at least the opportunity to discuss whether the person is notable even without the job? Or do we allow that nominees are notable until such time as they withdraw, when the page can be speedy deleted? Interested to hear thoughts and/or where else it could/should be discussed. Or if I should have kept the speedy tag. JMWt (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it's gone to AfD. So I guess we will have the discussion there. JMWt (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is only for pages that obviously meet one or more of the listed criteria, so if there is any doubt about whether one applies it doesn't and it is always better to send a borderline page to XfD than to speedy it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on U2 for IP subpages

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

Are IPs allowed to make subpages for their own IP user page? Let's say there is an IP user 123.123.123.123, are they allowed to create something like User:123.123.123.123/some page? RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A more applicable example may be sandboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Well let's say that the "some page" was a sandbox. Are IPs allowed to do that? RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
U2 explicitly allows user pages of IP users who have edited, and there is nothing in any policy prohibiting it that I can find. However, I navigated to user:<my ip>/Sandbox while logged out and was shown a message that I needed to log in or create an account before I could create the page. However there was no technical barrier to my creating a page in the user talk namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
So if they can somehow get a page created for them by another person, it's perfectly fine? RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing I can see in any policy that would prohibit it. Any editor would of course be free to nominate it at MfD, but if the content is all of
  • Relevant to the encyclopaedia
  • Not created by a blocked or banned user
  • Not a copyvio, attack page, complete nonsense, etc
  • Being actively used (whether by the ip in question or not)
then I don't see any benefit to doing so. By all means take something abandoned for 6 months or more to MfD if there is no benefit in keeping it (if there is benefit, move it somewhere) and pages that are irrelevant to the encyclopaedia should also be taken to MfD if U5 doesn't apply. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Being actively used (whether by the ip in question or not) - probably a stupid question, but what if I found a sandbox that was created a year ago by a registered user, and never touched again? The actively being used part stuck out to me, so I just wanted to be sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:User pages#Old unfinished draft articles, such pages should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. Donald Albury 13:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm all but certain there was a fairly recent - within the past three or four years - consensus to specifically disallow this. I very clearly remember mentioning to someone (I think, but am uncertain, that it was Hobit?) that we couldn't userfy an article to an IP as he'd suggested because of that then-very-recent decision. I can't for the life of me find it, though, and I've spent the last four hours trying. The closest I've come is #6 at WP:Userfication#What can not be userfied, and that's been there since the page's very beginning in 2006. —Cryptic 02:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I support banning IPs from making any pages. They should WP:Register. Maybe, registering should be easier, eg the default process providing a username, and making it a one-button process.
IPs should be most welcome to edit, but once you’re making new pages, accountability outweighs the barrier of registration. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
You can't suggest either of those, both are matters for WP:VPR. IPs have always been able to create pages, but the namespaces in which they may do so have been restricted - for example, consider an article with no talk page but the IP wishes to suggest an improvement to the article without editing the article itself. Would you deny them the right to comment? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
If the article exists, the talk page must be auto-created to allow IPs to post. Similarly for userpages (users with a redlinked main talk page). IPs should be encouraged to comment in the talk and user_talk namespaces. But at the point that they have a reason to create a page like User:123.123.123.123/some page, they should WP:Register. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe they already cannot create pages "like user:123.123.123.123/some page". I also agree that your proposed changes are out of scope for this page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion at scale

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee directed an RfC be held regarding mass deletion. Proposals for that RfC are currently being workshopped at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale and at least one (there likely will be more) draft proposal suggests adding new a speedy deletion criteria. Please leave your comments on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

G7

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding this revert: my understanding (per WP:DELTALK) is that user talk pages are generally not deleted. I added a note to that effect into WP:G7 (user talks are already excluded from WP:G8) but this was reverted. Is my understanding incorrect -- are users entitled to deletion of their user talk pages under G7? And if so, say someone else created your user talk page (for example, mine was created by someone else) so G7 won't apply: do we end up with a weird scenario where some editors can have their user talk page deleted under CSD and others cannot? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No, your understanding is correct, but G7 doesn't apply anyway since the talk page usually has more than one author. If a user's talk page somehow has only one author, and that author requests that page be deleted, then I see no reason not to honor the request. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
To clarify my position, I see every comment on a talk page as adding substantial content, thus breaking the requirement the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah okay, that makes sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Question on A7 & A9's requirement for a claim of importance

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Are A7 and A9 intended/used as merely a shortcut regarding implementing the wp:notability requirement for what looks like areas of common non-notable articles? Presumably "pre-screening" by a more lenient version of it? Or is it an additional criteria/requirement created by this policy for existence of an artice? It does have wording that expresses the intent to be a more lenient standard than wp:notability so the former seems more likely. If so, perhaps a clarification should be added that if an article is already determined to be wp:notable then A7 & A9 do not apply. A test example would be an article in one of those areas which meets wp:notability but does not contain any claim of importance. With a note that wp:notability, especially the GNG criteria is based on coverage and not necessarily importance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Claim of importance" has a technical definition here, also linked from the CSD criteria itself. It's impossible for an article subject to be notable but not meet the "claim of importance" standard. ansh.666 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. So the gist of applying that essay is that if wp:notability is established, that counts having the claim of importance. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not so much the "gist of applying that essay" as the actual fundamentals of the policy - if notability is demonstrated then importance is also demonstrated. This because notability requires the subject to be mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources, but being mentioned in one independent source or one reliable source demonstrates importance. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I like to think of importance as "If what the article claims about itself were provably true and demonstrated in multiple RS'es, might we have an article about it?" It's a quick way of assessing potential inclusion without getting stuck in the minutiae of notability. It's basically a "summary judgment" criteria, where, assuming everything goes in the article's favor... should we keep it? If not, no point in putting it through AfD, because statements like "Bob is a nice guy from my 2nd grade class" would never, even in the best possible light, be reasons to have an article on Bob. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right. Basically, we could define notability as the claim of significance being supported by reliable sources. ansh.666 01:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC on clarifying G13 and what constitutes "last human edit"

Latest comment: 2 years ago29 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Option 1 passes. There seems to be wide agreement that adding speedy-deletion tags should not reset the G13 clock. But note also that some editors discourage the manual speedy-deletion tagging of G13-deletable pages in the first place, preferring to leave this to bots. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

For background, see this recent thread on the Admin's Noticeboard: Are CSD tags edits for the purposes of WP:G13?

The question is: Does a human CSD tagging a draft, in and of itself, count against "have not been edited by a human in six months" of CSD G13? and how do we resolve this paradox? Should we? If so, what should be included?

Option 1: A human tagging a draft does not reset the clock, but anyone (admin or otherwise) removing a CSD tag does.

Option 1 revision text
The edit is shown in green italics

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Adding a CSD template to a page does not reset the six month clock, but removing a CSD template does. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

Option 1.5: Removal of a G13 tag by a user who claims to intend to improve the draft does restart the clock, procedural removal doesn't. (c/o @Animal lover 666)

Option 2: A human making an "edit to the content of the draft" does reset the clock, but any other kind of edit (e.g. tagging with a CSD, admin actions on that tag) does not. (c/o @Szmenderowiecki)

Option 2 revision text
The edit is shown in green italics

This applies to any pages without a human edit that visibly changes article content in six months. This applies to:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. Nominating these pages for speedy deletion or proposed deletion, administrator actions to these nominations, as well as additions of problem tags to these pages without any further action, do not start a new six-month period.

Option 3: Clarify that any human edit, including a CSD tag, does reset the clock. In essence, humans should not use G13.

Option 3 revision text
The edit is shown in green italics

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. A 'human edit' means that manually adding a CSD template to a page will reset the six month clock. This template should only be used by bots. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

Option 4: Status quo.

Option 4 (status quo) text

This applies to any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. It was determined that the community consensus in this RfC regarding draft namespace redirects amounted to "there is a clear consensus against deletion of draft namespace redirects. There is a rough consensus against the alternative proposal to delete draft namespace redirects after six months." Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13.

This RFC is an attempt to resolve an ambiguity. There are many thoughts on all sides, and I heavily encourage anyone confused or concerned to read the thread linked above to see if that idea has already been articulated succinctly, and to echo those thoughts, whenever possible. Thanks all!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Option 1.5 added 02:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

How many CSD G13 noms do humans make, anyway?

(@Pppery helpfully answered this question on the original AN thread, copied below.)

I did a database query to look at stats for G13 deletions to see how frequent this is. I found:
~6000 total G13 deletions in September 2022

~500 of them appear to have been tagged by a human. In all but ~30 of those cases the specific human is Hey man im josh

6 of them (Draft:Navi Ferozpurwala, Draft:Helena Maria Carneiro Leão, Draft:Constitution of the World Health Organization, Draft:World Health Organization Executive Board, Draft:World Health Organization Secretariat, Draft:Moritz Pindorek) don't appear to actually meet the criterion by either definition.

* Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1, as proposer. Option 2 as a close second. I think it makes sense that any admin thinking that a tag does not meet deletion criteria should extend the life of the draft. Same with an author who removes a CSD tag because they want to continue improving. That should reset the clock as well. We certainly could go down a long road of edge cases (e.g. what if an admin removes a tag because it's not 6 months yet, but then you tag when it has been 6 months) but I think that gets far too convoluted, and removes the elegance of the original intention of G13. We should have a policy which removes ambiguity, but does not create more confusion or edge cases. This accomplishes that goal well. It's also basically what we currently do!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Again, the biggest argument in favor of doing this is that it is what we currently do in practice, and Option 3 is a literal interpretation that as far as I can tell no one ever thought of until today. Option 2 IMO is not objective enough. Another idea to consider is to exclude edits with the "this is a minor edit" checkbox checked, but I still think Option 1 is better. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The literal interpretation was in my mind in the original discussions. It is astounding that no one would think of the literal interpretation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. There's no real need for humans to tag for G13, but doing so obviously shouldn't reset the clock, per both longstanding practice and common sense. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3. The purpose of G13 was and is to deal with drafts that are otherwise completely ignored. This was motivated by the observation that the tens of thousands of abandoned drafts included BLP and copyrights violations, and that it was impractical to filter them for these violations, that the cost of doing so exceeded the value of the few gems in the dust that would be swept away by G13. To reduce the cost of lost few gems in the dust, processes, including standard well-worded notifications and REFUND/G13 were implemented. Humans tagging G13 undermine these processes, and so are a net negative. Stop it. There is no improvement to Wikipedia by doing this, let alone an IAR deletion reason that undermines the respect of admins respect of WP:CSD policy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 tagging something for speedy deletion shouldn't reset the clock because by definition someone who tags something for deletion is happy for it to be deleted. However someone who declines a speedy deletion tag may well object. I could understand if the policy said something about the reason for declining the tag but it's probably better to keep things simple. Hut 8.5 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 To my opinion G13 is talking about a content-edit. A tag is not a content-edit. The Banner talk 08:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per SmokeyJoe. Humans should not be tagging pages for G13, it doesn't benefit them or the encyclopaedia in any way and can harm the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Although I don't believe the vast majority of tagging for G13 ought to be done by a human, a paradox is created if a tag is allowed to reset the clock. The spirit of G13 is to clean up stale drafts, i.e., with no changes to content (active improvement in any form) for over 6 months. Option 1 also more clearly preserves the possibility of last-minute rescues, e.g., by the reviewing admin. Complex/Rational 14:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC) To clarify, my last comment on option 1 is with respect to option 2. Complex/Rational 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    The spirit of G13 is to clean up stale drafts? Did you just make that up? No. Drafts do not need cleaning. The point of draftspace is a draftspace to keep draft stuff out of mainspace. If it is in draftspace, the purpose is met. The purpose of G13 is to prevent possible general violations (BLP and copyrights) from unwatched draft pages existing and accumulating forever. It most certainly was not created to feed desire for a spirit for draft cleaning. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    The criterion itself is titled abandoned drafts and AfC submissions, with the key being that such pages haven't been edited in 6 months rather than a specific content issue. If this doesn't indicate routine cleanup, I don't know what does, and just because something can be tagged G13 and deleted, doesn't mean it must be. Conversely, BLP and copyright violations ought to be deleted ASAP, which is why we have G10, G12, and MfD, among other methods. Furthermore, WP:REFUND is explicitly permitted for G13, whereas I am extremely doubtful (i.e., it will essentially never happen) that BLP violations and copyvios would be restored upon request. Complex/Rational 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Option 3 isn't workable because there are pages which qualify for G13 that won't be automatically tagged by {{AFC submission}}, notably pages in draftspace that don't contain the template. I also completely fail to see how manual tagging (if done properly) "undermines the process" and I don't like having speedy deletion criteria having to rely entirely on bots (which can break, be abandoned, make mistakes, do not have common sense can miss edge cases). Option 2 significantly raises the standard that is required to keep pages from being deleted and as such I oppose it. If someone null edits a page or in some other way indicates that they do not want it to be deleted we should respect that and delay deletion, deleting it anyway then forcing them to go through WP:REFUND is just discouraging a waste of time for everyone involved. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Option 3 is perfectly workable. Some of your logic is wrong. G13 was made for bot-implemented objective decision making, and the bots have crafted messages, and review, which busyworkers don't. If ever a human finds a draft that can't be ignored for 6 or 12 or 18 months, they should MfD it.
    RE null edits to keep a page alive. If any editor things a page should not be G13-ed, ever, then they should strip the afc taggery and userfy it. See WP:DUD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1.5 - removal of a G13 tag by a user who claims to intend to improve the draft does restart the clock, procedural removal doesn't. G13's official title is Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions; neither tagging, nor procedural removal of the tag, makes it any less abandoned. Animal lover |666| 22:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2, as I proposed, option 3 as a distant second choice. Human intervention into what essentially could be and is an automated task is an unnecessary waste of our efforts that could go towards something bots can't do as well (writing articles or enjoying teh dramah on talkpages/boards :)). Also, if someone only does drive-by tagging (whether CSD or otherwise) and doesn't care about the article in any other respect, it still remains abandoned and actually the outcome is sort of worse, because you have a stale draft with problem tags no one wants to address - for me, that's a perfectly valid reason to trash the draft. If someone does care, they could just as well make a content edit to the draft. Fixing spelling/commas/wording/whatever is good enough.
If my proposal does not pass, then at the very minimum make sure people leave the G13 tag alone. Also, no actions surrounding CSD tags should reset the clock. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or Option 1 - these are about equal in my mind, but I have a very slight preference for option 3. We should either clarify that G13 tags are not to be applied manually, or that manual tagging does not reset the clock. Either way, option 4 - the status quo - quite clearly causes confusion. I also think option 2 is too convoluted to be applied quickly and easily. I for one don't want to have to do that kind of mental calculation for drafts tagged G13 - this should be a quick, yes/no, black/white process. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - we should not rely solely on automated processes for cleanup. ansh.666 07:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 this is already the de facto practice, and it works well enough. I've read the !votes for other options, but I am not convinced these are actually improvements. -FASTILY 01:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I think that the clock should reset only when the content of the draft is updated, but I am also in favor of option 1. This will probably make things hard for the developer(s) of the bot that automatically tags drafts with CSD. SWinxy (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with Option 2 as a close second. even I've become a frequent REFUNDer, and anything that prevents resetting the six-month clock mean potentially more REFUNDS, I would prefer that to having extraneous unencyclopedic text hanging around. Both of these options would increase the chance that the six-month period is hit, while Option 3 would decrease the chance that the six-month period is hit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Two thirds of the incorrect G13s found by Pppery above seem to be symptomatic of not enough human intervention. Two had recent edits, appear to have been included in the bot report anyway (high replag?), and then were speedied anyway; two were robotically declined for being tagged two and a half hours early, and then were speedied a few weeks later by an admin who was willing to actually look at the history. —Cryptic 02:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Many here have said that human tagging of G13 harms the encyclopedia, but I haven't actually seen any evidence of that harm. It all appears theoretical to me... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I admit I've made a mistake here and there, though I hope not recently. If I found out that G13 tagging was harming the encyclopedia I'd stop doing so immediately. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure Request

Heads up, since it has been 8 days since the last contribution to this discussion and this is a high-traffic page of relatively high importance to the project with a relatively clear consensus in my opinion, I have requested a closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests#WT:CSD#RFC on clarifying G13 and what constitutes "last human edit". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that G13 is about our slowest CSD criteria out there, waiting another fortnight will not kill anyone. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but thought I'd ask. I generally prefer quick resolutions to these things to not waste anyone's time. But you're right, the project will be fine if this is closed in 2 weeks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:20, 25 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the paragraph: "X1. Redirects created by Neelix Created as a G6 extension in December 2015 shortly after the discovery and arbitration case regarding 50,000+ questionable redirects created by the user Neelix, and later split into its own criterion. Was repealed in April 2018 after cleanup was completed (discussion). Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.", the sentence "Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion." should be removed as it is not necessary anymore since the cleanup is finished. Carpimaps (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not done I object to this - while any specific effort to clean up Neelix redirects has finished, surely people will still come across Neelix redirects that they think should have been X1-ed but weren't from time to time so the pointer is still helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Anchors for repealed CSDs

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I believe that the anchors for criteria later merged (A4, A6, A8, R1, C3, T4) should point to the corresponding bullet point in #Obsolete criteria, rather than the successor criterion per WP:ASTONISH. None of the successor criteria mention the ex-CSDs, leaving people confused as to why a link to WP:A6 brought them to WP:G10. The bullet point list explains that they are obsolete, and links to the current applicable CSD. Courtesy ping Pppery and TartarTorte. HouseBlastertalk 01:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I have a slight preference towards linking to the obsolete criteria as they do explain the relevant still extant CSD criterion that would apply, but also provide context for historical discussions where obsolete criteria are linked from. I do also wonder if there is a more elegant solution to this that I cannot think of myself. TartarTorte 01:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't care. I reverted that edit because I erroneously thought it was removing the only anchor for A6 (having temporarily forgotten that obsolete criteria were still being listed). * Pppery * it has begun... 01:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Linking to the obsolete criteria rather than its successor makes sense to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  Done here. As long as we aren't edit warring on a policy page, I do not believe we should wait too long to fix duplicated anchors. HouseBlastertalk 02:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Quantifying "few or no other edits" in U5

Latest comment: 1 year ago50 comments21 people in discussion

U5 requires that "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". Is there any guidance on how many "few or no" refers to? Some relevant stats for December 2022 so far:

Number of non-userspace edits Number of users whose pages were deleted
>100 10
50-100 9
20-50 17
10-20 40
1-10 364
0 ~1500

I came across this when writing a query to report violations of this requirement to Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions, and ended up setting the threshold to 100 there. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I'd be tempted to change the criterion's wording to something like "10 or fewer edits outside user pages, excluding edits that are or could be speedily deleted under other criteria." I'm happy to consider a higher threshold, but not one greater than 100. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel that 10 is an appropriate threshold. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The above query already excludes deleted edits. My intuition says the threshold should be higher than 10, but I have no good argument for it other than that most admins doing CSD seem to think it's higher (although I have no means of searching for failed CSD attempts) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd actually go up to 20, but 10 is a reasonable threshold too. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible that there was no check for "few or no edits outside of user pages" done in those high number cases. I would be happy to support a number of 10. Anything greater than 10 is not "few". I will complain about nominations for deletion of a user page, where it is clearly an article draft, that is not about the user. Also U5 looks very similar to US, but probably too flimsy a reason to change anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather we didn't quantify the number of edits, so as not to encourage gaming the criterion, which is incredibly useful to get rid of a bunch of crap without too much fuss. I probably have a different approach, but I actually prefer leaving some room for an admin's use of discretion, after all that's what admins are appointed to do, but, if we have to establish a threshold, then I'd oppose anything lower than 50. Salvio 10:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I see this more about: If someone is a productive editor, and they have some nonsense in a sandbox, don't whack them with a speedy delete template; their fantasy MILF Island brackets that would normally be speedy-deletable may be serving a purpose such as table/template troubleshooting that you're not aware of. Have we run in to issues with an red-line edit count would have made a difference here, such that this needs to be defined? — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Quantifying the number misses the point. It’s about whether the person was here to be a good faith contributor to the project. Mainly, it’s about mainspace edits. Were they all reverted? Were they token edits, done to achieve some metric like autoconfirmed or the number that this discussion might produce? If they were ever a good-faith contributor, they deserve the dignity of a discussion, not the knee jerk deletion that is U5. U5 is for quickly getting rid of the time wasting of deliberate or inept misusers of Wikipedia who have no chance of every being a productive contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    I wasn't suggesting writing a hard line into the criterion, just wanted some advice about how many "few or no" refers to. It seems like there's widespread disagreement about that, even among watchers of this page. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    The “few” edits for disregarding were meant to be for excluding test edits, or edits to their autobiography, with discretion to the deleting admin. Are they WP:NOTHERE bold points #1 and #2?
    Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business
    Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA).
    Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site
    A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, social media type pages, etc.). See WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK for more information.
    What I look for is whether all their mainspace edits were reverted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please take a closer look at the ten cases of >100? SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Likely, there are a few admins who are loose with the criteria, and they need to be reminded of policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe CSD's are rather discretionary by nature, if an admin declines a speedy nomination you make, you can always just MFD it. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Or DRV it if you think they are being overly speedy. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
CSDs are supposed to be objective. U5 is quite special is having an extremely broad NOTWEBHOST criterion but coupled to an extreme “few or no edits”.
I don’t recall ever having a CSD tag declined. I think some admins are overly speedy. One of the ten was extraordinarily egregious and did go through DRV. I think the deleting admins should be invited to comment on their interpretation of the text at WP:U5 and how it applies to these ten cases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
User:Deb
User:Bbb23
User:Anthony Bradbury
User:Liz
User:Jimfbleak
Would you please comment on your listing in the linked table?
User:UtherSRG Already had a DRV for the User:AntonioMartin case.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
My two were mistakes. I need to be more vigilant in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks User:Bbb23. That was my guess. One should consider their mistake rate, the number of mistakes divided by their number of actions.
I rarely U5 as such, I guess I'm listed because where there is a G11/U5 I haven't always checked the U5 bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
If the page would be SNOW deleted at MfD, that’s not a CSD, but as a tagging mistake it’s a non-issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't always re-look at a CSD category to read the exact wording when I go about doing a speedy. I most often just look at the speedy tag itself and judge based on that. I err on both sides of that fence, but the non-deletes don't get seen. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Like User:Jimfbleak, I'm not too troubled as to how many edits have been made overall. For me, making 100 small edits in a short space of time in order to get your pet topic on Wikipedia is no better than making half a dozen major edits for the same reason. I would seldom delete for U5 on its own so it hasn't been a consideration for me. Deb (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Especially when users like user:20 upper will game their edit counts. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
See this talk section for instance. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
They're listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#U5, as I subtly linked to above. Feel free. There's now only 9, since in one case enough of the user in question's other edits were deleted to knock them below 100 edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think U5 is fine as written but we must recognize what it is. It's inherently somewhat subjective rather than objective, and the phrase in question even more so. While speedy is usually about the page, this phrase brings in an "activity elsewhere" criteria to judge the creators motivation and then judges the page by that motivation. Also, I think that wiki decisions are inherently take into \account multiple factors such as the nature of the page and the activity criteria. What does it mean if you set an explicit pass/fail criteria for one criteria in a multi-factor decision? North8000 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If in doubt, use MfD. U5 is only for objective non-contributors. A few random editors don’t make someone a genuine good faith contributor. Anyone who can’t identify objectively whether that account has made good faith edits shouldn’t touch U5. For the vast majority of U5 deletions, it is clear cut. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

U5: A non-contributor’s misuse of Wikipedia as a web host

This edit, retitling U5 to “A non-contributor’s misuse of Wikipedia as a web host” may be required and sufficient to refocus U5 on the objective criteria that the user is a non-contributor. The above includes clear evidence that admins deleting under U5 are sometimes completely forgetting the non-contributor aspect. At MfD, it is clear that non-admins frequently fail to read past the first clause. If this sticks, next it should filter through to twinkle: U5 is only for non-contributors’ pages.

How many mainspace edits make a user a contributor? Mostly, U5 is used where they have zero. For the one to dozens range, it depends on the edits. Where they junk and reverted? Were they dummy edits?

If a user has any proclivity to productive editing, they should get the respect of an MfD discussion over U5 speedy deletion. Give respect, and you get respect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

On the removal of “Blatant”. I don’t recall this being a feature of the original discussions. It was sufficient that the non-contributors page was a mere NOTWEBHOST violation. Eg a probably CV, which is not blatantly not a draft mainspace biography. Also, “blatant” draws the mind to the degree of the NOTWEBHOST violation, and draws attention away from the non-contributor aspect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not trying to catch you out, but does this mean that, in your opinion, it's okay for a contributor to misuse Wikipedia as a web host and for us to leave that user page in place? Deb (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It means that if a contributor allegedly misuses Wikipedia as a web host, then a discussion is required. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
MfD used to process a large number of NOTWEBHOST violations by complete non-contributors. Over years, I argued that if we bend over backwards to be nice to them, they might become contributors. I looked, and I saw it happen never.
Efficient deletion of the huge number of NOTWEBHOST violations by complete non-contributors was the driving reason for U5. U5 stats provided this month indicate that the vast majority of U5 deletions are for users with zero edits outside userspace. It is working as intended.
MfD is not burdened with nominations of userpages belonging to ever-good-faith contributors.
Nominations to delete the Userpage of a contributor per the NOTWEBHOST reason are frequently contentious. This means that their deletion is not suitable for speedy deletion.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I place a lot of U5 tags, and I've had U5 tags I've placed removed by admins because a user had over a thousand edits and I hadn't realized it. I don't think an edit count should be relevant personally, but take it to MfD is exactly what the edit summary has stated in some cases when I've seen the tag removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
And that feels right. Any good-faith editor can challenge most any tag, with obvious exceptions, and an XfD process is the next step in such a case. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we talk about the fact that almost all U5s are against policy?

So, I've been meaning to do a proper analysis of this for a while, but since we're on the topic, I'll do an abbreviated version: Almost all U5s are against policy as currently written.

U5 has exceptions for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. Let's look at just the last 10 U5s out of Special:Log/delete that don't also cite other CSD. For apparently autobiographical content, dates of birth, contact info, and third parties' names have been redacted (out of an abundance of caution; all who stated an age were above 18). Templates have been nowiki'd or similar where appropriate.

1. User:Vikashnik07:  Y Good deletion.

Hi My name is vikash nik and IAM a creator and photography influencers And My other account pls visit.....

instagram... [redacted]

Facebook... [redacted]

Twitter..... [redacted]

Pls pls visit my all accounts

😎😎😎😎😘🥺❤️🙏

2. User:Habibitsolutions:  N Plausible draft. Not a good draft, but still an attempt at creating encyclopedic content.

== HABEEBULLA GOKULAPADU alias (HABIB) ==

Habib
Habib(Founder and C.E.O) -Habib IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Habib in 2022
Born
Gokulapadu Habeebulla

(1996-04-10) April 10, 1996 (age 28)
Nannur, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India.
EducationG.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (B.Tech(C.S.E))
Occupations
  • Software developer
  • investor
  • entrepreneur
  • Technical Trainer
Years active2022–present
Known forfounder of HABIB IT SOLUTIONS and Easyinternship.in
Title
Board member ofHabib IT Solutions
Habib IT Solutions
Parents
Websitewww.habibitsolutions.com
3. User:TexasLending-com:  N Egregiously bad deletion U5 application. Page is 100% compliant with WP:UPYES.
About Me Userboxen
NameThis user's name is TexasLending.com.
 This user has been a member of Wikipedia since Feb 12,2015.
 Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain.
H2OThis user drinks water regularly.
  This user believes in the right of every human being to have access to Wikipedia.
 This user was born and lives in the United States.
enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
  This user has been on Wikipedia for 9 years, 9 months and 3 days.
Too many userboxesThis user may have too many userboxes ... nah, no way!!
 
This user maintains a blog.
 This user uses Google as a primary search engine.
 This user has a channel on YouTube.
  This user maintains a facebook profile. +
 This user posts on X.
4. User:Texas-Lending:  N Egregiously bad deletion U5 application. Page is 100% compliant with WP:UPYES.
About Me Userboxen
NameThis user's name is Texas Lending.
 This user has been a member of Wikipedia since Feb 12,2015.
 Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain.
H2OThis user drinks water regularly.
  This user believes in the right of every human being to have access to Wikipedia.
 This user was born and lives in the United States.
enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
  This user has been on Wikipedia for 9 years, 9 months and 3 days.
Too many userboxesThis user may have too many userboxes ... nah, no way!!
 
This user maintains a blog.
 This user uses Google as a primary search engine.
 This user has a channel on YouTube.
  This user maintains a facebook profile. +
 This user posts on X.
5. User:Abrahamjoy:  N Page valid either under WP:UPYES or as a plausible draft.

Abraham Joy (Born [redacted],Kottarakkara, District Kollam (Kerala), India

File:Abraham Joy.jpg

He studied BSc Mathematics at MSM College, Kayamkulam and completed his Master in Computer Application at AMC Engineering College Bangalore.

6. User:Roy Tsang/sandbox:  N Egregiously bad deletion of U5 application on an AfC submission. Apart from being in the wrong language, page is a 100% plausible draft about a possibly-notable beach volleyball player. U5 is not an exception to the general rule that we don't delete things just for not being in English. That said, as below, only 2 days shy of G13 eligibility.
{{Short description|王龍 Wong Lung}}
{{Draft topics|sports}}
{{AfC topic|blp}}
{{AfC submission|||ts=20220701140952|u=Roy Tsang|ns=2}}
{{User sandbox}}
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

王龍 Wong Lung (Sunny Wong) 生於1991年英屬香港，一位香港排球運動員。曾入選香港隊、南華會 等等. 王龍 活躍於室內排球及沙灘排球界。王龍這大名無人不曉，旺角花墟排球場留下不少腳毛。 現為不少中學的排球教練，作育英才。

王龍曾於一次飯局中，聲稱自己希望個名改為「司徒魚龍」，因多年來他的名字比較短，人人以為王龍本人只有150cm。

7. User:Rupinderbhathal/sandbox:  Y Draft, but not a plausible one. Arguably falls under G1 or G3 as well as U5.
{{Short description|Rapinder is really a famous person around his village and most of the people of his village know hi }}
{{Draft topics|stem}}
{{AfC topic|blp}}
{{AfC submission|||ts=20220701090701|u=Rupinderbhathal|ns=2}}
{{User sandbox}}
<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

Kio pendi a fir dhak champion 😎😂

8. User:Edonmaliqi/sandbox:  N Not a valid use of U5, given that a page with no content beyond AfC headers is by definition not using Wikipedia as a webhost. Only 2 days shy of G13 applying though.
{{Draft topics|stem}}
{{AfC topic|blp}}
{{AfC submission|||ts=20220701104523|u=Edonmaliqi|ns=2}}
{{User sandbox}}
9. User:Kamaljit karra:  Y Valid use of U5, but G11 would work just as well. (Formatting errors sic.)

baljindersingh(ajaysaab) name boy live in india(punjab) his date of birth [redacted] his working on papper selling in [redacted] 10 year old to near villages distributer and mini carnivall selling a plastic toys his aim for very biggest open a seprate production house his study complete in balachaur public sen sec school and digree elite intstitute and they complete study and trust in goal they going to wedding collect the wire for normal vedio grapher and received money per day 250 indian rupees acoording to network 4$ per day they believe in hardwork and his father name dharampal and they start a new studio tour in 2013 and sucess biggest cinematographer for vedio industry line this time working this time working in dharmamoviespatiala name studio and skill editing in biggest youtuber and influencer to cinematic vedio line and his team acrossed 2 million veiws in youtube jagritikhurana channel his net income 2000$ per month #dharmamoviespatiala #baljindersingh #dharmamovies #baljinersingh

[Filename redacted. Caption: "dharma movies owner"]

Personal life He live in from patiala a town in the patiala district near Chandigarh, Punjab, India. He is the biggest cinematographer in india

See also in social media search dharmamoviespatiala and baljindersingh(ajaysaab) References 

"Biography of Baljinder Singh" they biggest cinematographer
"An introduction to Indian vediographer ". starting work on 2013 sep birthday date

External links Baljinder Singh baljindersingh(ajaysaab) dharmamoviespatiala ajaysaab baljinder dharampalson Authority control Edit this at Wikidata General biggest cinematographer

10. User:Richardpstallo:  N Another one that is either limited autobiograhical info or could be the start of a draft.

RICHARD PADEN STALLO


Richard Paden Stallo was born in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on [redacted] to [redacted] and [redacted].

Admins can investigate further back from here.

Am I going crazy? Usually I'm on the less strict side of interpreting CSD, but this seems to be a criterion that was worded very narrowly and is being applied as almost a catch-all for "any userspace page an admin doesn't like". It's clear to me that the enforcement of U5 has drifted well beyond what its text actually calls for—well beyond what the community has ever shown consensus for. The way I see it, at least one of three things needs to happen:

  1. We update U5 to be more in line with current practice (for instance, an exception to "plausible drafts" for drafts that appear to be COI).
  2. We add further speedy deletion criteria for some of the cases that U5 is being incorrectly applied to, such as "userspace page of a user without signficant non-userspace edits, who has not edited in more than a year".
  3. We double down on the current criteria and make clear to admins that they should not exceed them. (Going just for this option would mean a 50-75% drop in U5 deletions.)

I have further thoughts, but first want to just put this out there and see what others think. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC) ed. 08:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

For #2, it should have been G11d because of the connection between the content and the promotional username. It was tagged with both of them, and it was probably just over the line of being eligible for U5. I don't see any fault with that deletion. For #3 and #4, U5 was also fine. They're both obviously promo socks (read the usernames), so their deletions were the right call. I doubt they actually went out and chose those userboxes (given both accounts have the same, they probably copied someone else's userpage), so while they might meet the black letter of WP:UPYES, keeping them around only legitimises their promotional goals. The rest I agree with you, except #7. I'd have only said it falls under G1. Anarchyte (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
In re #s3&4, I would probably support an exception-within-an-exception for UPYES-compliant pages by otherwise vandalism- or spam-only accounts, but I don't see anything like that in U5's language at present. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not just you. I only check the deletion queues infrequently and things that fall under the U5 exceptions (anf WP:UPYES) seem really common among U5-targeted things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I do believe that many eligible pages also may be deleted under another criterion – often G11, sometimes G12 – and agree that U5 should only apply to pages that could never be plausible drafts (WP:TNT notwithstanding) and that don't comply with WP:UPYES at all. A three-sentence attempt at an autobiography is quite harmless; deleting those would set a standard that many established users' userpages would fail to meet. However, it's not immediately clear how to tweak the wording of the criterion to be objective and uncontestable. For instance, is there an unequivocal interpretation of "plausible draft"?
I agree with most points raised about the ten examples above. I feel, though, that #2 could be borderline eligible for G11; I'm unsure why #3/#4 were explored almost eight years later, but in case of verified abuse of multiple accounts, one could be deleted per G5; #7 might qualify for G1 if it's not in any language (auto-translate to English doesn't work for me), though it's a user sandbox and not otherwise harmful content, so I'd actually be inclined to leave it alone; and #9 to me is more G11 than U5. Complex/Rational 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
G5 only applies if the user was blocked on some account/IP prior to the page's creation. And Pppery below is of course right on G1 and G2... What it comes down to is there's a lot of userspace pages that should be deleted but don't fall under any CSD, and the solution to that oughtn't be using existing CSD for things they weren't intended for. More and more I think the solution is broadening U5 in cases where accounts are here just to vandalize or spam, and/or creating a G13-like criterion for abandoned userspace pages by non-contributors (exclude drafts? move drafts to draftspace first and then instantly G13, so it's more obvious to users in the future that there's a REFUNDable content? just thinking out loud here). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you want to give an example of a page you believe should be CSD eligible that currently isn't? Is it just user drafts in general or something else or more specific? My feeling is that we don't gain anything by deleting most user drafts other than perhaps removing a copyright issue and run the risk of annoying the editor and potentially losing them. All the while we commit significant resources from highly skilled editors to this low reward work. A basically automatic process of removing user drafts from non-contributors after half a year without edits is something I could perhaps stand behind but in general I see little reason to expand the CSD policy to cover more user pages. --Trialpears (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Since at least two admins seem to have missed this point above, G1 and G2 explicitly exclude user namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, though in theory as an AfC draft, User:Rupinderbhathal/sandbox should have been at Draft:Kio Pendi, so one extra click of the move button would have made G1 applicable (under category 2 of WP:PN). Anarchyte (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I am pretty sure there is a general consensus that moving a page purely so that it will meet a CSD criteria is not okay. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#U5 vs. draft space, for example the fourth of my four-point list and Thryduulf's comment immediately afterward. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@Primefac and Redrose64: I completely agree. Moving a page just so it meets CSD is gaming the system. If someone was moving drafts to mainspace just to A7 them they'd be reprimanded. However, I must echo SoWhy's sentiment: "[a page] that clearly was meant to be in a different namespace [should] be treated as being in that namespace". If a page is intended to be an AfC draft, and it just so happens to be in userspace instead of draftspace, then barring the use of draft-related CSD criteria is counterproductive and bureaucratic, especially when userspace AfC drafts are tagged with "Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace." and they all get deleted after six months through G13 regardless of their location. To note, I do not agree that U5 should be extended to draftspace. Anarchyte (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I would not support using G1 on a userpage or sandbox that did not have an AfC tag on it, regardless of whether it was a draft. Userpage drafts that aren't in AfC cannot meet G13, and therefore shouldn't be treated like draftspace at all. Additionally, I'd have left User:Rupinderbhathal/sandbox to be deleted via G13 anyway, as to not risk violating policy despite whether it's possible to interpret the criterion in the more lenient way SoWhy explored above. Perhaps it's worth having a separate discussion about the interconnection of WP:GAME, the criteria, and the intended location relevant pages. Anarchyte (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not (on the whole) disagree with any of your points. Your example, however, was "I want to move a user page into the draft space so I can G1 it". That is not "moving a draft to the draft space, and it just so happens to get G13'd six months later", it is moving a page specifically so that a CSD criteria will be eligible for use. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless a userspace page was unambiguously intended to be a draft, and unambiguously meant to be part of AfC then it should not be moved into draftspace, for any reason, without either the explicit consent of the editor concerned or a community consensus. If AfC tags were added by someone other than the editor (other than following an explicit request) then the above criteria cannot be met. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Anarchyte (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Pppery, I have changed the status of WP:Speedy to a disambiguation page for NPOV reasons. As such, it no longer redirects here. Mind removing the hatnote for WP:Speedy or self revert? Please don't forget to ping me when you reply. Otherwise, I may not see it after a couple edits. Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit to WP:Speedy (a longstanding redirect) since that term standing alone overwhelmingly refers to speedy deletion; feel free to start an WP:RFD discussion if you really think it necessary, Wikiexplorationandhelping. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Formerly untitled/upcoming media

Latest comment: 1 year ago99 comments20 people in discussion
Closing per this request at WP:CR (apologies for the long wait time). There is (marginally) a consensus that some sort of criterion along these lines would be a good idea in the abstract: supporters argue that the number of deletions is high enough to meet NEWCSD #3 and that recent RfDs are enough of a "strong precedent for deletion" to satisfy NEWCSD #2. That said, "CSD criteria require careful wording", and it became clear toward the end of the discussion that editors haven't reached agreement regarding what exactly the criterion should cover or when exactly it should apply. I thus don't see a consensus at the moment regarding NEWCSD #1, objectivity. At this point, I'd suggest brainstorming the language a bit further and, if agreement is reached, presenting the results to the community in the form of an RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

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 ([1], [2]), 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)
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.

Post-closure

Moved to WT:NCFILM § Formerly untitled/upcoming media. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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.


Thank you Extraordinary Writ for closing this. Okay, to satisfy NEWCSD #1 (objectivity), I suggest the following wording:

R5. Formerly untitled/upcoming media

This applies to redirects whose title contains the word "untitled" or "upcoming" and whose target points to a creative work (e.g. a film, a television series, a book, a video game, etc.) that is no longer untitled or upcoming. This criterion only applies to works which received an official title or a wide release at least 30 days prior. For works not expected to receive a wide release, its limited release date should be considered instead.

This criterion does not apply to redirects with a substantial non-trivial history or with incoming links in the mainspace. It also does not apply to works whose official title includes the word "untitled" or "upcoming" as a creative choice. For special or ambiguous cases where it is unclear whether a redirect falls under R5, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.

I tried to make this as specific and objective as possible and I tried to incorporate everyone's suggestions and concerns above. @Steel1943, Cryptic, Thryduulf, Kusma, Jclemens, Tavix, A7V2, StarTrekker, Shhhnotsoloud, Mellohi!, Buidhe, Pppery, Jontesta, TNstingray, Oiyarbepsy, ValarianB, and Tamzin: I know it's been a while, but ... thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I've notified WikiProject Film, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Video games, and WikiProject Books of this discussion. Hopefully we'll get more input from them than last time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any and all criteria regarding this that do not require the article to have been moved to a different title a significant period of time ago (30 days would be the absolute minimum, 3 months would be preferable; when our article was moved is more important than when the media gained a title) and which are objectively no longer receiving a significant number of page views. These are the two factors (along with the final paragraph of this proposal) which are the most important for determining whether such redirects should or should not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    So if we change This criterion only applies to works which received an official title or a wide release at least 30 days prior. For works not expected to receive a wide release, its limited release date should be considered instead. to This criterion only applies if the redirect target was moved to a new title after receiving an updated title or release date at least 30 days prior., you would support this? I'm open to making that wording change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    No - it's an improvement but it still only partially covers one of the two missing requirements - both subject and article title need to be at least 30 days old (and ideally the article title should also be stable, but I'm not sure if we need to codify that) and there must be no significant ongoing page views. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    We're already long past the pageviews thing. As established in the previous discussion, page views don't matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    There was a very slim consensus (that I'm not convinced actually existed given how few people actually even attempted to engage with the page views argument, but ran out of will to challenge) that page views should not stand in the way in one deletion discussion, despite the verifiable harm this causes to the encyclopaedia. That does not mean there is consensus to enshrine the same mistake in a speedy deletion criterion, let alone that I should actively support doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Literally all of the redirects that were nominated at RfD last time were deleted, in spite of your pageviews argument. Remember your WP:TRAINWRECK comment from the other day? Guess what, editors were unswayed and that discussion ended up closing as delete. If that's not consensus, I don't know what is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    That comment addresses basically none of my points. One discussion coming to a narrow consensus to delete despite most contributors not engaging with the main contrary argument (and it was not one editor versus the world either, multiple editors did not support deletion) is not remotely close to evidence that WP:NEWCSD point 2 is met. Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Thryduulf makes a good point concerning the article being moved rather than when the media gained a title, but if Wikipedia is moving efficiently, this shouldn't be a problem because the move would ideally happen shortly after the official name anyway. So, support per nom. TNstingray (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Remember that people are by definition not aware of when Wikipedia is not moving efficiently. Speaking for myself, I've found plenty of articles gathering dust when doing various database queries, and although none of them were about upcoming films I wouldn't be surprised if one was. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    While moves might "ideally" happen shortly after the official name, that is completely irrelevant as what matters is what actually happened - and there are multiple good reasons why that might not happen for a while. Those reasons include (but are not limited to) the title not being widely publicised for a while, Wikipedians not being aware of the official name for a while (this is unlikely for a big-budget Hollywood feature film but those are not the only films Wikipedia has articles about) and it not being clear (or there being a dispute about) what the new title of the article should be (my gut feeling is this will roughly correlate with the potential ambiguity of the title, but I've made no attempt to verify that). Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support This is a good proposal. I agree with Thrydulf/TNstringray about moving the article first. I also agree with basing the timing on that, instead of release date. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose While I still don't think NEWCSD 2 and 3 are unequivocally met, this fails a personal CSD criterion that I admit has little base in CSD policy: Too complex to be reliably executed correctly. I suppose I could appeal to WP:NOTBURO but somewhat inherent in NEWCSD #2 is the idea that the criterion be simpler than an XfD discussion, and this arguably is not. The world isn't going to end if we enact this, but I don't think we need it. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'd say that "too complex" is a combination of NEWCSD 1 and 2. If a criterion is too complicated to be reliably executed correctly then it is not objective enough and/or not uncontestable. It is a very good point that something which requires a patroler to know:
    1. The date a page was moved
    2. The date the subject was officially titled and/or released
    3. (in some cases) whether the subject had and/or is expected to have a wide or limited release
    4. Whether there is any substantial history to the redirect
    5. Whether the redirect has incomming links from the mainspace
    Is probably not at all suitable for speedy deletion - and that's even discounting the page views (which absolutely should not be discounted). Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    That sounds more like laziness than objectivity. I would think an administrator wouldn't have a problem performing a few extra steps. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Every administrator patrolling speedy deletion categories must be able to reliably determine whether a nominated page meets the specified criterion or not with the minimum of research, anything beyond that is not speedy deletion it's a WP:BEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to stop everyone right there before anyone else adds their !vote. I wasn't exactly looking for another poll, we already did that three months ago. I was really looking for comments and suggestions regarding the wording I suggested, such as Thryduulf's regarding the 30-day grace period. Once we finalize on a wording that satisfies all criteria of NEWCSD to a certain extent, we can launch an RfC to determine whether there is consensus for implementation, as per the closer's suggestion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Taking a step back, I think we need to be certain that all the following are true before considering whether to speedy delete an "untitled"/"upcoming" redirect:
  1. The subject has been named/released
  2. The article has been renamed
  3. The new title is stable
  4. Readers are aware that the subject has been named/released
  5. Readers are aware that the article has been renamed
  6. Readers have stopped attempting to find the article at the old title
  • 1 and 2 are very simple and I can't think of how any criterion could conceivably apply where these aren't true.
  • 3 is a basic check of the article history and target talk page but still needs to be done. This may or may not need to be explicitly specified.
  • 4 and 5 are harder, but the time delay is a very rough proxy for the likelihood of this - the more prominent the subject in western popular culture the more likely it is to be accurate.
  • 6, despite being the most important aspect, is not covered at all in the proposed criteria and there is indeed active objection to considering the only objective measurement (page views).
Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
But you just wrote above that the more complicated the guideline is, the less you believe it passes NEWCSD #1 and #2. I'm always going to be open to amending/improving my proposed wording, but I would appreciate it if you actually gave suggestions as to what to add or change, rather than just listing out how the current wording doesn't work. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
You are correct that the more complicated the guideline is the less likely it is to pass the NEWCSD requirements, but the more I think about this the less convinced I am that writing a criterion that meets all the requirements is possible. I haven't suggested a possible wording because I have been unable to come up with anything that meets all the requirements - everything that's objective is far too broad, everything that's uncontestable is subjective and/or too complicated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Anyone else? It seems like we're going nowhere with this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Which suggests to me that either (a) nobody else has managed to formulate a proposed criterion that meets all the requirements, or (b) there is not enough desire for a criterion covering this to try. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Figured I'd go ahead and chime in here regarding this discussion, since I've been holding back for a bit. In all honesty, I'm not seeing the clarity to avoid false positives in this criterion in the way that it's worded; in fact, in my opinion, I'd be OK with just continuing to do bulk RFD nominations of these redirects as they appear ... and I'll keep citing the precedence, which is how many discussions are solved which do not have a CSD criterion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I concede. It doesn't look like there's a strong consensus for a new speedy deletion criterion. I'll start a follow-up discussion at WT:NCFILM to see if we can add something to that page which we can reference in future RfDs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (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.

A5. Transwikied articles - Wiktionary

Latest comment: 1 year ago26 comments14 people in discussion
A5 IS REPEALED
Just read at Administrator's newsletter that A5 is already repealed. Closing this thread as it has no responses in 4 days. Challenges, if any, can be opened in a subsequent section. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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.


A5 states This applies to any article that consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied (e.g. to Wiktionary). However, Wiktionary no longer accepts transwikis from Wikipedia.

I propose that we address this by splitting this aspect of A5 out into a new CSD, A12. Dictionary definitions, which would read This applies to any article that consists only of a dictionary definition. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not a split-out aspect; that's a new license to delete DICTDEFs on sight. Why is that a good thing? Jclemens (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Because that licence existed until Wiktionary changed their policies, and because of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. However, the other option would be to remove that sentence from A5. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the latter would be more congruent with past policies--"transwiki then speedy delete" is a lot different than "speedy delete" because in the former case it's clear that the contribution went somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
We could clarify A5 to be "any articles that exist on another Wikimedia project and fall foul of WP:NOT", pretty much like A2 is for any articles that exist on another Wikimedia project and are not in English. I don't see any evidence of need for a CSD for dictionary definitions. —Kusma (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a workable suggestion. We don't need to have a list of possible transwikis in the CSD that could change at any time due to those other wiki's policies. If we can't transwiki a page, then we should try to improve it to encyclopedic quality instead (or PROD/AFD if that isn't possible). Iffy★Chat -- 14:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Or just repeal A5 entirely - it's been used a grand total of 8 times in 2022: Trainer Card (Pokémon), Items in the Metroid series, Creatures in the Metroid series, Creatures in the Metroid Prime series, Creatures in Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission, Creatures in Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid, Rings (The Legend of Zelda series), and Konnichi wa. 7 of those were instances of an admin temporarily restoring a page previously deleted at AfD to allow it to be copied to another project and then redeleting it later, which several other criteria could apply to. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOT is inherently subjective, and many articles which run afoul of it have flaws which can be fixed by regular editing. Basing a speedy deletion criterion on NOT without further qualification is likely to lead to more problems than it solves. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, basing CSD criteria on WP:NOT has been suggested many times and rejected, for good reason, on every single occasion. There is nothing different about this proposal in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Transwikied pages aren't really deleted, just moved to a more appropriate project. False positives would be articles that also exist on a different project, look like they violate WP:NOT but should still be kept on two separate projects. Looks unlikely to me. —Kusma (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
If you think the page shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion. Whether something does or does not violate WP:NOT is incredibly subjective and not always unfixable and so completely inappropriate for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion to repeal A5. An XfD consensus to "transwiki" means "transwiki and then delete" so this is not relevant to speedy deletion. Any other page that has been transwikied that doesn't meed another speedy deletion criterion already should be nominated at the relevant XfD and discussed (with the transwiki mentioned in the nomination) - if there is benefit to keeping here (in some form) then it shouldn't be deleted, if there isn't there will be a consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Repealing is probably fine. Transwikis have become so rare that they don't need to clutter the speedy deletion menus. —Kusma (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree. It's not a common speedy deletion reason and if Wiktionary folks don't want them, we can hardly override them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I concur, Transwiki is an archaism. Let's sunset A5. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I have gone ahead with what is probably the most BOLD edit I have ever made and depreciated A5. "Should we deprecate a CSD that was needed a single time in the past year?" is hardly a question worth editors' time in the form of a (an?) RfC, WP:NOTBURO, etc. I open my computer to see that I forgot to hit publish when I made the corresponding edit last night. My apologies for the false promise of "see talk". HouseBlastertalk 21:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Most of those transwiki deletions have been done by me, and I expect that I will continue to delete for that reason. But the stuff I delete has not actually been a dictionary definition, but an AFD'd article. But if A5 is not on the dropdown list, it will just be an IAR delete, and perhaps tagged as G6. Sometimes I do copy a definition to Wiktionary without deletion, but since formatting is very different there, transwiki does not make sense, and really just needs crediting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not think you would need to IAR—those deletions should be covered under whatever criterion (which I assume is G6) is used to delete a page that was {{temporarily undeleted}}'d. HouseBlastertalk 02:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If you want to delete an AfD'd article, then you can simply cite the AfD as justification for the deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: If you are invoking IAR in order to justify a delete, that to me is abuse of admin powers. If you are re-deleting a page previously deleted at a WP:XFD and subsequently undeleted, link the discussion where the delete was agreed. If you are deleting a page previously deleted at a WP:XFD and subsequently recreated, link to WP:CSD#G4 and the XfD discussion. If there was no discussion, and none of the current CSD criteria apply, the page cannot be deleted without a proper WP:XFD. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you like rules. Admins should be able to reverse an action that they performed. Perhaps that should not be called IAR, and called something else. If I undeleted a page, I should be permitted to reverse that in order to delete it. (However if the page is edited in between that may not be appropriate any more). Anyway, the idea is to improve the encyclopedia by not having a page around that should be deleted, but is now transwikied to another wiki. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett if a page has been temporarily undeleted and (a) the reason for deletion still applies and (b) there is no consensus or other reason to keep it around any longer, then it can be speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G6 - there is no need for IAR (indeed there is never a justification to use IAR for speedy deletion) That criterion is massively overloaded (so I understand this might not be clear) and really should be split but that is a different discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
A temp-undeleted page should not be re-deleted per G6, but re-deleted per the original deletion reason. Don’t abuse G6. Don’t make the deletion logs wrong. Temp-undeleted pages should not be edited. If the reason for deletion is overturned (by DRV, or by the deleting admin), and then further edited, the temp-undeleting admin loses the privilege to arbitrarily re-delete, but must resort freshly to deletion policy (maybe the earlier deletion reason still applies, but a CSD#A1 deletion, undeleted, following addition of material giving context, it is no longer A1-eligible, and is not G6-eligible). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, yes I was too hasty and overgeneralised. Hopefully this will clarify my position (all the following apply only to pages that were temporarily undeleted, and in every case the deleting admin should use a clear edit summary):
If there is ongoing discussion about the page, it is not eligible for speedy deletion.[a]
If the page is unchanged, and the undeletion was:
  • A mistake (e.g. wrong revision undeleted) — G6 applies.
  • Solely for review or similar by the deleting admin — redelete with the original reason (and G6)
  • To allow for transwikiing or similar — redelete with the original reason (and G6)
  • For review at DRV or similar, and consensus was...
    • that the deletion was correct and it should not be undeleted. Redelete with the original reason and a link to the DRV
    • that it should have been deleted, but for a different reason. Redelete using the new reason and a link to the DRV
    • that it should not have been deleted. Not eligible for speedy deletion.[a]
    • that deletion was correct at the time but it should be restored now. Not eligible for speedy deletion.[a]
If the page has been changed, and:
  • The changes are exclusively trivial (e.g. formatting or typo fixes) — treat as if it was unchanged
  • The reason for deletion clearly or possibly no longer applies — not eligible for speedy deletion unless other criteria still or now apply; if in doubt discuss at the appropriate XfD.
  • The reason for deletion still applies — redelete with the original reason (and G4 if appropriate).
Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ a b c Exceptions:
    • Office actions
    • A different speedy deletion criterion unambiguously applies to the current state of the page, and this has not been discussed or declined previously and this is not being discussed currently.
      If there is any doubt or ambiguity then this exception does not apply and the matter must be discussed (again) prior to deletion.
      If the reason for deletion is being discussed currently, was previously discussed and/or was declined previously then this exception does not apply and the matter must be discussed (again) prior to deletion.
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.

G4 on drafts

Latest comment: 1 year ago45 comments10 people in discussion

I recently tagged a draft as a G4 as I felt it was sufficiently identical to an article deleted at AfD last month. The CSD was declined with the reason that G4 doesn't apply to drafts. I believe the implicit reason for the decline was that a page deleted in mainspace is not supposed to be applicable for G4 if recreated in draftspace.

Is this cross-namespace limitation an unwritten but generally understood part of G4? Looking at the archives I see that at   /Archive 64#G4 on Drafts, the cross-namespace concern was discussed, and SmokeyJoe attempted to add the wordings related to it, but was reverted by Cryptic who felt that the problem lies not with the G4 wordings, but will lie with the speedying admin who does not understand the namespace clause.

From a re-reading of G4 in the context of what is excluded, I see the following:

  • moved to userspace: my understanding is that the only scenario we're talking about is when the deleted page (in any namespace) is undeleted and moved to a page in userspace.
  • converted to a draft: my understanding is that there may be two scenarios: 1. When the deleted page (in any namespace) is undeleted and moved to a page in draftspace. 2. (this is the new knowledge for me, and I'm unsure) When a new draft page is created and the contents of the deleted page (in any namespace, and retrieved without the help of an admin) are added to it.
  • but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy: How can an editor circumvent deletion policy when the page is already deleted? Neither of the scenarios #1 and #2 above is a circumvention of deletion policy. What is the relevance of this text in the context of G4?

I would request the following changes to the wordings of G4:

  1. If it's indeed the case, for userspace draft and draftspace draft, make it clear that only cross-namespace draft recreation is excluded from G4.
  2. Clarify what "convert to draft" means. Does it simply mean recreation of the deleted page as a draftspace draft? Since the word "move" and not "convert" is used for userspace, is creation of a new userspace page with the contents of the deleted page applicable for G4, or do we wish to treat both userspace drafts and draftspace drafts the same?
  3. Remove the circumvent statement if there is no justification for it under G4.

Jay 💬 13:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the last is necessary, appropriate, and I will be BOLDLY making it, because that clause is fundamentally incompatible with a speedy deletion criterion: It must be clear and unambiguous, and circumvention is by definition an act that requires a specific motivation. It could probably even be cleaned up further. Thus, while Jay was wrong to try to tag a draft as G4, it's not entirely obvious from the extra verbiage in G4 why that was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thinking on this more, G4 should not be used to sanction a user attempting to circumvent the deletion process, because we don't sanction editors by deleting articles. Even U5 is not a sanction, but a protection of the site's integrity. If we're going to have a discussion along the lines of "User X tried to circumvent deletion of article Y which was being discussed at appropriate venue Z by copying it into userspace without any intent to improve it." then deletion of the content in question should absolutely be a legitimate part of the user conduct discussion, but NOT a speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Just copying the deleted content into a draft (whether in the User: or Draft: namespaces) isn't circumvention of deletion policy, of course; this phrase lets us take action when we see evidence of deliberate bad faith, like deleting a user sandbox with an unedited copy of the deleted content after the third or fourth time the user pastes it back into mainspace. About half of the hits from the top-of-the-page search box for "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy" are relevant (with the rest being pastes of the whole criterion); I mention some more examples in the first one.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the differences between "moved to userspace" and "converted to a draft", and I have no problem with cleaning up the verbiage, particularly now that I've stumbled upon the relevant mention on talk. The basic idea is that the deletion discussion would have had to apply to the recreation, and in particular drafts are deleted by MFD, not AFD. But the edit I reverted didn't clarify anything: it was largely redundant, and where it wasn't redundant it was incorrect. It would have, for example, required a second MFD for a previously-deleted draft that was pasted into a new File: description page or Category. —Cryptic 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
So what did you object to about my edit? Cryptic do you dispute that conflating behavior with a CSD criterion violates multiple aspects of WP:NEWCSD? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Cryptic didn't respond to this, and the revert was his last edit on enwiki, possible because he was fairly ill, per his last edit summary. @Jclemens: would you want to remove the circumvent part again, given the subsequent discussion had here since that time? What Salvio giuliano objected to was the rewording. Jay 💬 05:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There's no rush on this. I'm OK waiting a while more to make sure Cryptic's objections have been addressed. It's also the holiday season in America, so there's another good reason to not be as active on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jclemens: Would you want to wait more for Cryptic who is not yet back, and close this conversation before it is archived. Otherwise I can go ahead and remove it. Jay 💬 12:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I moved the statement to a footnote with explanation. I think that makes it read cleaner, and it's clear that avoiding a deletion outcome inappropriately is a user conduct issue... just not one to be administered as a CSD. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
... and was pretty swiftly reverted again. Salvio giuliano, there's still no way the clause is compliant with NEWCSD 1 or 2. I get that it's been there for a while, but if we're deleting older articles now that notability criteria have firmed up, it's time to do the same thing with CSDs. but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is in no way objective or uncontestable, is it? Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jclemens: The user ping will go only after you sign your comment and post it. Since you got it wrong the first time, subsequently modifying the username did not send the ping as you did not sign and post it as a new comment. Anyway, this is my understanding of pings. In any case, pinging Salvio giuliano was only courtesy, as he could have responded here knowing that the discussion was in progress, and the change by Jclemens was made per this discussion, and was followed up here. Jay 💬 05:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I can sympathise with the desire to firm up the criteria for speedy deletion and support removing any which are perceived as no longer useful or appropriate; that said, in my opinion, this criterion can still be useful and don't find it violates NEWCSD 1 or 2. In particular, I do not find it any more subjective than other criteria, where admins are routinely allowed to use their own discretion. In addition to that, I do not see any real consensus in support of that change. There are various editors who have commented here who are in favour of that change, but that's not everyone who has expressed their opinion, and I think that there has been too little participation in this discussion so far to justify discounting the opinions of those who are against the change... Salvio 07:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Salvio giuliano, we can hold an RfC if you believe it would be helpful in assessing consensus, but I disagree with your counting. There are 3-4 of us who are in favor of some sort of change in emphasis, and only you of those not supporting actively opposes--discounting Cryptic who has been inactive for nearly a month after citing illness. It's also hard to track the flow because the chronological and linear orders of this conversation, so I'm talking myself more towards a specific RfC, I suppose, as we might want to look at things a bit more holisticaly. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. I have no objections to the current wording. To be fair, that's how I have always interpreted it, so that helps to avoid objections from me  . Salvio 13:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
On the moved vs converted verbiage, thanks for pointing out the relevant talk which was the source of it. Salvidrim! inserted the "converted to draft" part, but kept it unchanged for userspace as "moved". DGG did suggest consistency by using "moved to user space or draft space", but this suggestion was not actioned by either editor. We can make it consistent now. Jay 💬 13:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Given Salvidrim's intention of using "convert" to encompass both scenarios of (restore+)move and (copy+paste+)recreate, I'm fine with "convert" representing the cross-namespace usage. Apart from the two scenarios I mentioned in my first post, I assume "convert" will also cover a 3rd scenario which I have seen happening. An editor realizes an article at AfD has got consensus for deletion, and just before deletion, he copies the content into a new draft page or an existing draft page. Article is deleted, the draft continues, and the copying author doesn't have to credit the original authors. I'll assume this draft is also exempt from G4. I have also seen that the AfD closing admin redirects the draft to the article, just before deletion, and then deletes the draft as a G8. Jay 💬 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and for digging the 2014 post up -- my update was really so the criteria said somethng about the then-new Draftspace, I invited even back then anyone to improve the wording; it may have taken over 8 years but I'm glad the minutiae is finally being hashed out in the thread! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Propose to change from:
It excludes userspace and draftspace pages where the content was moved to user space or converted to a draft, unless a user conduct discussion ... To:
It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted[1] to a draft, unless a user conduct discussion ....
Note that piped links to userfication, and at "converted to a draft" are removed, and replaced with a ref note. Jay 💬 08:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
No objections from me; I think that would say the same thing more cleanly. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Reworded G4 per above. Jay 💬 02:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I went through all hits of the first page of the search "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", but found specific examples only in "the first one" you linked, and let me repeat them here briefly.
A. Author uses the draft as a backup source, and creates a new mainspace article (with the old or a different title) by copying the exact draft content.
B. Author pipe links it from mainspace articles to give the impression that it's in mainspace too.
C. Author links the draft offwiki in lieu of the deleted article.
D. Author doesn't attempt to improve the draft, but makes cosmetic edits to avert G13.
E. Tries to get the draft indexed by search engines (I don't know how that's possible).
All of these are supposedly bad faith edits, but how do these translate to "circumvention of deletion policy" which (for me) is a vague / unclear statement. Do the taggers and the admin know that these are some of the examples they should be looking for? Or should the 14 reasons for deletion as listed at WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion be their guide to see that the draft is doing the same damage to the project that the article, if not deleted, would have done? The circumvention of deletion I can think of, would be an article moved to draft while the AfD is in progress (a stupid edit which will be immediately reverted). Agree with Jclemens on the difficulty of interpreting this circumvention in a CSD. It might as well be replaced by .. converted to a draft for explicit improvement in good faith., and now we're stuck with the tagger and admin engaged in what good faith means with respect to drafts recreated from deleted pages. The good faith mentioned at G7 is comparatively easier to interpret. Jay 💬 16:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Or should the 14 reasons for deletion as listed at WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion be their guide to see that the draft is doing the same damage to the project that the article, if not deleted, would have done? No, most emphatically, no. CSDs are only for things that no good faith editor disputes. The criteria are objective and not subject to opinions or motivations: We don't care if G10 or G12 was accidental or malicious, that content goes, full stop. Intent is not something we can automagically assess. Actions, such as a user placing DB-U1, are concrete; intent is not. G4 has historically been one of the more misapplied criteria simply because admins have felt free to look at intent, rather than the single reasonably objective criteria, "substantially identical". Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
We should just say that G4 doesn't apply to drafts unless the deletion discussion was held at MfD. The fact an AfD decided that some content was unsuitable for mainspace does not mean it's unsuitable for draftspace, so the mere fact the page in draftspace is a significant difference from the original page. It is acceptable and pretty common to move content from mainspace to draftspace for improvement and draftspace is supposed to be a safe place where content can be improved without imminent threat of deletion. The current wording basically asks us to read the mind of the person who created the draft, which is too subjective for a speedy deletion criterion. Hut 8.5 11:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, I tried again. Does that allow all the "duh" deletions of poor conduct moves/copies we need, while still making the criterion sufficiently objective? If not, please revert again or further modify and discuss. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
As I said, I find this unnecessarily bureaucratic. If I think an editor is trying to circumvent the deletion policy, I can block him, but I can't delete the article unless I start a discussion at ANI or something like that? I think that the criterion is ok the way it is; if an administrator deletes a draft under G4, anyone can ask him to explain why he feels that the draftification was an attempt to circumvent the deletion policy. If the editor is not satisfied, he can take it to deletion review. Salvio 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If you think someone is trying to circumvent the deletion policy but you don't have enough evidence of that to support a discussion of their conduct then you shouldn't be blocking them (whether there is a discussion or not, you should not be blocking anybody a discussion would not support blocking). >99% of drafts are completely harmless and so can and should be just ignored - G13 will mop up all those in draft space soon enough. For those drafts that are not harmless, but don't meet a CSD criterion (in practice this is almost always going to be G10 or G12) then take it to MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This is what I am thinking as well: G10, 11, or 12 will always be appropriate to use against objectively harmful content in whatever namespace. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand my point. It's not that, in my example, I would not have enough evidence to support a discussion, but rather that it's a clear-cut case. In that case, demanding a discussion to delete the drafts is needlessly bureaucratic, especially considering that I could freely block the editor in question. Furthermore, G13 is not necessarily enough, because if there is someone making cosmetic edits to the draft, then it is ineligible for deletion. And I do not see a point in requiring the use of MfD for obvious things, that's just jumping through hoops for the sake of it. Salvio 08:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The point is that you don't need to delete the drafts, with or without discussion - unless they are actively harmful then just ignore them. If someone is blocked then they can't make cosmetic edits to avoid G13. If the page does not meet a speedy deletion criterion then it is not "obvious" and must be discussed before deletion. If you are speedily deleting things that do not meet a speedy deletion criterion then you are abusing your admin powers and should hand in your bits immediately. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The point is that, according to the way I interpret policy, G4 applies to drafts that are recreation of articles deleted at AfD, if the recreation is an attempt to circumvent policy. Salvio 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That is the interpretation that is being challenged here, because as has been pointed out multiple times there is no way that that meets the objectivity required for speedy deletion. I completely agree with @Jay, @Hut 8.5 and @Jclemens that the wording of the policy should be changed to make that unambiguous. Making this change will not prevent the deletion of things that should be deleted, but will prevent the deletion of things that should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Salvio giuliano: Since you re-instated but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy, either as a status quo, or because you follow it, can you describe what it means, in words and/or examples? If it's the examples I listed above, how are they a circumvention of deletion policy? If this text continues to be there at G4, I would like to know how they are interpreted by editors. Jay 💬 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not remember coming across a draft that would qualify, but the way I interpret policy is that you can recreate an article that was deleted at AfD as a draft, as long as you're actively trying to improve it. This does not mean that you need to be constantly working on it, but you need to show that you're trying to resolve the issues that led to the original deletion. If you recreate the draft and then do not make edits to it for a while or you make just enough cosmetic edits to make it ineligible for deletion under G13, then, as far as I'm concerned, you're trying to circumvent the deletion policy. Especially if you're doing it with multiple drafts. I am open to rewording the policy, to make it clearer. I'm personally against requiring what I perceive as nothing but bureaucracy... Salvio 09:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
If someone is making cosmetic edits on many drafts with the apparent sole purpose of avoiding G13 deletion then that's a user conduct issue that needs to be discussed. If the editor is doing that (which is often subjective) and doesn't stop after being told to, and nobody else is improving the drafts, then the editor can be blocked (in which case the G13 timer won't be reset). Alternatively the drafts can be nominated at MfD (there is a strong consensus that this is an appropriate reason to take something to MfD) and if the participants there agree that this is what is happening then it will be deleted. There is nothing here that is suitable for a single administrator acting unilaterally. Additionally, you've stated this is all theoretical and you've never seen it actually happen, which also makes it unsuitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that that this would be a conduct issue that would need to be discussed. Administrators act on their own authority every day multiple times a day, without requiring discussions. This idea that an administrator would need consensus to block someone who the administrator believes is editing disruptively is entirely novel and not supported by any consensus I am familiar with. Salvio 10:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I worded that poorly. If you think someone is making cosmetic edits with the apparent sole purpose of avoiding G13 deletion that is a user conduct issue that needs to be discussed if it isn't both clear enough and serious enough for an immediate block. In neither case though does that mean the draft needs to be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The premise of the discussion here is that the draft is associated with one and one author only. If it is UserX who converted the draft, but UserY who is making the cosmetic edits, then this naturally becomes a user behaviour concern, and not a draft content one. There in lies the problem of G4 equating the draft's sanity with user behaviour. Will the G4 tagger have to prove that UserY could be a sock of UserX? Also, by making cosmetic edits, an editor can claim to be buying more time to make improvements. Why should this be different for converted drafts vs normal drafts? Jay 💬 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The deletion policy circumvention clause was indeed user-centric as it was added in 2008 when we had userspace drafts, not draftspace drafts, so it made sense at the time. Some history on this. In this post (/Archive 29#Rewording to conform to a consensus I have seen), User:ScienceApologist said that .. users have made user subpages to subvert deletion discussions..., but when User:ජපස added it to G4, it was worded as if someone creates a user subpage as a way to subvert Wikipedia's deletion policy. The word subvert was changed to circumvent by Happy-melon the next day. ScienceApologist did not say in his discussion how users subverted deletion discussions by creating subpages. Jay 💬 13:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I have not seen this kind of gaming for some time, but it used to be that when an obviously problematic page would end up deleted, the page creator would create something like a WP:FAKEARTICLE with the ostensible idea that they would "work on improving" the draft to get it ready for reupload. Sometimes this is a legitimate technique, but sometimes this is gaming. I don't think there is a bright line for when one or the other is happening. These days, I think that WP:FAKEARTICLE works better than this speedy criteria especially as userspace drafts are less prone to accidental Googlejuicing, for example, then they were in certain bad old days. jps (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I seem to recall that back 15 years ago when this was an issue userspace was not NOINDEX'ed; in general, the move to draftspace seems to have dealt with a lot of those issues. Also, we've gotten better at identifying why something should be nuked (copyvio, attack, promotion) vs. just allowed to languish in non-article space (non-notable). Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the sort of fine-tuning that is pointless because the admins performing deletions won't care. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Sad but true in some cases, but there are plenty of conscientious admins who don't IAR CSD. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If someone is deleting things against policy then challenge them on it, taking them to ANI if they don't get why it's wrong. There is never a reason to IAR CSD (because by definition there cannot be). If you let it pass then the encyclopaedia is being harmed and will continue to be harmed in future as more and more things get deleted that shouldn't be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Drafts are in draft space because they are concededly not ready to be in article space. If the sole concern for the draft is that the subject is non-notable, then it should be left alone for potential improvement. If it is not edited for some length of time, it will be deleted as a matter of course. If someone bothers making nitpicking edits to avoid that, so what? It's still just a draft. BD2412 T 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ A conversion to draft is when a page from a different namespace is moved, or its content copied, as a draft.

G10 Requirement that a page be unsourced

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments9 people in discussion

There have been a number of times where I have observed a page nominated for G10 which meets every criteria for being a G10 (attack page) except that it is sourced. Sometimes it's improperly sourced (e.g. through an external link rather than reference) and I don't think I've seen one with a high quality reliable source but a source exists. These pages normally end up deleted - and good riddance I say to them even though I'm reluctant to press the button - despite not technically qualifying under the criteria. I'm wondering if we want to soften the wording of that requirement given this practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've always assumed that the unsourced bit only applies to the "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone" part, so it's fine to delete something under G10 if it's sourced if it meets any other part of G10 (e.g. "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person"). It is entirely possible to have a legitimate encyclopedia article about a living person which is entirely negative in tone, e.g. most articles about criminals. Removing the sourcing requirement entirely would allow them to be deleted under G10. Hut 8.5 17:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with @Hut 8.5. Look at the grammar and punctuation of the sentence.

Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. (emphasis added)

I think this could be clarified thusly:

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. (addition of a colon and an oxford comma.)

Either way though, I think Hut is right that the unsourced part only applies to the last item in the list. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Hut8.5 and ONUnicorn and would support adding that punctuation for clarity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This matches my understanding and I support the proposed punctuation change. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
If a new article reads "John Snotblot is a fucking asshole", and this sentence ends in 16 footnotes leading to online sources that state unanimously that he's a fucking asshole, I'm going to submit the article for G10 deletion, even though it's clear that he's widely noted for being a fucking asshole, meeting WP:N without question.
However, if it reads "John Snotblot, the president of Marvinia since January 2, 2023, is a fucking asshole", then I'm going to change it to read "John Snotblot has been the president of Marvinia since January 2, 2023", possibly keeping one of the existing sources that corrobate his presidency and the date his term began even if it does also call him a fucking asshole, or else replacing all the original sources with one neutral source. Then I'm going to leave an "only" warning on the creator's talk page and call it a day, leaving it to others to produce a respectable "Criticism" section. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Even if your example was not libellous and not intended to purely harass or intimidate the subject there is no need for G10 as it meets criteria A1 and A7. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, the president of Marvinia bit obviously disqualifies it from both. I think Largoplazo was referring to how they read G10, and I think their assessment is purely right. Nobody is suggesting we scrap G10. casualdejekyll 02:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
My reading is in line with that of ONUnicorn et al: the 'unsourced' only applies to the 'biographical material that is entirely negative in tone' bit. I'd add that this part of the text is listing examples that may qualify - it's not an exhaustive list, and it doesn't define the criterion. Any page, regardless of sourcing, that disparages, threatens, intimidates, or harasses their subject or some other entity, and serves no other purpose, can be deleted under G10. Having said all that, I would have no problem with a tweak in the wording to avoid any possible confusion on this point. Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hut8.5 is correct. If I remember correctly, the "negative unsourced BLP" part of G10 was introduced after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, principle 4 ("summary deletion of BLPs"). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

G4 and salted articles

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments6 people in discussion

A recent AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Marchand, appears to raise the following issue: the same article was previously deleted and salted under different variations of the subject's name, but may not be close-enough to the deleted version for G4 to apply. G5 could potentially apply, as the previous versions also had sockpuppet issues, but the 2020 creator of the new version is as of now unblocked. Should there be a clause of G4 that applies to creation of the same topic as a deleted and delete-protected article under a different title, even when the content may differ? Or is that too much of a stretch for CSD? (Marchand appears to be headed for sure deletion regardless, but it would be helpful to be able to shortcut such discussions without having to use excuses like WP:SNOW.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have observed, and even noted it once at DRV, that G4 is in practice given wider and stronger applicability when the topic’s earlier title is WP:SALTED. That is, if someone sidesteps the salting by recreating under a variant title, admins do G4 and WP:SALT the variant title, and do not get criticised for it at DRV. I think this is good practice, even if undocumented.
SALTing should be read as a prohibition on the creation of the same topic under any title. Challenges to the SALTing should be made at WP:RfPP or WP:AfC. WP:THREE is very good advice on how to make a good case. Challenging a SALTing at DRV should be reserved for complaints of denial of unsalting at RfPP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
G4 is only for substantially similar pages. If there is a case where content may differ then it is not eligible for G4, regardless of the location of the page, because in theory there could be new information or writing that overcame the original deletion rationale (e.g. GNG is now met). Primefac (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
To nitpick, the GNG can become met without any changes to the page, because the GNG refers to sources that exist, not sources used on the page.
For this sort of reason, I think G4s should readily slip into draftifications. If the page looks unimproved, put it in draft for the new source to be added. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
G4 already applies to the page "having any title", so people circumventing SALT by using different titles for the same content is already covered. But, as Primefac notes, like all speedy criteria, there needs to be an objective standard. If the content is no longer fundamentally the same, it shouldn't be a single admin's decision whether the original reasons for deletion still apply (especially when the page contains information that was not available in the first XFD). Regards SoWhy 10:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I support more liberal use of G4 in mainspace in the six months following an AfD consensus to delete. This would include a re-creation using different but similarly failing sources to those that didn’t satisfy the participants in the AfD. New sources, new since the AfD, not merely different sources, would amount to a sufficient difference to make G4 proper. If a proponent for re-creation of a recently deleted article disagrees, the answer is AfC, not a title variation, even if it includes a different bad source.
How long should a consensus at AfD to delete be respected, prohibiting bold re-recreation without overcoming the reasons for deletion? I think the answer is six months.
Some admins err in SALTing for too long. I think a SALTing over six months should be dependent on an AfD consensus to SALT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from and I don't think G4 is misapplied if the changes were only made to try and game the system, e.g. by replacing one bad source with another bad source (call it IAR or applying the spirit of the policy). But that requires a blatant attempt to circumvent G4. If the reviewing admin has to start judging the merits of the new article, the applicability for G4 ends. And I would also oppose any kind of recreation ban without going through AFC, considering that AFC is not a requirement for new articles and AFC is completely overwhelmed already anyway. However, that is not a question for CSD but instead would require a change to the deletion policy (after a widely advertised RFC). Regards SoWhy 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a more conservative tack than SoWhy: Substantially altering the article in any way, such as the addition of a reference that had been mentioned in the AfD discussion but not put into the article, makes G4 inapplicable. There is no time limit on G4, so theoretically if such a change were made 15 minutes after the discussion were closed, G4 would remain inapplicable. That's what G4 says.
Now, would the act of doing so be disruptive editing? Possibly, but that's a judgment call requiring a determination of user conduct. Since it's not pure vandalism, one admin acting unilaterally would be inappropriate. In such cases, the user conduct becomes the discussion: the article content, having been sufficiently changed to avoid G4, might well be deleted again later. Of course, if the user can demonstrate that the addition of content solved the problem that led to the deletion, then it's obviously no longer a conduct issue: we don't punish editors who improve the encyclopedia simply for editing with timing that looks bad. Jclemens (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
To expound a bit more on why SmokeyJoe's take on G4 is wrong, let us look no farther than the text itself: It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Since the sentence contains two clauses it is clear that there can by copies that are substantially identical to the deleted version but to which the reason for the deletion clearly still applies, as well as pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. that are substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, I think the latter may be a null set (except, perhaps, if policy changed to make previously unacceptable content acceptable), but CSD policy is written to ensure G4'able content must be both substantially identical and the reason for the deletion still applies. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree completely with Jclemens - both parts of G4 must be met for it to be applicable. I can also think of another example of where the page is substantially identical but the reason for deletion no longer applies - where the deletion reason was based on a premise which has since been shown to be incorrect. In every such case I can think of, and indeed every case I can think of where Jclemens' scenario would apply, going via the deleting admin and/or DRV would be better than just unilaterally recreating the article, but I'm not going to say doing so would never be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe there may be space between policy as written and policy in practice. G4s happen where the admin thinks it would be a SNOW deletion per the recent AfD. The criteria for SALTing is lower than for G4. Also, in NPReview, a re-creation after a recent AfD is likely to be WP:DRAFTIFY-ed (fitting criterion 2a-ii). SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe there may be space between policy as written and policy in practice. When it comes to CSD there isn't - the consensus going back years that
  • The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. and
  • Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.
combined with the nature of speedy deletion and the deletion policy mean that pages must meet the letter and spirit of the criterion to be eligible. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. Sometimes, stuff happens without “broad consensus”, despite the care that should be taken.
My reading of DRV and WT:CSD over the years is that liberal G4 deletions are negligible compared to liberal G6 deletions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
G6 is indeed by far the most misused speedy deletion criterion (which is why I've been proposing reform of it for years), but misuse is still misuse and should never be endorsed however frequently it does or does not happen. Basically if a page does not meet both the letter and spirit of a CSD criterion then it cannot be correctly speedily deleted. If there are pages you think should be deleted but cannot be then propose a new or modified criterion and get that consensus - c.f. WP:IARUNCOMMON. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • In order for G4 deletions to meets its letter, not just it’s spirit, I propose that it’s wording be modified. There should be mention of thresholds. The soft words are “sufficiently” and “substantially”. These should be connected to sources. Things that affect the threshold of applicability of sufficiently/substantially include: the age of the AfD (six months default threshold); and whether the title has been SALTed. At the risk of bloat, consider advice to use REFUND to draftspace and improve the draft to make the case that the reasons for deletion have been overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_84&oldid=1141828703"