Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Template doc pages that have been converted

There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to {{Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with |DOC=auto. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged such pages with WP:G6 before, giving a justification like "template uses {{navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I am also such an admin. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

New T-criteria proposal

Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines of TX: documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration:

1. Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason, any template) or it is not
2. Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted.
3. Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them.
4. Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under.

Thanks for the consideration. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Can this be made more general? Maybe "a template subpage not used by its parent, or another template"? With the understanding that Template:*/sandbox and Template:*/testcases are "used" despite not being transcluded. —Cryptic 23:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  They seem to mostly be deleted with G6. Mostly-applicable deletions in 2024. —Cryptic 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  What I see in that list is almost exclusively User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 15#Mass template deletions (which some other admins did too apparently), to which this speedy deletion criterion as currently worded wouldn't apply because they were redirects not templates. Then there's Wikipedia_talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 26#Making Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates G6, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5, expired editnotices, some stuff like Template:POTD/2024-05-03, and run-of-the-mill speedies under other criteria or other parts of G6.

  The POTD example brings up an interesting point - this concept of delegation of deletion authority isn't specific to template namespace, it can be seen at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/M3GAN 2.0/archive1, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wizzrobe61 etc.

  Support as proposed anyway, though, I'm just bouncing some ideas off the wall. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (edited 03:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC))

  Making a new objective criterion, dealing with the misuse of the catchall G6, more “general” seems to miss the point.

  You want to make unused template subpages speediable? Does “unused” mean “never used”? How frequently is “unused template subpage” the driving reason for deletion at xfd? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be TfD, not MfD? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Changed to xfd. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support for /doc pages as proposed. Oppose anything else without a much more objective proposal than that suggest in the conversation above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. As one of the editors that tend to send them to TfD, I sometimes skip them just because of the extra hassle of combining multiple templates into one nomination to make life easier for everyone. These templates always get deleted and usually only one editor even cares to comment, which is expected, since no one cares and the newer doc is always better. Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• I support the general concept (ideally as a more general thing, because it is a frequent-ish occurrence), and I want to propose some draft language.

  T5. Unused template subpages

  This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as template documentation subpages which are no longer used in favor of centralized documentation, /core subpages which are not called by the template itself, and old subpages of {{POTD protected}}. It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}} [do we need this? It seems like a good way to be careful, but it would make the criterion more complicated]. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

  Wordsmithing welcome. (Being very pedantic, what ENGVAR does WP:CSD use? Favor or favour? Centralized or centralised?) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  it seems to use -or and -ize spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wording looks good, and I don't think a T5-exemption template overcomplicates things any more than the G8-exemption template does. Worth checking back after a year or so and potentially trimming if it never ends up employed in practice.

  On the pedantry side of things, excepting the accessibility provisions the WP:MOS only applies to articles so there is no requirement or need for CSD to be internally consistent in its ENGVAR. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:540A:5E37:3B0B:2225 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support the general concept, with the wording used by HouseBlaster. As a second choice, the original /doc-only proposal could work. Anything that moves well-defined routine operations outside of G6 is a positive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

G6 and G7 when others object

Given all the words on this page about how speedy deletion needs to be uncontroversial, I shouldn't be necessary but given discussions like Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#April 4, 1974 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Wikipedia:JDELANOY I'm increasingly thinking it would be beneficial to make it explicit that anyone, even creators, requesting or endorsing G6 or G7 speedy deletion do not override good-faith objections to deletion from other editors nor past deletion discussions with a consensus for something other than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree, G5 should also probably be included for similar reasons, although the JDELANOY did anyway result in a consensus to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Wikipedia:JDELANOY. If there's already consensus for deletion at XfD it's not controversial. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not how speedy deletion works. If there are good faith objections it's controversial unless and until someone competent closes a discussion with a consensus for deletion. Speedy deletion needs to be essentially unanimous, that consensus can emerge despite objections is irrelevant. This is also much broader than just one speedy deletion you happen to agree with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that you use the phrase essentially unanimous. A good faith objection can fit under that definition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't though. Any good faith objection should, by every reasonable interpretation of everything in this policy, overrule an author request or similar. If you have two editors, one saying "delete" the other saying "don't delete" that needs to go to a consensus discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose a better way of phrasing it would be that any good faith objection means that a page cannot be speedily deleted under G5, G6 or G7 except where there is an almost unanimous consensus at an XfD, as determined by an uninvolved admin (ideally the XfD should be closed as speedy delete by that admin before or immediately after they delete the page, but this doesn't need to be part of CSD policy). Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keeping X3 as a CSD criterion

While criterion X1 was only a thing due to the massive amount of redirects involved, and X2 doesn't apply as the tool that created these articles was deprecated, the current "special" criterion X3 is different in the sense that even newly created redirects of this type will systematically end up deleted, making it still relevant to have (e.g. Gaurav Yadav(police officer) a few days ago).

For that reason, it would be more practical to keep it as a "regular" criterion (R5?). While the mass-scale cleanup is done, there is no reason to send future X3 redirects to RfD instead.

An alternative could be to merge it into R3, although it would limit it to recently created redirects, while X3 is broader in scope. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Any redirect is either old enough to qualify for X3 as a "exceptional" one-time case, or will get caught by New Page Patrol and speedy deleted per R3. Anything that falls in the gap between them isn't common enough to warrant a new speedy deletion criterion and can get sent to RfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; X3 was meant for the really old stuff that R3 didn't cover, so it will eventually sunset. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also agreed. My recollection, and a very cursory skim now, of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 88#Improper disambiguation redirects, is that a permanent version would've been redundant to R3. There isn't even a need to change its wording. —Cryptic 19:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's already covered by R3, then it's fine as it is, although it could be good to make it explicit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Did we actually finish what's expected to be relevant for X3 deletions? Was there a report generated that people went through to determine what's valid (such as chemical formulas) and what wasn't? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Answered my own question, there's still plenty to deal with X3 wise based on a quarry search. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above that once the cleanup is complete, we should rely on the combination of WP:R3 (in most cases) / WP:G6 (for the page moves, as the old title was obviously created in error) / WP:RFD (for the remainder that fall through the cracks). It might be worthwhile to add a sentence to R3 to emphasize that such redirects do in fact meet the threshold for deletion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

G4 applicability to redirects

So, there was a bit of a hiccup in regards to the recreation of DQw4w9WgXcQ, the RfD that ensued, and the related user talk page discussion. I'm opening the floor to different interpretations, but I've become aware that I may have been splitting hairs in regards to the applicability of G4 depending on the state of the target article at the time of each redirect's creation. @Tamzin: I'm a bit unsure about the solution you were proposing in regards to redirects? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What I was getting at in the RfD is that the status quo in redirect G4s may be more conservative than what's obvious from the wording of the criterion, and that perhaps a sentence should be added to make this explicit. In my experience, a G4 for a redirect is usually only honored if:

• The new and old title are identical, or differ only in a very minor way (e.g. hyphen versus dash)
• The new target is the same as the old target, or a renamed version of it
• The circumstances that led to the deletion still apply. For instance, if the old redirect was deleted for lack of mention at target, there must still be no mention at target.

This seems like good practice and has been uncontroversial among RfD admins in my experience, so maybe we should make that official. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. Is that much different than what is currently written at WP:G4? Maybe it's good to bullet those out, instead of keeping those characteristics in a block of text as it's currently written. Most of the other speedy deletion criterion break down the applications into bullet points, so I'd be in support of doing that with G4 as well, if that's what you're saying. I think all of those bullet points also apply to articles as well (but instead of "redirect pointing to the same place", it'd be "article consisting of the same content"). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the point that this would emphasize is that G4 is particularly narrow when it comes to redirects. An article might get deleted because it has roughly the same facts and no new sources, which is a bit more flexibility than with redirects, where an admin's flexibility is constrained to these very limited considerations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that is a fair point. Expanding on this, I think when it pertains to creating ANY new article, it's important for people to ensure that there hasn't been a page previously deleted at the same title, and familiarize with past deletion discussions to see if those reasons will still apply. For articles, I'd say these can be described with a "similarity" scale, like an article could be 50% similar to a deleted version, or 75% similar, or 90%. If not notable during a previous AfD discussion, a new article would require substantial improvements meeting the reasons discussed there. Whereas on the flipside, redirects created after a past deletion will always be "the same" or "different" pertaining to its target, so 100% the same, or 0%, no scale. But both articles and redirects can be "saved" from G4 doom with the inclusion of new sources. (In an article's case, enough sources to constitute WP:GNG. In a redirect's case, enough to at least substantiate a mention). So to that point, I'd agree it may be worthwhile to better explain this interaction and "unspoken standard depending on whether a page is an article or redirect" in the G4 text. Bullet points seem like a good idea for that. Not sure exactly WHAT should be said, but this is a good start imo. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the points Tamzin made about when we would accept G4. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The spirit of G4 is: Can we assume that any reasonable person who !voted to delete at the XfD would also !vote to delete the newly created version if it came up again at XfD? If yes, then G4 applies; if no or uncertain, then G4 does not apply. This basic principle is the same regardless of whether we're dealing with an article or a redirect. However, the reason why in practice G4 is more stringent for redirects is because small differences have a larger impact on the essence of redirects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)