Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 77

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Deletion time for a G13?

If a draft is to be deleted as abandoned (i.e. it's stale for six months), how much time should be allowed for the author to work on it?

What's the haste here? The whole point is that it's already sat for six months. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is here. If it's stale for six months, it's eligible for G13. If the author wants to continue to work on it, they can request a refund. I think what you might want is some kind of pre-six-month warning but that's not strictly required by the policy (I think there was a bot doing that at one point?) After all, G13 has a REFUND mechanism built into it, unlike other criteria that also don't require a fixed period of time between tagging and deletion (except A1 and A3) and which are not so easily restored. Regards So Why 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about new, or at least low-volume, editors here (because no-one who knows how badly WP works touches the Draft: namespace). Deletion and then expecting them to ask for a refund is a serious discouragement to people we ought to be encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I will repeat my long stated contention that G13 should go away and be replaced by a DRAFTPROD which would sit for a week on stale drafts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you but that problem cannot be solved by adding some kind of delay to G13 but by repealing G13 altogether, no? Regards So Why 21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If an author wants to work slowly on a draft, with G13 6 month deadlines, they can move it to their userspace and remove AfC templates. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
As the stale drafts have been sitting for six months without problems already, adding another week of delay would not cause any issues. We should probably use the mechanism at Template:Db-c1 to make stale drafts only appear in CAT:CSD after a week with no further edits. That would be a bit kinder than immediately deleting after tagging and notification. Assuming that the draft creator edits only occasionally, a seven day delay gives them some chance of catching the deletion notice. Sure, they can always ask for refund later, but a round of deletion, refund, undeletion is just unnecessary busywork. —Kusma (t·c) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This is why I think we should repeal G13 and institute a new PROD tag (DRAFTPROD). Makes the whole process transparent and it could certainly be put into a category. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
DRAFTPROD would probably also cover non-stale drafts, which are a whole different beast. I think stale drafts can be easily dealt with through an auto-delayed G13, which then feeds into speedy deletion and does not create yet another place with a potential admin backlog. —Kusma (t·c) 22:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Why would something that doesn't exist "probably cover" anything? Since it doesn't exist it would only cover whatever consensus there was for it to cover and so we, the community, could decide DRAFTPROD would cover what G13 does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
But then just delaying G13 would have the same practical effect without introducing extra paperwork. —Kusma (t·c) 06:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Except that the placement of the tag potentially alerts someone who'd worked on it that the article is at the risk of deletion. This would hopefully cut down on refund requests without really burdening people any more. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The placement of the CSD tag would also potentially alert people who have watchlisted the draft. But I see some advantages to a draft prod process now. The main difficulty I see with both draft prod and times G13 is that any edit to the page should reset the timer, and we need to make sure that the page is untagged after such an edit. Making it a PROD has the advantage that we can encourage the page creator to remove the PROD, while we don't really want to encourage page creators removing speedy tags (it is a complicated business when that is a good idea). So yeah, no more objections from me to a draft prod that replaces G13. —Kusma (t·c) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Replacing G13 with DRAFTPROD seems fine enough. It doesn't effectively do anything but shift the backlog to the right one week. If we want it to cover something other than stale drafts, that a different discussion all together, not related to G13. GMG ^talk 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Fully in support of repeal-and-replace (G13/DRAFTPROD, not Obamacare). Also happy to restrict its use to stale drafts only. CThomas³ (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I suppose what you're getting at is "how much time should an editor have to resume work on a draft once it has been tagged or deleted under G13?", and the answer to that is of course "none" as they've already had 6 months to work on it. Even a token edit would have prevented deletion. There is a bot which does a pretty good job of informing editors once 5 months have passed; and if the editor didn't receive a bot message and/or by the time they get the G13 notification the draft has been deleted they can in most cases get a refund quickly and easily. The system seems to me to work fairly well and doesn't overload the admins. Furthermore, traffic at WP:REFUND is low which suggests that most of these drafts are indeed abandoned.

I'm not hugely in favour of making G13 a "delayed" process as right now an admin can clear G13 candidates single-handledly; requiring tagging then waiting a week doubles the work (one person has to check history and logs and tag, then another has to do the same a week later).

That said, I'd definitely be interested in exploring a DRAFTPROD proposal but I'd want it to apply to non-stale drafts too (and/or a new CSD criterion for non-viable drafts). --kingboyk (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The one minute likely refers to time interval between CSD tagging and deletion of Draft:Wardill Motorcycle Company Ltd. The time interval between those two events is not material as draft becomes eligible for CSD G13 immediately after six months have passed with no human edits. Six months + one second is enough, but since log and edit history timestamps have a granularity of one minute it is advisable to wait for full minute in order to demonstrate enough time has passed. Tagging it for CSD is not a necessary precondition for deletion per G13 (but if it happens, is not considered a human edit starting the six month counter again). Tagging with a template some time before speedy deletion is part of criteria only for T3, all of C2X other than C2E, F7 c) and d) subcases and two unenumerated subcases of F11 (note no C1 and multiple F-criteria that use word "identified" are included in this list as my reading of policy is that tagging is not strictly necessary with those even if commonly used). Any editor can preclude CSD G13 for expired draft simply by editing it. Any editor can reset the six month counter for any draft, expired or not, simply by editing it. This means that a slowish author can improve her draft one edit per six month indefinitely. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 11:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I am one of the people who put the the most effort into patrolling (and postponing) prospective G13s. The way I work is that I use Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions to quickly look at every prospective G13 I can that is not athletes or popular culture or popular music (fields where i have no ability to even guess) to find ones that are not hopeless using. Out of a page listing 200 of prospective G13s, about 1/3 are relevant to me, & out of those 66 I usually accept 1 or 2 with maybe minor changes, fix another 2 or 3 & accept them, and postpone about 4 or 5. That's a pretty low yield, because after all most abandoned drafts are indeed worthless. How many time I will keep postponing them depends on what I think are the possibilities. I do not automatically keep renewing. They show up 6 months later on my user talk from Hasteurbot, and then I decide to fix & accept 1/3, let 1/3 get deleted, and postpone again 1/3 for another 6 months. This is not particularly efficient, but I try to do some every day, justas I try to look at some new submitted drafts, some old submitted drafts, and some new unreviewed pages every day. I also now try check some newly entered drafts that have not yet been submitted to find BLP violations & utter junk, and also to find any that can be immediately accepted. (As obvious, I like screening articles, & I get equal satisfaction in removing junk and finding gems.)

That said, I have probably kept some too long. I would certainly like some method for finding the most-renewed ones. I would like even more some way of classifying them so people in the field can find them. If we try to find a better system, that step--calling them to appropriate attenetion--is the most important consideration. DGG ( talk )

I'd support a draft prod to replace G13 but only if it was limited to stale drafts that haven't been edited for 6 months as this would give the creators and uninvolved editors time to check them via a draft prod category before deletion as many are deleted so quickly at csd that they can't be checked. Also, limiting it to stale drafts would prevent the harrassment of page creators who are actively improving the drafts such as adding more references, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I just got hit by G13 on a draft I wrote. Seeing this from the author side, I have to say it's pretty rude and WP:BITEy. The page is Draft:Robert George Burrell. There should be some requirement that the author gets some kind of warning before it actually gets deleted. I'm an admin, so I'm just going to undelete it and move it into my own userspace. But if I was a new user, I'd be pretty peeved, and discouraged. Sure, we need to clean up the trash, but if it's been sitting for six months, surely a week's warning to the author isn't going to hurt us? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You hadn't edited that draft since October 2018‎, Roy. I token edited it 6 months ago to save it from deletion, but deleted it this time as it hadn't been touched since. I also left you a handwritten note in addition to the template explaining this. I'm surprised you felt that was BITEy. --kingboyk (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did anything contrary to our currently accepted process. But, still, my initial reaction was, "WTF???" It didn't take me long to figure out what happened, but I'm trying to look at this from the viewpoint of a new user. I have years of experience and a mop to help me understand. All a new user would know is that their draft had been deleted. And, if I had a visceral WTF moment, I expect they would too. Reducing the WTF factor is what WP:BITE is all about. Giving them a week's prior notice seems like an easy way to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Ah I see. I thought you were unhappy with how I had dealt with you/your draft. I understand now that was not the case. Thank you for clearing that up. --kingboyk (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that a lot of G13 deletions are being done purely automatically without any human involvement at all. I've had a few cases where I've restored a G13ed draft at WP:REFUND only to find it deleted again within a few hours, even though it wasn't tagged for G13 and had been recently edited. My guess is that some admins have automatically generated lists of G13 candidates and just delete everything on them. I would support getting rid of it and replacing it with a PROD which only applies once the draft hasn't been edited for some length of time, preferably one which requires the tagger to read the draft and come to some sort of opinion on how valuable it is. Failing that requiring a week's notice, or a week's tagging (as with a few of the F criteria) would be better than nothing. Hut 8.5 19:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That has happened to me too Hut 8.5. I'm not sure if you're aware but many of us who work WP:REFUND now use the excellent RFUD-helper script. Amongst other things the script will remove speedy deletion templates from the restored draft and/or make a token edit to it. This seems to go a long way towards preventing drive-by deletions of recently restored drafts. --kingboyk (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If I had my way, I'd expand PROD to cover all non-talk namespaces and exempt PRODs in Draft from the only once rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd definitely support this. CThomas³ (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If we start getting stringent about material in draft, it will instead en up in userspace. There is one compelling reason why uncompleted articles are better in Draft than in user space: in draft space other people can se them and work on them. I have completed several hundred drafts that were started and essentially abandoned. From what I've come across, there have been a large number of ones that otherr editors rescue also--not just editors with the same desire as I to rescue material in general, but people who have resurrected one or two particular drafts. In draft they're accessible. In user space they are of course still theoretically accessible, and even there nobody owns anything on Wikipedia , but retrieving and working on material from someone else's userspace is something very few people would feel comfortable with . I've encountered objections even when I work with draft someone has decided to not submit but abandon. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
If a draft is to be deleted as abandoned (i.e. it's stale for six months), how much time should be allowed for the author to work on it?

The author should get notification, 1-4 weeks before it’s deletion, explaining the policy, and pointing to WP:REFUND. There is no hurry. G13 exists so that there are not tens of thousands of abandoned BLP and copyrights violating material having around indefinite, like there was pre-G13.

Proponents of DRAFTPROD are not explaining what the objective is, and proposers of repealing G13 are not explaining why the old problem won’t recur. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

If it was a draft prod after six months of non editing it would enable uninvolved editors to use a draft prod category to assess any drafts with potential or that can be published straight away. At present only the creator is informed and the G13s are deleted so quickly most of them cannot be checked except for admin with access to deletespace. Some of the G13s I published at the last moment included referenced articles about national level politicians and villages that were clearly notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As Roy has just experienced deletion of good faith drafts feels awful. This is why everyone seems to agree on notification. Right now that notification isn't ocurring. DRAFTPROD would be one way of giving notification without need for a bot. Plus as Atlantic points out, by having a category those interested could attempt to find abandoned articles on notable topics that could be improved and made live. That feels like a benefit to the encylopedia to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic, a minimum notification of the draft approaching G13 was a good idea, and should be a requirement for G13. This should be automatic, not relying and an editor to PROD it.

I’m still hearing that {{promising draft}} is a good idea.

Barkeep, the awful experience is not the driving reason for notification. Post deletion, the link to REFUND is good enough. People who experience the awful experience, I advise reading WP:DUD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't thing REFUND is adequate. It works only for the original contributor, and only when they are willing to understand and follow our bureaucratic procedures. Articles need to be exposed to the community to get them improved. . Draft doesn't expose them to the general world, but it does to those who use our internal search function. I've seen a large proportion of drafts improved by other people, who would not have sen them had they been deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think REFUND is pretty good, far better than not having it. I have used it a couple of times and can not see how it could be easier.

I wish that we could've had agreement on {{promising draft}} marking reviewed drafts as suitable for leaving indefinitely. It would be a category of drafts recommended for editors to look at and work on. G13 was primarily driven by the need to clear out tens of thousands of unrelieved potential BLP and copyrights violating pages, and by tagging with {{promising draft}}, and experienced editor would presumably be attesting that there was no such problem. Regrettably, {{promising draft}} became the subject of inflammatory arguments, involving people who wanted to quickly delete all deletable drafts, people who wanted to permanently save all savable drafts, User:Hasteur who I think complained at undeclared backwater policy changes that undermined his very valuable User:HasteurBot.

I still think it is desirable to allow for the sorting of promising drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Since you're going to throw shade, A few things to puncture your reality distortion bubble: 1. Promising draft was initially enacted as an analog to "Article Rescue Squadron" to help flag down interest/help. I had zero problems with it's intention/desire. I even made {{AfC postpone G13}} specifically so that editors who saw hope could add (or edit the count parameter) so that "promising" drafts could be found without disrupting the purpose of any "article" page. 2. The later attempt to declare that Promising draft is perma-sticky (can't be removed by any other editor) and permanantly immunizes it from any G13 action flies in the face of the consensus building and generally accepted collaberative environment. I have zero problem with promising draft being used once to defer deletion, but there comes a time when you have to put up or shut up. Either the article is promising enough to recieve edits enough to keep it off the G13 rail (which again is for the bot's purpose is the much more restrictive interpertation of any edit in the past 6 months disqualifies the page from being eligible for G13, not just "bot edits") should be easy to accomplish. 3. G13 is not driven by any editor ego (and shame on you for implying as such). It explicitly driven off WP:NOT (Specifically NOTWEBHOST) and the purpose of the Draft Namespace.

Now as to your pleas and promises, I'd like to drop some further knowledge bombs on you, as it appears you speak from a place of ignorance. The HasteurBot process goes through Category:AfC submissions by date (and it's subcategories) to look at every page that has not recieved a single edit in the past 5 months. If there is none, it drops a friendly notice on the editor's page that "your work has not been edited in 5 months, and could be nominated for deletion if not edited". It provides information for Userfication (if the creator is a user) and how they can request a Refund. The bot then goes away for at least 30 days. The bot then comes back and checks if the page hasn't been edited since the time it was notified on, and that the page is now at least 6 months unedited. The bot then does the procedural CSD:G13 nonination and drops yet annother note on the page creator's talk page that their page has been nominated for G13 (just like Twinkle would if someone nominated G13 by hand). I personally railed against the loosening of the rules over bot edits applicablity to G13, but I accept it and choose to uphold a much more stringent standard. All the tools are out there (absent a ridiculous policy grab not initially authorized by community consensus and rejected by affirmative consensus), it falls back to YOU and those who see reedeemable benefit in these drafts. Step your volunteer efforts up and be the shield and guardian by providing a single edit every 5 months. Hasteur (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hasteur, I did not intend to throw shade at you. I liked the concept of tagging drafts as promising, as not meeting the original motivation for implementation, and I think it is regrettable that this dream did not work out. I don't blame you. You made some strong and valid-sounding criticisms,, I'm sorry if I paraphrased one of them poorly. I still think the concept is desirable, but I do not have an idea that I think is likely to make it work. I don't know where you get the idea that I was speaking to issues of editor ego? I don't even think of it as a place of ego, but as a place of desolation.

If I am ignorant of stuff about HasteurBot, it is because I have very muhc liked every aspect of it that I am aware of. Thank you, for HasteurBot. I think it does a very good job with the flawed concept of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Looks like I need to follow the "Don't edit wikipedia while (drunk/tired/frustrated/hungry/etc)" addage. I just get a little tired havind to fight this same argument (water down G13 to effecively worthless) every 8 months or so because of what I perceive as a secret agenda to get rid of CSD:G13 for some reason. G13 is objective (it either is or is not unedited), relatively uncontraversial (we don't want to keep masses of garbage), will have a wide usage We can clean up a bunch of draft pages with it), and has relatively predictable results (items are sustained as deletions). Hasteur (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely a good idea to replace G13 with DraftPROD. G13 is more hasty and even less overseen than a prospective draftprod. Too much servicable content is deleted by G13 and not enough garbage is deleted from draftspace. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts. Welcome back perennial opposers to G13, your FUD is noted and still not compelling. Saying we should replace G13 without defining what the draftprod will be is a 100% nonstarter. I do endorse a repeatable "proposed deletion" for draft space (state your reasoning for deletion) that also forces whomever opposes to become the articles guardian angel. It's now 100% on them to cure the defects identified and stand up each time it gets proded. As to the "the author should be reminded before their article gets deleted" I refer you to HasteurBot's work at 5 months [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/940852391] Hasteur (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The above is not "one minute". It is over 200,000 minutes. If, in any one of those minutes, anyone had cared enough to edit the article at all, it would not have been G13 eligible. No, we do not need a "DRAFTPROD", when all one has to do to keep a draft from getting deleted is edit it once every six months, and all one has to do even after that is post at WP:REFUND. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Ambiguous wording of G14

In a number of recent RfD discussions, the most recent of which was the Shabbat (disambiguation) RfD, administrator Nabla, rightly and operating conservatively with respect to the current wording, declined Shhhnotsoloud's G14 speedy deletion request because the current target article, a list article, was performing a "disambiguation-like" function. As editor Narky Blert, et al., noted or have noted in that RfD discussion and other recent RfD discussions, the only purpose of redirects ending in (disambiguation) is to link to disambiguation pages from article pages and not be botslapped by DPL bot. Thus, the current wording to refer to "disambiguation-like" functions serves no purpose and, as a result, it is confusing and leads to misinterpretation by administrators and editors alike.

This, I propose that "or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)" be struck from the current description. If added clarity is needed, it would only apply to pages tagged as {{disambiguation}} or {{disambiguation name}}, and appropriate wording that reflects that could be added.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs)

Survey

Please leave a one- or two-line rationale following your bolded !vote. Thanks.

Oppose Whether redirects ending in (disambiguation) should or should not point to set-index pages or lists of things with similar titles is controversial and therefore inappropriate for speedy deletion. It may also indicate a need for a disambiguation page, in which cases deletion is not the correct outcome. The change would mean G14 would fail the first two requirements for CSD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. These are sometimes useful and other times not, and discussion should be what decides which. Speedy deletion is not for ambiguous cases. Glades12 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss any refinements to the above proposal here, as well as any longer comments that you may have. If you would like to see other changes or enhancements to the G14 rationale, please also discuss them in this area.

"performing a "disambiguation-like" function" implies to me that the page might need to be converted into a disambiguation page. This need for consideration is a reason to rule out speedy deletion as a solution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
As SmokeyJoe says, if a page is just "disambiguation-like", it is an edge case and possibly not a good candidate for speedy deletion. Not everything that should be deleted should be covered by the CSD. By the way, the purpose of redirects ending in "disambiguation" is to mark certain links as deliberate instead of accidental (which allows one to more easily fix links to disambiguation page without having to check the deliberate links every single time), a purpose older than DPL bot and independent of it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok,I was just unaware of that. It should have been more clear Gale5050 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A hypothetical example of a redirect of this type that would be useful (as I have mentioned above) is "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo (surname)". The latter of them does list people who could be plausibly referred to simply as "Foo". Glades12 (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge A7 and A9

They seem to be the same thing but for different subjects why don't we just merge them into 1 criteria to save space Dq209 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

They are not the same. Importantly, musical recordings are NOT eligible for A9 if any of the contributing musical artists has an article.

On the other hand organizations and events ARE eligible for A7 even of the key people DO have articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been proposed many times, have a look in the archives for the reason it has never been done. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

T3 discrepancy?

T3 states: "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days."

Template:Db-t3 includes an additional condition: "as a template that is not being employed in any useful fashion".

This apparent discrepancy caused some disagreement over at Template:Why We Fight.

Can anyone shed any light on how this apparent discrepancy came to be and how do folks think we should deal with it?

Ordinarily I would propose modifying the template to match the policy, but in this case it seems reasonable to me that a template should not be speedily deleted if it is in use. With the information I have to hand my recommendation would be to modify the wording of T3 to match the template. --kingboyk (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

After a bit of historical research, it seems like that template reflects an old version of the CSD policy. I can't find out when it was removed from the policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, it was removed six years ago in this edit which cites a talkpage discussion, presumably this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That discussion is a bit hard to follow. Consensus there at the time seemed to be that templates should not be deleted just because they are orphans, but the change to the policy text had the side effect of making it OK to speedy delete templates which are in use which doesn't seem to have been properly addressed.

Perhaps the key thing is that the text used to read "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion, i.e., orphaned, substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days." (emphasis mine), i.e. being an orphan was enough to speedy delete the template.

...whereas the current T3 template says that the template must be a substantial duplication of another template OR a hardcoded instance of another template, IN ADDITION TO "not being employed in any useful fashion".

I think the policy should be changed to match the template but my main concern is that the policy and template are consistent. --kingboyk (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be much interest in this topic compared to the one above it, I will try a different tack.

Does anyone object to me to changing the wording of WP:T3 as follows, in order to be consistent with the wording of Template:Db-t3?

Current wording:

Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.

New wording:

Templates that are not being employed in any useful fashion and which are either substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days.

--kingboyk (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I support that proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. CThomas³ (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer davidwr's original T3 wording, and think {{Db-t3}} should be updated to reflect the amended wording of the T3 policy, not the other way around. My concern is that the current wording of the T3 template may allow for broad interpretation—that is, related navbox templates. It should only apply to templates which are nearly identical copies of each other (i.e., no added parameters, not a navbox for a different iteration of the same television show, etc.). Doug Mehus T·C 22:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, eliminate "Templates that are not being employed in any useful fashion" from both the template and the policy. Doug Mehus T·C 22:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I was planning on writing an essay on T3 to help understand how it should be used and eliminate some confusion and in the process I watchlisted Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redundant templates for a while to see how it's used in practice and saw just how little it's used. There are also a large proportion that are declined, either because of it being used or because the template wasn't understood properly. Most of the rest are either controversial enough that they would benefit from a TfD such as navboxes that are a subset of another navbox or speediable under other criteria such as G2. While the suggested change will probably avoid some confusion and avoid overly long processes I think it's worth having a larger discussion about T3 and if it even makes sense as criteria anymore. It would certainly not be accepted today being neither frequent or uncontestable. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem case

For some reason, Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion/Archive 1 keeps appearing in the speedy deletion category Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I've looked through the content and I can't find out what tag is causing it to be categorized for deletion. Can I get a second set of eyes? Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

That's totally bizarre. I tried cut & pasting the content into my sandbox in chunks to see if I could tell which portion of the page was causing the issue, but the sandbox never went into the category. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See this edit by Cryptic. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new criterion R5: Redirects with incorrect temporal keywords

Oftentimes there are bulk RfD's from "upcoming" or "untitled" works for projects that are no longer so. These RfD's are almost always uncontroversial, so we ought to expediate the process by creating a CSD for that. And it need not be limited to creative works; for example, for elections where the next cycle does not have an article, we can delete "Next XYZ election" redirects to previous elections. Thus I propose the following CSD (R5):

This applies to redirects with incorrect years, outdated "upcoming" labels; redirects from "untitled" works that have been given titles; and redirects to cycles of recurring events or holders of office positions with outdated "next" labels, where the next instance is unknown or does not have an article. An exception is if a topic is or was known by a name that would meet such a title or if a redirect is the result of a page move less than 30 days ago.

Examples of redirects that would meet this criterion include:

Joker (upcoming film) → Joker (2019 film)
Untitled Jumanji film → Jumanji: The Next Level
Next Colombian parliamentary election → 2018 Colombian parliamentary election (The 2022 Colombian parliamentary election does not have an article yet.)

I'm not yet sure how to handle redirects from moves, except that older ones can certainly be deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose This is much too broad and fails the objective and uncontestable requirements:
- "Upcoming" and "untitled" redirects are usually the result of page moves and so the redirects have value for a time after the target is no longer upcoming. How long that is varies depending on multiple factors that are subjective. There are sometimes also attribution requirements that need to be considered.
- Redirects with "next" often have other targets, e.g. a list of elections, the body the election is to, etc. these all need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. On at least couple of occasions there has actually been an article but which wasn't obvious to someone unfamiliar with the subject (iirc one was related to Irish presidential elections and another was something at the state level in India). There also needs to be a grace period immediately after a target ceases to be the next - especially for multi-day or multi-round events when the line between "next" and "most recent" is blurry.
- Incorrect years again need individual consideration - sometimes they are the result of a common misconception and should be kept, sometimes they are actually confusing multiple films, sometimes the release date changes after its had significant publicity, etc. Whether the incorrect year is useful is subjective. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020#Special CSD criteria for bad April Fools' humor (or humor in general)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020#Special CSD criteria for bad April Fools' humor (or humor in general). -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This proposal has been withdrawn by the initiator.[1] Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy deletions

I notice that occasionally some users make speedy deletions in a way, so to speak, saucy and at least bizarre. In my opinion, this is the case of the request that took place recently on this page, where I still explain the reasons for maintaining it in the dispute. What do you think about it? Of the topic in general and, in the specific case, if an administrator has the right to intervene to directly eliminate the inappropriate speedy deletion? --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether this specific deletion is valid, but anyone who's not the page creator (regardless of user rights) can directly intervene in a speedy deletion by removing the CSD tag. Reviewing administrators are no exception. Glades12 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kasper2006: if you think a page that has had a speedy deletion declined but you still think it needs to be deleted, then you have three options. 1: let it go. 2: discuss the matter on the talk page of the person who declined the speedy deletion. 3: nominate the page at XfD (which can be done after option 2 if you do not reach agreement).
If a page was speedily deleted but you think it should not have been then you should first discuss the matter with the deleting administrator, and if you cannot reach agreement with them there, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review.
In the specific case of Canadian (canoe), the present article version is significantly different the version of Canadian canoe deleted in 2018 so the G4 nomination was correctly declined. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have seen it now. So it went as I hoped. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Upcoming films

Regularly at WP:RfD there are requests to discuss Foo (upcoming film) that now redirects to something like Foo (2020 film). Is there a CSD applicable, or could there be an amendment to a criterion to allow these to be deleted easily? (For transparency, I should point out that at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 9#Already released "upcoming" redirects there is an editor who opposes deletion on the grounds of pageviews. I suppose this makes the matter contentious, but perhaps not). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A new criterion for just that was proposed in this section above. – Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be dozens of cases but beware of false positives: The Invisible Woman (upcoming film) → The Invisible Woman (1940 film) (and some less obvious examples) link to the subtopic of a remake. Certes (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: yes, the objections based on pageviews means that these are contentious. That and the issue Certes notes are some of the several reasons these need to be examined individually. They are not suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Contesting deletion: proposed changes to the text

The fifth paragraph of the introduction to CSD currently reads:

The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. However, if the sole author blanks a page (other than a userspace page or category page), this can be taken as a deletion request, and the blank page tagged for deletion with {{Db-blanked}} (see G7). If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used.

I see two issues with the current wording:

The following sentence: However, if the sole author blanks a page (other than a userspace page or category page), this can be taken as a deletion request, and the blank page tagged for deletion with {{Db-blanked}} (see G7). doesn't belong here. The whole paragraph is about contesting deletion, and right in the middle there's this thrown in about creators requesting deletion. It fits with neither what comes before nor what comes after. The sentence is redundant to what is already given in the relevant section (WP:G7), so I think it can simply be dropped. If, however, it is to stay in the introduction, then it ought to be moved to the paragraph before (which is about requesting deletion) and ideally expanded with a mention of the related criterion WP:U1.
The first sentence very emphatically asserts that a creator cannot remove speedy tags. Of course, this is the rule for most cases, but there are several commonly used criteria where this doesn't apply at all: WP:G7, WP:U1, WP:G13, and less obviously also WP:G6 and WP:G8 (these are just the ones I know about). This means that the bolded sentence is patently wrong. I guess one approach is to avoid adding additional instructions per WP:CREEP on the assumption that editors will use their common sense. But note all of the exceptions are that obvious, and perhaps more importantly, this is a policy page where we really shouldn't be that tolerant of incorrect information. – Uanfala (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need a rule that a creator may remove a speedy deletion tag if and only if there is no contest button. Then we may wish to review which CSD have contest buttons. Certes (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Something like that was proposed for G6, but as Bsherr pointed out in the discussion, this creates the unwelcome situation where a policy question (who can and cannot decline speedy deletions) is settled on individual template pages without being explicit in the policy page itself. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Support changing both, especially the first one. Creators contesting a deletion and them requesting it are not just different concepts; they are nearly opposites. I also agree with Certes here, though I'm not sure how to implement the second change while still keeping the passage simple. Glades12 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the exceptions can be accommodated without that much extra instructions, something like the following could do:

For most speedy deletion criteria, the creator of a page may not remove the deletion tag from it; only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13 or U1.

If this looks too detailed, then the list of exceptions can be relegated to a footnote. The templates can be changed accordingly, but I think the information about what is acceptable or not should be explicitly stated in the policy page. – Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That looks good, assuming that the list matches the list of CSD templates with no "contest" button. We might have a footnote saying creators can also remove CSD tags that they themselves placed in error, but that might be overcomplicating things for a rare case. Certes (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale as part of WP:F7

I have wondered whether Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale (dfu), which was first nominated for deletion back in 2009, is misused in some way. Furthermore, I question it being listed under WP:F7. The "do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded" statement is intimidating enough especially for uploaders, and the "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern" statement for others who would rather remove the tag without discussion. Even as an alternative to File PROD, which can be removed without requiring anything, I no longer saw myself wanting to use the "dfu" tag for those reasons I (implicitly?) made, especially since PROD extended to files back in 2017. One recent example is using the "dfu" tag on NSYNC cover arts, which were initially deleted per some "dfu" process, not the FFD, where the covers were also discussed. The deletion was reviewed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 5, which resulted in "overturn and relist". Well, there are other seven-day deletions listed under criteria on files, but this is specifically about the "dfu" tag, so we can review other ones in a later time. --George Ho (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC); edited, 09:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be in favor of allowing anyone to convert any 7-day speedy tag to an FfD for any reason, removing the speedy tag and replacing it with an FfD tag in the process. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is already the current practice (and has been for pretty much the past decade). I'm opposed to codifying it because WP:CREEP and WP:COMMONSENSE. -FASTILY 23:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

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.

There is no consensus for this proposal. In my opinion, the opposition is in general, more well-reasoned and did their due diligence of explaining their stance, the proposition seems to be significantly on the backfoot consensus-wise. Particularly, some members of the opposition (some supporters as well) felt there was no point expanding existing criteria and felt the proposed R5 criterion duplicated existing criteria. Others were of the opinion that a need for this criterion was not established, such arguments were either uncontested or met with weak opposition. Numerically, they might be evenly-matched but the garnered consensus is in no way enough to change the status quo. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that there is a different live proposal to this one at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new criterion R5: Redirects with incorrect temporal keywords.

WP:RDAB says that redirects like ( disambiguation), ( disambiguation ), disambiguation), ((disambiguation), )disambiguation), X(disambiguation), (Disambiguation), (DISAMBIGUATION), (disambugation) and (dsambiguation) are unneeded. It also notes (in a sentence recently added by me) that User:DPL bot logs all links to DAB pages except ones precisely through a correctly-formed (disambiguation) qualifier as WP:INTDAB errors. Many more erroneous (disambiguation) qualifiers can be and have been devised by ingenious and inaccurate editors, a fraction of which have been discovered by diligent and imaginative gnomes. Such redirects should never be linked, and they clutter the searchbox.

As matters stand, such redirects tend to get listed at WP:RFD because there is no WP:CSD criterion which clearly covers them. WP:R3, firstly, only applies to recently-created redirects, and age doesn't matter for these errors. Secondly, not every admin handling an R3 knows why these are harmful rather than harmless typos (why should they? it's an arcane technical area), and it wastes everyone's time if an editor applying an R3 tag has to explain why the problem is in fact a problem and the handling admin has to satisfy themself that the reporting editor is correct. WP:G6 item 3, another possibility, contains an element of discretion: "unambiguously created in error".

I propose a new CSD item to get such redirects deleted more efficiently than now. R5 and higher are available; see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Obsolete criteria. A CSD rule would need to be carefully worded to exclude valid redirects such as O (Disambiguation) to Ø (Disambiguation); an album title which could have been designed on purpose by a malicious Wikipedia editor to puzzle and annoy DABfixing and redirection specialists. I propose, as initial attempt:

R5. Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers

This applies to redirects of any age with a malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifier to a disambiguation page at the basename; that is, anything but (disambiguation) precisely. A few of the very many possibilities are given at WP:RDAB.

That wording does not cover everything. It does not include X(disambiguation), mentioned in RDAB. Nor does it include redirects to DAB pages not at the basename; that is, where there is a WP:PTOPIC and the DAB page itself has a (disambiguation) qualifier. I would much rather see a simple robust rule which covered the majority of cases than a more complex one with caveats and exceptions. Anything doubtful can and should be taken to RFD.

I am notifying the existence of this discussion to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Support/Oppose (new R5)

Support but I would remove at the basename. That change should extend R5 to cases such as Fbi (discombobulation) → FBI (disambiguation) without condemning any redirects worth keeping. I'd be equally happy extending R3 but it is already quite lengthy and a new CSD may be better. Certes (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with that to, it doesn't matter of there's a primary topic or not, the same principals apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Support creating a new criterion or expanding either R3 or G6. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Very strong oppose expanding R3 or G6. R3 should remain time limited in all circumstances, that's one of its most significant points and the reason for it is not always understood so it should not be diluted. G6 is already overloaded and is the most frequently misused criterion (intentionally and otherwise) the absolute last thing it needs is more things added to it. ~~I'm still thinking about the main thrust of the proposal.~~ Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Partly for the reasons Eureka Lott gives below, but also because it's missing three key requirements: (a) the correctly spelled disambiguation redirect must exist, (b) there must be zero incoming links to the incorrect redirect, and (c) it must have no significant history (if there is significant history it needs discussion to determine whether there are attribution concerns or any other reason for it to exist). Given the already very narrow applicability, the need for even tighter restrictions and the fact that some of these redirects do fall under G6 and/or R3 already I can't see how any criteria along these lines would meet the frequency and non-redundancy parts of WP:NEWCSD, especially as RfD is not overloaded and these are almost never actually harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment by nom. There will be no incoming links to such redirects more than 5-6 weeks old. That's how long it now takes me to cycle through Disambiguation pages with links (my first run through took 8 months), and all such links turn up there. They are harmful: any such link is a WP:INTDAB error. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

They link to the intended disambiguation page in a manner that makes it clear the ambiguous link is intentional, i.e. exactly the same as what would happen if the "(disambiguation)" link was used, and anyone entering the page directly in any of the other ways people navigate Wikipedia will also end up at exactly the same place they would otherwise have done. So as there is no situation in which someone will arrive at the wrong target the redirects are causing no harm. A small amount of extra busywork for Wikipedia editors is also not evidence of harm. Just because you currently cycle through a maintenance page every few weeks (during which time a redirect could be speedily deleted under this criterion) and after which new links can be added is completely irrelevant to the need for links to these redirect pages to be replaced before they are deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak support The problems Eureka and Thryduulf bring up should be considered in the final wording, but I think in general a CSD for misspelling the word "disambiguation" is a net positive. I don't think we need to check incoming links (if something links there, we should probably fix it, and a redlink will help speed that up). It's reasonable to ask deleting admins to check the history first, so a time limit (no older than X years) and a requirement that there be no substantial edit history would be useful. While a lot of people don't understand "errors in the act of disambiguating" I think the proposed wording is sufficiently clear. If we want to clarify more, we could phrase the CSD as Redirects where the word 'disambiguation' is misspelled or otherwise deviates from the standard '(disambiguation)' qualifier. This CSD does not apply to words other than 'disambiguation'. I think that is pretty unambiguous. — Wug·a·po·des 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as the author of WP:RDAB. To codify which narrow set of disambiguation errors should be speediable and which should not would likely end up being very convoluted (though wugapodes wording seems okay at first glance) and prone to misapplication. Such errors are adequately handled at RFD and are not neccesarily common enough to warrant the expansion or creation of a criterion here. Also taking Uanfala's comment below about recent activity surrounding them and Thryduulf's comment above about current criteria applicability into consideration: the R3 criterion arguably already covers new ones, while old ones may have hidden nuances worthy of examination at RFD.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. These discussions always end up with "close as delete", which is the point of speedying them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
That just means they should be deleted, not that they all can and should be uncontroversially and obviously done so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, that seems like a contradiction. Yes, they should be deleted, that's obvious and uncontroversial. So why do we need to discuss them? Or, no, it's not obvious and uncontroversial, so they shouldn't be deleted without discussion. Of the two, having participated in the discussions, the conclusion is the first, that they should be deleted. Adding the CSD criterion helps the project avoid unnecessary RfDs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
As a crude analogy, articles failing to pass NFOOTY are (almost) always closed as delete, but we should not have a criterion just for them. Something can be in need of deletion without the whole category being up for deletion on just one or two pairs of eyes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This whole group (the word "disambiguation" being misspelled) should be up for deletion on just one pair of eyes though. That's the proposal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - there's no demonstrated need, incredibly narrow CSDs that're rarely invoked are pretty pointless bureaucracy that make the rules harder to navigate, even if they're not internally linked they still may be externally linked, so deleting them absent any motivation is extremely dickish, deleting formattings that are intuitive but not the ones Wikipedia has arbitrarily chosen is extremely hostile to new editors, etc. Wily D 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak support maybe a bit redundant to R3 and G6 (per below) but indeed per JHunterJ most of these are deleted anyway, alternatively weak support expanding R3 or G6. An exception as noted can be if it has non-trivial edit history. Maybe this should also apply to other types like Mercury planet going to Mercury (planet) and Cleveland Ohio going to Cleveland, Ohio (WP:RDAB isn't clear if it only refers to those pointing to DAB pages or other similar redirects) but the Mercury and Cleveland redirects do seem reasonable since people might well try those searches if they don't know WP uses brackets/commas. Skye (Disambiguation) would probably be an example of RDAB even though its existed for years. Yes these might be harmless but indeed the mess creating all of these would be large and the search ignores caps if a different capitalization exists, namely if "Skye (Disambiguation)" is deleted and you put that into the search box it would take you onto Skye (disambiguation) without the "(Redirected from Skye (Disambiguation))" anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose in favour of making DPL bot more permissive with misspellings of the disambiguating qualifier. These sort of redirects do get a fair number of views and the search results page is very unhelpful in these scenarios; the redirects would be quite useful if not for the INTDAB errors. It's worth to note that RDAB isn't a guideline/policy – though it probably should be if DPL bot isn't made more permissive – and that the guiding rules of RfD are frequently ignored for no good reason. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: Because User:Narky Blert supported the deletion of a redircet with Tzar in the name without checking dictionaries to see if it was an alternative spelling to Tsar (see OED enty for Tsar which lists it as an alternative spelling since the 17th century). In addition in many cases one may not be aware that an alternative spelling is used in a different dialiect of English to ones own. Better that each case is discussed so that mistakes are not made, particularly as there is a systemic bias to American English on Wikipedia. If this means a redirect remaining for a time no harm is done to the project. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: I do not have the slightest object to "Tzar", which is a perfectly good English word. My objection is to "disambaguation", which isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, Tsar Alexander (disambaguation) lives on. R5 would kill it off. Certes (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Or you could just nominate it at RfD - leaving a page you believe to be harmful on the off chance that it might be speedily deletable in future is not benefiting the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think this is sufficiently common to justify the overhead of a speedy deletion criterion, especially since any newly created redirects of this type would qualify for R3 anyway. The RfDs cited look like a the results of some editors recently trying to cull these redirects, once that cull has been completed the number of candidates will plummet. I can't see this situation coming up, say, a few times a week. Hut 8.5 17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Support These redirects don't serve a good purpose. They produce INTDAB errors if linked, they're not going to be consistently searched terms. Redirects are cheap, but editor time at RFD isn't. I disagree that having a speedy criterion that might not be commonly used a bad thing, we still have the patent nonsense criteria even though it's not common (at least not properly applied). I think this criteria would be helpful. Hog Farm (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The patent nonsense speedy deletion criterion is used fairly frequently, as I write there have been four in the last 24 hours: Draft:24453, Draft:Hans art group, Draft:Rumen Damyanov and Draft:Anthonyrenaealvarezjr (all reasonable IMO). Hut 8.5 07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Whatever your personal opinion of the frequency requirement, it would need the consensus of a well-attended policy discussion to remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Support, as I feel that this fits in with other CDS's the WP:NEWCSD advice, and WP:RDAB. >>BEANS X2^t 09:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- How will this meet the frequent and non-redundant requirements (not advice, requirements) given all the evidence in the comments above that it wont? Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Not remotely frequent enough. To those saying these waste the time of editors at RFD, if a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete. A new, barely-used criterion for speedy deletion is not a solution for overeager relisters. —Cryptic 17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose seems to already be covered by G6, which I disagree with Thryduulf on in terms of being overloaded. If anything I would get rid of all existing R criteria and merge them into G6, since I think they all fall under it already even if they didn’t exist on their own. I don’t want to encourage more pointless expanding of non-controversial maintenance criteria when we already have a criteria explicitly for this type of stuff. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Support in principle, but too narrow as proposed. I would construct R5 as follows: "This applies to redirects from implausible typos or misnomers which contain parenthetical disambiguation, with no substantive page history. Parenthetical disambiguation here refers to any term in parentheses, including the word 'disambiguation', as long as the term in parentheses is not part of the name of the topic. Typos may consist of incorrect spelling, formatting, and/or spacing." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
So that would include titles like ~~Mercury (plannit)~~North by Northwest (moive), which is currently being debated at RfD? That sounds reasonable, though it's a major extension of the original proposal. Certes (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. In the absence of parenthetical disambiguation, we tend to be a bit more lenient as we're dealing with terms that people are actually likely to search for by typing them in their entirety. Parenthetically disambiguated terms are relatively unlikely to be guessed, so the main source of traffic is likely to be autocomplete entries in the search bar that we should try to declutter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Support in principle, this feels like housekeeping to me? I don't see what horror might arise if we do this. Guy (help!) 18:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Opppose per my comments below, but in short: the deletion drive for older redirects from misspelings of "disambiguation" appears largely complete, so the proposed new criterion is going to apply only to newly created ones and so be redundant to R3. Really, we don't need CSD criteria with such a ridiculously narrow scope. I would definitely support King of Hearts's broader proposal, but that would need a separate discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The idea that no misspellings of "disambiguation" will slip through the cracks going forward is optimistic. The new criterion would apply to ones created after passage that don't get noticed until after they're no longer newly created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
True. Although I know it when I see it, it's difficult to devise a rigorous and efficient search for such titles. Certes (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

But what is the need to speedy delete them? If they've slipped through the cracks long enough to avoid R3 it's extremely unlikely they are actually doing any harm and so there is not going to be any issue with discussing it at RfD to make sure that there isn't some reason to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Support in the extended version Agathoclea (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Opposed to this, largely for all the reasons given above, in particular Cryptic, Hut, and in particular WilyD, who hits the nail on the head: there's no significant need, and the expanded bureaucracy of isn't worth it. Any new cases can be covered by R3, any remaining old ones surely aren't a burden on RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments (new R5)

Comment: Perhaps R3 or G6 could simply be expanded to cover this? TheAwesome Hwyh 20:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, perhaps this should be listed at WP:CENT. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Done Narky Blert (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I meant the template itself. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it myself. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Considering how frequently RFD participants misinterpret WP:RDAB to mean "any error in a disambiguator," I fear that introducing a new CSD criterion would only serve to magnify that error. If RFD regulars don't get it right, how can we expect other contributors to understand the nuances? (See Duck and Cover (film and Tommy Walker(The Who) as a couple recent examples.) - Eureka Lott 20:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- EurekaLott, what "errors in a disambiguator" are, in your opinion, covered by WP:RDAB and what errors are the result of misinterpretation? – Uanfala (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and split comments from the supports and opposes for readability, feel free to revert. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see why this is needed. Just to first make sure we're on the same page terminologically: a disambiguator is something like the (disambiguation) of London (disambiguation) but also the (game) of Foo (game) or the Hungary of Buda, Hungary. Now, redirects with misspellings in the disambiguator, whether plausible or not, should generally not be kept because they potentially obstruct search results. If there is a proposal to somehow expedite the deletion of such redirects I'll be all aboard (though probably CSD isn't the way to go as there can be all sorts of complications, starting with the fact that most such redirects are remnants of moves or have histories). What I don't see is why there should be a separate process for expediting the deletion of redirects with one very specific kind of disambiguator. Correct me I'm wrong, but the whole DPL machinery doesn't treat this type of redirect any differently from most other redirects to dab pages, and if the bot flags up links to such redirects as errors then the effect is that this will draw the attention of a wikignome who will come and do what good gnomes do with any misspelling: fix it. This is a good thing, and it won't change whether or not R5 is adopted.
If the need for a new CSD criterion has been felt because of the recent activity around that type of redirects at RfD, then it's worth pointing out that this new activity is down to a few editors currently tracking down all misspelt "disambiguation" redirects out there, some of which are almost a decade old. When all such redirects have been tracked down – and that might have already happened – then there won't be any need for an extra CSD criterion as any new ones that get created will be eligible for WP:R3 straight away. – Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
This is already covered by G6: uncontroversial maintenance. If anyone objects, they can be restored, but no one would. If you’re sending these to RfD, stop it and just tag it as G6 with an explanation. There’s a 99% chance it’ll be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- These are usually (but not always, for the reasons given in other comments on this and similar proposals) uncontroversial but at least most of these are not maintenance and so are very much not covered by G6. G6 is not a dumping ground for anything you think nobody will object to deletion - this is a very common misunderstanding and why it has by far the highest rate of incorrect use of any of the criteria. If it were proposed as is today it would rightly snow-opposed for being subjective and contestable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  I agree. I hate considering G6 csd because most of them take a lot of work in order to establish that it really is non-controversial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  
  I think the last RfC we had on it disagreed with that interpretation and there was a fair amount of agreement with my interpretation that it is in fact a category for any uncontroversial maintenance or housekeeping deletion and that is why it is worded the way it is. If I were to G6 these and someone were to take them to DRV on the grounds of a bad G6 and that they should have gone to RfD, they’d likely be endorsed on the merits of falling within G6, and not on the grounds of IAR. The community has rejected the idea that it is too broad, and to my knowledge has never enforced a strict reading of it. If the community is unwilling to make the criteria tighter by changing it, and unwilling to overturn administrators who read it liberally, then that typically means the consensus reading of the policy is the more liberal one. Anyway, a happy Easter to you. Always dislike disagreeing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  - Every CSD criteria must be interpreted strictly, always. That is the foundation upon which CSD is built. There is consensus that G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance, yes, but that means that things deleted under it must be both uncontroversial and maintenance. Not every redirect that would be covered by this proposed criterion is uncontroversial and not all of them a maintenance, therefore it is absolutely not the case that they fall under G6. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2020 (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.

Speedy deletion and deproded pages

Are articles that survived a WP:Proposed deletion attempt eligible for speedy deletion? For example, the articles on Camilla Di Giuseppe and Stefania Orlando are currently up for speedy deletion, and both were previously proded and deproded. The WP:CSD are silent on the matter, but since speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases only, common sense says (to me, anyhow) that deproded articles shouldn't be speedy deleted. Thoughts? Do we need to add a note at WP:CSD? - Eureka Lott 23:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a PROD on the first one, but the second was a BLPPROD, which I don't view as invalidating a CSD (it just says "this BLP has no references") Primefac (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the article creator can contest a prod (that was the case with the second article) by simply removing the tag I don't believe that in itself is enough to invalidate a speedy deletion.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There may be specific exceptions, but in general PROD is the lowest of hurdles, CSD is higher, so I don't think so. An article can be de-PRODed for any reason, or no reason at all. A speedy request should generally only be turned down if the article doesn't meet the criteria, or can be fixed. Wily D 04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

True but Eureka Lott has a point as well. CSD is by definition for uncontroversial cases. PROD is similar in that regard. Also, both PROD and CSD allow any other editor to contest the request in good faith by removing the tag. PROD additionally allows the page creator to contest the request by removing the tag. So that is the correct answer imho: If a third editor contested the PROD (not just removed it for procedural reasons), then deletion should be considered controversial for most tags (especially G11 or A7) and speedy deletion requests be declined. If the creator removed the PROD, then this does not preclude speedy deletion because speedy deletion is built upon the assumption that deletion is possible even when the creator objects (unlike PROD).

As such, Iridescent was right to decline the first one (@Primefac: prod deprod). The second one was, as Primefac correctly points out, not a PROD but as BLPPROD that was removed merely on procedural grounds, not because Girth Summit indicated any disagreement with deletion itself. So it was eligible to be nominated for speedy deletion again.

PS: I declined the second one but not because of the previous BLPPROD but on the grounds that the it-wiki version contains a lot of links to coverage in Corriere della Sera, a RS newspaper, which might be sufficient to let the article survive AFD if native speakers can assess those sources. Regards So Why 06:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, going by the NPP flowchart, most CSD criteria should have been considered before a PROD/BLPPROD is put in place - copyvio, promo, A7 significance etc. However, given that the grounds for declining are very different, I don't think that a decline for a PROD/BLPPROD should strictly invalidate a CSD being applied; not everyone follows the flowchart strictly, and (for example) a declined prod shouldn't protect a copyvio from being zapped. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the last part, which is why I said "most tags". If editor A PRODs an article "Fails WP:BIO" and editor B contests that the subject meets WP:BIO, then we can assume that editor B was not in favor of keeping the article if it later turns out to be a copyvio. Regards So Why 07:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - I agree with you that deletion should generally be considered controversial if a third party has removed the PROD, especially for A7 or G11. I just don't want to get into a situation where a DEPROD becomes an automatic, bureaucratic bar to an obviously valid CSD tag being applied (especially if the grounds for the prod and deprod don't speak to the validity of the tag). I think we're on the same page here. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

At the very least verifiable copyright violations and articles that are eligible for WP:G5 shouldn’t be kept simply because someone made a poorly planned out prod.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above by Girth and the user whose IP ends in 252.96. A previous prod does not prevent a clearly valid speedy deletion tag, particularly for copyvio or attack page or BLP violation. However, where the matter is more of a judgement call, such as A7 (significance) or G11 (promotion), particularly if the reason given for the prod is more or less the same or at least similar, and if a good-faith editor other than the creator removed the prod, then i would take t Hat to indicate that the deletion is not uncontroversial, and not proceed with a speedy, but would instead go through XfD. No policy mandates this, but as a reviewing admin I might decline on such a basis. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a contested PROD always invalidates later CSD, but if the deprodder is someone uninvolved with creating the page (or has good reasons for objecting), you should probably consider their reasons before you place another red tag of doom on the page. Glades12 (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

F9 threshold

It should not be enough to simply say "this is a copyright violation." There should be an actual visual review and the violation confirmed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@KeithTyler: Administrators are expected to review all speedy deletion requests for their validity, not just F9, so I'm unsure what you think should be changed. Can you elaborate? Regards So Why 10:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it's something along the lines of requiring that a source be provided, but that's not on {{db-g12}} either. I wouldn't be opposed to mandating the source, because sometimes (especially with G12s) it's dang hard to find the source. It would make our jobs slightly easier, but as SoWhy says we should be reviewing it anyway. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If an admin can't verify that a speedy deletion tag is correct then they should decline it. In the case of a copyright violation that means that if no source is noted by the tagger or they can't find a source themselves then they should either decline (if obviously incorrect) or treat it as a suspected copyright violation (if plausible). This wouldn't preclude speedy deletion if a source is found/provided later. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that admins are mistakenly deleting non-copyrighted materials without any due diligence at a noticeable level because if not this sounds like a solution in search of a problem?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, not that I know of; the only admin I know who was repeatedly doing so was recently desysopped by ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is the distinction I'm saying -- assume compliant unless noncompliance confirmed, not assume noncompliant unless compliance confirmed. Assumption of compliance. And yes it's happened, I didn't just cook this up randomly. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If I were reviewing a G12 speedy tag, and no source had been provided, i would decline unless a web search revealed an obvious source (for example, in a pagfe about a school, if content had been copied from the school web site). I might use the standard copyvio web search tool. If I didn't quickly find a source, i would not only decliner but drop a moderately pointed note to the tagger. I rarely review F9s but I don't see why the standard would be any different, and I would expect any admin to act similarly. I wouldn't oppose a footnote that the reviewing admin is expected to confirm that the violation is real, and perhaps also to mention cases where another site copies from Wikipedia, which I have been caught by a few times, as have others. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
How frequent are unexplained G12/F9 requests? Back in the day where I did process CSDs, I usually did find a link - or several - in the deletion tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Rare, in my experience, but not unheard of. More common is where a source is provided, and there is significant text identical in source and WP article, but on closer examination the "source" copied fropm Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. I have also seen a few cases where there was copying, but the source was released under CC-BY-SA or a compatible free license. I have seen admins incorrectly delete in both of those cases, and indeed I have done it myself, only to undelete when I became aware of the true situation. But such incorrect deletions are, I think reasonably rare. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: new criterion for mass-created GNIS permastubs

GNIS is a database of US places that contains essentially every US placename that has ever been shown on a map. About a decade ago, a number of users mass-created thousands upon thousands of one-sentence stub articles for the locations listed in GNIS as "populated places", with the articles describing these places as unincorporated communities. The problem is, many if not most of these locations are not communities and never were. A long time back when large parts of the US were very thinly populated, it was apparently common practice to list individual ranches and homesteads on official maps, and later on these placenames got added into GNIS, and now their permastubs are cluttering up Wikipedia, with no hope of ever being expanded. The same thing happened with individual railroad sidings that were never anything more than a wide spot in the railroad. These worst of these permastubs, which I set out criteria for below, universally fail WP:GEOLAND, as has been established by countless AfD discussions. This is a tricky one to make a criterion for, to avoid making it over-broad and affecting articles on legitimate communities, but here's my first stab at it.

Original proposal

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A12: articles on GNIS "populated place" locales with no substantive content and no history of substantive content.

An article may be deleted under this criterion if and only if all of the following conditions are met:

The subject of the article is a "populated place" or "populated place (historical)" locale listed in the GNIS database.
The article does not contain, and has no revisions containing, meaningful content, as defined below.
Meaningful content refers to any prose content excluding the following:

Name(s) and former name(s) of the place
Coordinates of the place
Distances from other named places
Area code, zip code, county name, state name, and/or country name.
Elevation

Updated proposal CJK09 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A12/X3: articles on GNIS "populated place" locales with no history of substantive content.

An article may be deleted under this criterion if and only if all of the following conditions are met:

The subject of the article is a "populated place" or "populated place (historical)" locale listed in the GNIS database.
The article either (a) cites no sources, or (b) cites only GNIS. 22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The subject of the article is neither an incorporated community nor a census-designated place.
The article does not contain, and has no revisions containing, meaningful content, as defined below.
Meaningful content refers to any content excluding the following:

Name(s) and former name(s) of the place
Coordinates of the place
Distances from other named places
Area code, zip code, county name, state name, and/or country name.
Elevation

I think this is pretty narrow and cut-and-dry. This is an example of an article that would be covered by this criterion. This is an example of an article that would not be covered. There is some other stuff that appears on some of these articles - climate info (usually pulled from databases that contain estimated climate data for every square mile in the US), post office opening and closing dates, railroad and highway names, river names, and explanations of the name's meaning. However, these are less clearcut and risk making the criterion not uncontestable.

Any thoughts? CJK09 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand the idea behind that proposal but I don't think this is really something CSD can handle adequately. For example, Arroyo Vista, California would fall under the proposed criterion despite apparently being a place 103 people lived in 2010. As you yourself proved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryants, California, determining whether a place really fails GEOLAND requires some extensive digging (since the place might have been populated in the past). Regards So Why 07:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point about population. It shouldn't be excluded just because it's in the infobox, not the article. I'm going to make 2 changes to my proposal:

Incorporated communities and CDPs are excluded
Change "any prose content" to "any content".

That should narrow things a bit more. With careful thought I think it's possible to make a useful criterion here. I don't expect it'll pass but I think it's worth exploring. CJK09 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I removed the population from Arroyo Vista, California as it was unsourced and failed verification, but I agree with the CDP exclusion since they're often considered notable. –dlthewave ☎ 12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutral, but this sounds like a temporary thing (for the most part), so perhaps it should be X3 instead. Glades12 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to do this then it should exclude articles which cite any source other than the GNIS. Hut 8.5 12:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- While this exclusion makes sense for CSD, with so scarce description it will be often difficult to prove that source speak about the same place, so they IMO are still a fair game for AfD during a GNIS-cleanup run. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've edited my proposal to include this limitation. CJK09 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  - I would suggest treating GNIS mirrors the same as GNIS, otherwise someone could prevent deletion simply by adding a Hometown Locator reference. –dlthewave ☎ 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Very strong oppose. Unless and until the consensus that verifiably extant populated or formerly populated places are notable changes (which is unlikely) then every single one of these needs to be individually examined to determine whether it is or was a settlement and/or is notable for some other reason. With the consensus regarding populated places as it stands then no CSD criterion meeting the requirements is possible. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Support whichever version is most palatable to the community. My only concern would be if someone could game the system by adding sources that are based on GNIS data such as [www.weather.gov NOAA Weather] or [www.hometownlocator.com Hometown Locator]. I'm not worried about accidentally deleting notable places; we shouldn't be spending hours researching coverage for articles that were mass-created within minutes of each other, and we can maintain a list of deleted places for editors who are interested in re-creating them with better sourcing. In my opinion the benefit of keeping articles that could be notable is outweighed by the known problem of misinformation finding its way into other sources such as Google Maps, which contains hundreds of "unincorporated community" labels which were erroneously applied by Wikipedia editors.

If this proposal is presented to the community, we should have a clear description for those who are unfamiliar with GNIS isssues. I've started an essay draft at User:Dlthewave/GNIS and there's a decent external writeup for Haberman, NY. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not our fault other services copy information from Wikipedia without reflecting on it. And there is nothing that bars users from having a discussion on deleting more than one such article if they are all found non-notable. But speedy deletion needs to be objective and not requiring extensive research by the tagging user or reviewing admin and these articles don't appear to fit that bill. Regards So Why 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This is not a proper use case for a speedy deletion criteria, which are meant to be uncontroversial. I propose we do a one-time cleanup where we scrape all of the articles which fit this criteria and create a project where we collectively go through and sort these by performing a WP:BEFORE search and then bulk-nominate all those which fail the criteria, similar to what we've been doing in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 03:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose thinking about this I don't think it's a good case for speedy deletion. This criterion can (and probably will) be applied to any badly-developed articles on US places, even ones which aren't mass-created stubs of the type this is meant to get rid of. It will also result in some perfectly acceptable articles on real populated places being deleted. If we just want to get rid of these as quickly and easily as possible then I'd recommend setting up a project on the lines of what SportingFlyer describes, so they can actually get some review. Hut 8.5 06:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Hut 8.5 and SportingFlyer. I suggest adopting the latter's proposal of having a dedicated project to sort through these stubs and then mass-nominating them for AFD as necessary. Regards So Why 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Some of these are legitimate communities, some aren't. If even one of them is a legitimate community, a blanket CSD criteria is inappropriate as it would not be uncontroversial, and far more than one of them are as the AfDs have shown. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment A CSD wouldn't be feasible here, but I think adopting the "SvG approach" could work. Has anyone developed a list or count of applicable articles? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- The SvG approach seems rather overblown here since there is no reason to assume bad faith regarding the creations and its extremely unlikely that there will be any BLP issues. Additionally if any of these have names similar to much larger places, identifying sources that relate to the small place can be time consuming (even when they do exist). There is no need to impose an arbitrary deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  - I actually really like stealing the framework of an SvG approach for this. We don't need to assume bad faith, impose a deadline, or move things into draft space, we just need a structure by which we can review all of these instead of doing it piecemeal. My issue with bulk noms of these places is that it's difficult to tell what sort of WP:BEFORE search has been done, and it's really easy to derail a bulk nomination. Centralising the cleanup will make things a lot easier. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I've created a project at User:SportingFlyer/GNIS Cleanup to start sorting through these stubs. All are welcome. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- It might be better to use the state-based projects to manage this so that we get somewhat local expertise on sources. My approach with Nevada is that I'm going through each county and reviewing each article. Typically, I add an infobox, confirm the GNIS information, add a proper GNIS citation, add a citation for a post office if there was one, add a citation for information about the origin of the place name (if any), add citations for any mining history. Then I spend some time looking at Google Books, newspapers.com and other sources for that location. If a location is missing significant WP:RS and/or is just a WP:STATION, then I add a notability template and describe what's missing in the Talk page. There are some place articles that don't have a county template, I usually catch these via a search. I'm all for cleaning these up, but I also want to be sure that someone takes the time to review each proposed deletion. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada has a link the the cleanup page that has a Nevada -> Notability unclear section. Perhaps making a pass through each state and marking them as non-notable would be a good first step? Cxbrx (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  - I didn't think many state projects were very active, to be honest. My goal here really is to have a centralised discussion so we can be clear a couple users have looked at each article comprehensively in order to make the cleanup easier. Individual AfDs at large scale are exhausting. I want to make it obvious to anyone who wants to vote procedural keep at a bulk AfD just how much work has gone into deciding a stub isn't actually notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    - I see your points about the inactivity of state projects, I'm probably the only one active in the Nevada project :-). Perhaps this would reinvigorate the state projects? I find the cleanup website tool to be invaluable. The regular state page about new pages is also helpful for avoiding new kruft. I agree that it is quite a bit of work to handle individual AfDs, however not all AfDs result in a deletion. It would be helpful to know just how many articles are below some sort of standard before making a decision. Perhaps cleanup tool could be extended. Cxbrx (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force going on for CA articles. While of course most of the 30,000+ articles in Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States by state are legitimate communities, it remains disturbing how the WP:BURDEN has been passed on from the mass-creators to those of us interested in geographic places and care about WP:V and WP:N. Despite users raising the issue of GNIS errors in California at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_9#Systematic_inclusion_of_GNIS_unincorporated_communities in 2009, this person continued to make 2,000 one-liners, scores of which have already been deleted, redirected, or identified as incorrect even as the processing of them is just getting started. This was not done in good faith, as shown by the blatant disregard for concerns made then and subsequent rejection of a recent approach. While CSD may not be the best way forward and these articles will have to be checked by hand, the procedural keepers are a barrier to ensuring false information is expeditiously removed from the encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- To further demonstrate the scale of this problem, in one county alone I have identified well over 100 of these permastubs that are in need of deletion and redirection. Not all counties have as many of these as El Dorado, of course, but at the same time some counties have far, far more. There are over 3,000 counties in the United States.
- Furthermore, User:Carlossuarez46, the creator of most of these permastubs (at least the California ones, I haven't looked at other states) has repeatedly been asked by various editors to assist in cleaning this up, and has repeatedly refused, as it appears he doesn't agree with the growing consensus that these locales are not notable. I agree with User:Reywas92 that this is an unfair shifting of the burden of proof. CJK09 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  - Then speedy deletion is ipso facto the incorrect remedy. New critiera must be (reasonably) uncontroversial. --Izno (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  - User:CJK09 is substituting his/her original research for what gnis, a reputable source, says. Now he/she wants to encompass his/her interpretation of such research within the speedy deletion criteria. At Wikipedia:Five pillars, we identify as the first of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia "Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." GNIS is a gazetteer, and by lamenting "permastubs" and substituting original research for reliable sources, one of our pillars is in danger of crumbling. Likely many articles will be stubs for the foreseeable future; whether that's geographic locations, biography, species, or whatever - that doesn't permit one's viewpoint to reduce the pillar to formula based on one's original research of what is and isn't what a reliable source says it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    - The problem is that it's been found/it's general consensus that GNIS isn't actually a reliable source for the purposes of whether something passes WP:GEOLAND. So far we've cleaned up a lot of stubs that were never populated, the most egregious of which IMO was a wash in rural Arizona. It's generally fine for WP:V though there are some issues with that as well, such as incorrect placenames. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    - "Doing research" is not "original research". You did ZERO research and negligently mass-created countless articles with false information. The issue is not permastubs, it's that the content is downright wrong – that we also have policies for verifiability and notability that were flaunted. I know you are getting loads of talk notifications about your terrible, incorrect, non-notable articles (with more to come), yet you deliberately ignore them and pretend they're fine and dandy because they're in the GNIS, despite users clearly warning you now and back in 2009 that it was not a reliable basis for article creation without further verification. Merely because this encyclopedia has features of what GNIS is does not mean that what it says is infallible and mandates individual articles for each entry. If you can't recognize that hundreds of pages you made are flat-out wrong and are wasting many people's time to clean up, then shut up and go away. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    - You don't seem to understand the role GNIS plays. It's purpose isn't recognition, it's standardization. An entry in GNIS doesn't say anything about the notability of a place. All it says is that all government agencies should refer to it by that name, not by other names. "Populated place"/"Populated place (historical" in GNIS is not equal to "community". The database contains countless individual homesteads and ranches that were never anything more than the abode of one person or family. It contains cookie-cutter subdivisions with no significant coverage and that are part of an actual community, but not themselves a recognizable community. There are individual roadhouses that remain as artefacts from the days when every commercial establishment along major travel routes was marked in maps. Many are not even populated places, because GNIS lists every name that's ever appeared in any recognized map. There's also places where GNIS is flat out wrong - where it's clear that the place was never populated to begin with. In even just the few counties I've analyzed, I've found railroad sidings, junctions, non-notable run-of-the-mill hills, and various other features that have one-line permastub articles because GNIS wrongly classified them as "populated places".

I don't want to drown the page with too many examples just yet, but here's a particularly odious batch. It took me less than ten minutes to definitely establish that none of these ever were communities, or anything more than individual ranches. There are thousands upon thousands of articles like this that are factually incorrect and that are taking up a tremendous amount of time. I'd much rather be spending that time on my article work, but I have a hard time just ignoring these vast amounts of incorrect information on our encyclopedia.

Furthermore, you're misunderstanding the policy on original research. The first line of the policy says, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. It only refers to articles here; it goes on to say a few sentences later, This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Research to determine that these places are not communities, as part of a deletion discussion, is not relevant to WP:NOR.

These permastubs aren't just wrong, they actively detract from the encyclopedia as a whole. Let's say you want to learn more about the communities of El Dorado County. You scroll to the bottom of the page and open the navbox to take a look at each of them, and you see this. That template contains a few dozen notable communities, and several times more that simply are not communities and never were. And now you've got to waste a tremendous amount of time sifting through all that chaff to find the wheat you're looking for. There's a clear and obvious problem here.

I consider myself a pretty strong inclusionist. If there's any independent significant coverage of a subject from reliable sources and there's enough information out there to write more than a sentence or two, I almost always support keeping/expanding said article. In analyzing the articles for El Dorado County, for example, I pored over several local histories, various newspaper archives, too many government reports to count, gazetteers of placenames, mining claim records, and even bits and pieces of old census data. I found over 100 where it was blatantly clear that =the "community" never existed as a community. Either they failed to appear in these dozens of documents, or there was coverage making it clear that the locale failed GEOLAND by a mile - railroad sidings, drainage ditches, run-of-the-mill individual roadside stops and hotels, for example. CJK09 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I have an oppose for this proposal and it comes down to the trivial other alternatives available, such as redirecting to the county article and/or starting a list therein that explains the existence of UICs in the county but doesn't go into detail (for the claimed need of this CSD criterion is that there is no detail to be had). This WP:PRESERVEs the material where appropriate. Or a redirect/merge to a list of unincorporated communities in New York or similar. --Izno (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's looking increasingly clear that CSD won't be the method used to handle this. However, the problem here really isn't lack of notability. It's factual accuracy. It's that many of these "communities" don't actually exist, and never did exist. CJK09 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As it's looking increasingly clear that CSD is inappropriate here (I expected this would most likely be the outcome, but figured it was worth a shot), but at the same time it's clear some process needs to take place to handle these inaccurate articles, it may be worth further discussion somewhere more appropriate. Not sure where though. CJK09 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

G14 question

I assume G14 applies to pages in the draftspace, correct? Was going to tag a bunch of Draft: pages that have only a single articlespace target, but wanted to get confirmation here first. Thanks as always, UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Assuming they have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" then yes they are technically eligible. However, it's worth not being too hasty with pages in draftspace, as they may be a work in progress. Also I would refrain from deletion if they have either one articlespace target and one extant draftspace target or multiple extant draftspace targets - because if those drafts are accepted then a disambiguation page will be required in the mainspace (note that the plausibility or otherwise of the targets is outside the scope of this criterion, blue links are all that matter). If the draftspace targets are redlinks and the link has not been recently added then I would regard it as eligible for speedy deletion.
If others agree with my interpretation then I would support adding a bullet regarding pages in draftspace to the criterion (AFAIR draftspace was not discussed when the criterion was written). Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The drafting of a disambiguation page in draftspace would imply to me that the same author is drafting a new topic that will be added, and when mainspaced, will justify a new DAB page, invalidating G14. Would anything else make sense? I would expect the draft DAB page to link the article, and to link the new draft that will make the article title ambiguous. I think CSD#G14-ing these pages requires you to dig into these possibilities, and I wonder what the benefit of their deletion is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, @Thryduulf: I think the bullet would be helpful, given that my attempted G14 of Draft:Shaweesh (disambiguation), which I think pretty clearly falls into the ok cases outlined above, was just declined. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Only just seen this. I don't think G14 should apply to draft space disambiguation pages because any draft is by definition a work in progress and it's fine for a draft to not have all the elements that would be required if it was in mainspace. Adding lots of complex rules regarding eligibility of draft disambiguation pages seems like overkill for what should be a fairly rare use case, it's easier to just say that it doesn't apply - G13 will get it eventually. G14 does apply to other types of non-mainspace disambiguation pages though. Hut 8.5 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The complexity is a good point as any rule would need to cover cases where a draft is linked directly and a redlinked mainspace title that the draft will occupy if accepted (which is not always the same as the draft title). I certainly wont object if the consensus is to simply exclude draftspace from G14. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm honestly struggling to see any real utility in ever applying G14 to draftspace. The tidiness benefits of removing unnecessary navigation hurdles in mainspace are fine, but it's not like a pointless disambiguation page in draftspace actually inconveniences anyone. I can imagine examples of someone working on a disambiguation page in draftspace that will be used after a set of article creations or moves occur but doesn't currently link to multiple pages. Whatever corner cases exist that might warrant removing a draft disambiguation page don't strike me as the kind of things that need speedy deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

G13 and articles moved to draftspace

What is the consensus on using G13 to delete articles that have been moved to draftspace after creation? Deleting articles like this effectively circumvents the typical deletion procedures (AfD/PROD). Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As DRAFTIFY criteria 2b explicitly mentions things being deleted as something to consider I think they can be. But I will also make my standard pitch that G13 should be changed from a speedy deletion to a PROD to allow editors a chance to find worthy articles worth saving. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Anarchyte: I don't think this question has been asked directly. A plain text reading of WP:G13 seems to not differentiate between pages started in Article namespace and then moved to Draft namespace vs other starting namespaces. I agree it's underhanded, however if someone started moving pages from mainspace to draft space, waited the necessary unedited period (without anybody else objecting to the move), and then G13ed it, then they've pulled off one of the best tricks in all the land. This seems like a WP:BEANS edge case looking for rules to be codified (see also WP:BURO). Do you have evidence this behavior is already wide spread? I worry about the unintended consequences (Something draftified as an outcome of AFD becoming invulnerable to G13 because it started in Articlespace, NPPers sending creations in mainspace back to draft space as an alternative to deletion) Hasteur (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Underhanded feels like a mighty strong motive to ascribe to something needing to be considered in the very guidelines surrounding the process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I understand your concern and this is definitely not something widespread enough to warrant a lengthy discussion, but perhaps the terms of draftifying something should mention that if the article probably won't ever return to mainspace, it should be sent to AfD. That way we get rid of it quickly and we don't even run the risk of "underhanded" actions, especially as WP:DRAFTIFY currently states "[draftifying] is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion". However this is, of course, a discussion for a different forum. This discussion has established that mainspace to draftspace articles can be deleted under G13. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've sometimes seen some really odd draftifications of old, established articles – and if these articles are obscure enough, chances are that no-one will notice this has happened. The root problems here are 1) people draftify as a lazy alternative to checking notability and taking proper action (either deletion or improvement); 2) draftifications are unaccountable – they don't show up in any alert systems (the way prods or Afds do). We can't do much about #1, but #2 should have a solution. And as for the question at hand – should draftified articles be eligible for G13 deletion, I think that's practically moot. Any rules about what can and can't get deleted via G13 depend on the tagging editor or the deleting admin's due diligence. I don't know how much we can depend on that – my experience (which is admittedly limited) is that most of the the G13 CSD category will get emptied in an instant, no matter how many drafts it's got: I don't think most deletions are accompanied by any sort of checks. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Part of that has to do with the fact a WP:G13 deletion can easily be undone by anyone who cares. I personally haven't used draftify as a "lazy alternative" to notability, but I'm not sure I've moved anything to draft space that I didn't catch at NPP that also needed to not be in mainspace for some reason. If an article is sourced and has spent more than six months in mainspace, though, I'm not sure WP:G13's the best solution. I don't agree with the "send it to AfD" since I would guess the vast majority of draftified articles in mainspace are new and we want to offer the opportunity to improve them. SportingFlyer T·C 15:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: "by anyone who cares" is the problem though. Most G13 deletions have no one to care about them. So what Anarchyte describes (and why I have been critical of draftifying without consensus for a long time) is a real risk for articles about notable subjects that just no one cares about. While you might have not used it as a "lazy alternative", others are doing so on a daily basis, especially for the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM reason of being "undersourced" (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (which are all from the last ~24 hours and are only a small sample)). Whatever else, we have to accept that a small but active part of the NPP corps no longer believes in Wikipedia's core strength of having imperfect articles about notable topics sitting in plain view for people to improve them and instead thinks it best to hide any new article without tons of sources from public view, essentially dooming them to a G13 fate since most creators will not stick around to defend them.
As for what Uanfala says, by providing a script to make draftifying easier, Evad37 has also given us an opportunity, at least if he agrees to make his script log all such moves in a central place, which probably should account for most such moves at this point. I had previously advocated creating a bot that logs all moves to draft and I had a SQL query set up that gives the information (although it's now broken with the database changes). Regards So Why 06:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Fixed the SQL: quarry:query/44978 lists the last 100 moves to draft (change LIMIT to get more or less), quarry:query/44979 does the same but only lists draftifying done using Evad37's script. Regards So Why 06:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Another way to see a log of articles moved to draftspace, optionally filtered by user, is with my script's Draftity log tool (available at Special:Draftify log if you have the script installed) - Evad37 [talk] 09:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with any of those moves. I might have PRODded those if draftify wasn't an alternative. I also support a bot which tracks changes to draft, preferably with a filter for the original creator of the article as I would assume those wouldn't need to be spot checked as clearly. SportingFlyer T·C 06:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem is, WP:PROD explicitly cannot be applied if the subject is notable and the article could be improved by editing (cf. WP:PRODNOM). WP:DRAFTIFY lacks any such guidance despite the fact that WP:PRESERVE (which is a policy unlike DRAFTIFY) explicitly advises all editors to fix problems and not remove content that belongs in an encyclopedia. Hence, some editors will use draftify as a backdoor to deletion since it's basically not monitored. Most, if not all, of those random examples I mentioned could have been handled without draftifying and with preserving content, such as merging or redirecting or simply fixing the lack of sources by adding them. For example, Draft:Midnight Lace (1981 film) is just a remake of Midnight Lace and could've (and should've) been merged (or redirected) to that film's article instead of draftifying. Regards So Why 06:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of prods get deleted without the admin looking closely at them. (I'd venture to say the overwhelming majority of G13s do.) What, in practice, stops people from prodding improvable articles on notable subjects? —Cryptic 07:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like these may all have been NPP reviews which properly followed the NPP flowchart. I can't easily source them in a search, they don't seem to pass any SNGs, and the next question in the flow chart is Is notability borderline, or do you suspect some information not available to you is likely to demonstrate notability? If not, PROD or AfD is recommended. These all seem to qualify, IMO. Are you saying they should go to AfD? SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying they should be treated according to WP:ATD (which is part of the deletion policy) based on what is most helpful to readers looking for a certain subject. Take Draft:Kanli Kula for example: There are plenty of mentions of this building in various sources GBooks, even if those are mostly short mentions. However, someone looking for information about this building will be served far better by redirecting this to Herceg Novi where it's mentioned three times (and possibly merging some of the content there) instead of draftifying which not only removes the information from public view but also creates a red link and leaves people looking for it with no information at all. Regards So Why 07:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather draftify the article than use WP:ATD in that instance. The article's not being deleted so WP:ATD does not apply. It also sends a clear signal to the author that their work isn't quite ready for mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of this thread is that these articles will be deleted circumventing the deletion policy. Saying ATD does not apply because they are draftified and not deleted ignores that the decision to draftify is both akin to a "6-month PROD" as Guy puts it and ATD should be consider before deciding to draftify because incubation is explicitly listed as an alternative (WP:ATD-I). Regards So Why 10:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: one possibly quick way to catch some instances of established articles being moved to draftspace would be for the Article Alert Bot to report the move of any page with a WikiProject tag out of mainspace. It would possibly report some false positives as some people put pages in draftspace briefly while performing a round-robin move, but I don't know how significant an issue that would be? Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Anarchyte, not really, no. They are moved to Draft space as an alternative to deletion, after all - think of it as a 6-month PROD. Guy (help!) 07:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Blank talk pages for files on Commons

Category:File-Class United States articles contains 10,000+ file talk pages that: were mass-created (using AWB) in early 2011; contain no content except a {{WikiProject United States}} banner; have no other useful page history; and are for files that were moved to Commons in late 2011 or early 2012. WikiProject United States has no need for these pages to be tagged, and so the banners will be removed. However, this would leave the talk pages blank, and they would serve no purpose except to mislead viewers seeing a blue link into thinking something is there. I requested an adminbot to delete these pages and was asked to seek a wider discussion, which I am doing here.

Does G6 adequately cover this situation, or would the following proposed modification of G8 be more appropriate?

This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular:

...

talk pages for files that exist on Wikimedia Commons, except if the talk page is blank

Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd call them G7s, handwaving "author" away to "the same group that requested the templates be put there in the first place" as a whole. I can't see how G6 could possibly apply, what with "blanked talk page" specifically not being speedyable, also as noted in G7; and G8 is already overloaded with caveats and caveats to the caveats. Wonkery about which criterion to use aside, I can't imagine this would be controversial, especially if the deletion summaries said something to the effect of "only content was ever Template:WikiProject United States". —Cryptic 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Imho, neither. I don't think this is a question for CSD as the BOTREQ discussion shows. Instead, this probably is a question that should be asked at WP:VPP, i.e. are WikiProjects allowed to designate a certain kind of technical administrative page within their remit for deletion? I think I hazily remember something similar being used in the past although the details escape me. Regards So Why 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)'

Honestly I don't think it's worth the hassle to go through and delete pages that will eventually be recreated anyway. But if you had to I think G6 + IAR would be reasonable enough rationale. PrussianOwl (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

IAR and 10,000+ pages does not really mix imho. Regards So Why 05:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

IAR should never be used in combination with speedy deletion, nor should it ever be used for a large number of changes (see WP:IARUNCOMMON). Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at these (e.g. File talk:2-5crest.gif) suggest even G5 could be in play? Regardless of that, just open an MfD, advertise it widely - and skip the "page tagging" on 10000 pages that would normally be used for MfD. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I would file an WP:MFD to obtain a consensus, and in lieu of individually tagging every page a notification to relevant noticeboards/WikiProjects should suffice per IAR/convenience. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As I commented elsewhere, you need to get consensus for these deletions. They do not fall under any speedy deletion criteria, and nor should they. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the point of tagging 10,000 pages, but I'd certainly publicize this widely to make sure everybody is on board. Actions that affect 10,000 pages need special care and planning. And, surely if they were created 8 or 9 years ago, another few weeks isn't going to make any difference. I also note that not all the pages contain only {{WikiProject United States}}. For example, File talk:1 Ranger Battalion Shoulder Sleeve Insignia.svg. So you certainly will want to have some automated process that verifies your assumptions. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes what would be best would be for Black Falcon to make an actual list of the pages (for example in a sandbox), list at MFD, and notify some wikiprojects. If you don't want to actually check the pages, you could make a bot request to generate the list for you (making lists is not controversial). Once it clears MFD, bulk deletion will be simple if a list is already generated. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Hi I'm not sure that vandalism and hoax pages should be in the same criteria, so I think the hoax pages should be moved to the G15 criteria because vandalism and hoaxes are a bit different. Pls let me know your thoughts on this. Antila (✉) 05:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Both are bad-faith creations. Glades12 (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Creating a hoax article in order to deceive readers is no better than vandalizing articles. There is no need for having two different criteria handling obvious bad-faith creations. Regards So Why 05:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy, since there are two different criteria handling vandalism and attack pages which are both bad faith creations, I think that vandalism and hoax pages also should have a different criteria, I've provided some example above. Antila (✉) 06:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Antila: An article with "Joe Schmoe is a thief" (assuming Joe Schmoe is a non-notable individual and there are no reliable sources about him being that) is an attack page even if Joe Schmoe is indeed a thief and from the creator's POV, they are just informing the public about something they know (possibly from personal experience). But since G10 covers "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced", such a page is eligible for G10 deletion (and should be!) no matter if the allegation is true or not. So G10 pages are often, but not necessarily, bad faith creations. On the other hand, vandalism and creating hoaxes are per definition always bad faith creations. Regards So Why 06:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: It's worth noting, though, that there are two different sub-templates with associated warning messages for G10 - {{db-attack}} and {{db-negublp}}, with the former assuming bad faith and being used for pages that consist chiefly of blatant insults, and the latter assuming good faith and being used for pages that contain reasonable prose, but whose negative allegations aren't sourced - the example you gave, Joe Schmoe is a thief, would most properly be tagged under {{db-negublp}}, whereas "Joe Schmoe is a conniving rapscallion and an utter smeghead" would be {{db-attack}}. Similarly, with {{G3}}, although {{db-vandalism}} assumes bad faith, {{db-hoax}} should not, in my opinion, because who is to say that a hoax page, especially one created by a new or younger editor, is deliberate and malicious misinformation rather than somebody's idea of a light-hearted joke? This is why I have boldly edited {{db-hoax-notice}}, turning it from a redirect to {{db-vandalism-notice}} into a separate warning template specific to pages that are hoaxes, so new users know specifically what they did wrong and aren't scolded for "INTRODUCING INAPPROPRIATE PAGES!" for an attempt at humor. Passenger pigeon (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that it seems to borrow from {{uw-hoax}}, which I think is a good idea. I support the change. --Bsherr (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Glades12, you're right both are created in bad faith but an example of a vandalism page would be 'fuck all stupid wikipedians' whereas an example of a hoax page would be 'the country Orkvanderland is famous for cultivation'. Basically, a vandalism page would consist of offensive words whereas a hoax page would try to make us believe that something fake is real. Antila (✉) 05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Glades12, so are undisclosed paid articles created in violation of the Terms of Use, but we have repeatedly failed to get consensus to speedily delete those. Guy (help!) 07:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

However, some undisclosed paid editors might not be aware of the ToU, at least on their first creation, and thus not everyone creating a paid article without disclosure will necessarily act in bad faith. IIRC, the lack of consensus to speedy delete such articles was based (in part) on the fact that there is no clear-cut way to determine whether an article was the result of undisclosed paid editing. Regards So Why 08:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop pinging me, please. I am watching this discussion; I just don't have anything to add beyond my initial response. Glades12 (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think the combination of these two criteria is a feature, not a problem. Drawing the line about when a hoax obvious enough to be speedyable is a challenge, and we definitely want anything ambiguous to be reviewed via an AfD or similar. Making the criterion based on "a hoax so blatant that it's clearly vandalism" is a really nice bright line to draw, so it makes sense that it's bundled into G3 - if I'm deleting a stupid hoax, it's necessary to mentally justify that it's vandalism, not just incorrect. ~ mazca ^talk 00:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails of this discussion, but is there a consensus to create and link to {{Db-hoax-notice}}, as requested at this edit request? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: No, or at least not yet. Passengerpigeon announced yesterday they had boldly made this change but doing so was not discussed beforehand and it has not been discussed since. Personally I have no problem with the change or the request, but we should give it another few days to see if there are other opinions first. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Hoaxes are a type of vandalism, as described at Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes (A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form of vandalism). Having separate criteria for different types of vandalism has no benefit and just muddies the waters. Adam9007 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism includes hoaxes. That seems sufficient enough reason to me to include them together. Whether attack pages should be a separate criterion or not is a separate question. --Bsherr (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:db-copypaste

Currently, {{db-copypaste}} is being used for WP:G6 "copy/paste page moves" deletion. However, my immediate thought when reading that is more akin to a {{db-copyvio}} deletion. And clearly, based on the template placed here (now deleted properly as G12) there are others who think that as well. Should this template be either deleted (to avoid any ambiguity) or redirected to {{db-g12}}? Primefac (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. The terminology is just incorrect. We have copy-and-paste copyright violations and cut-and-paste moves. Copy-paste move is just an ambiguous variant. We should probably move that template and correct the relevant text. --Bsherr (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we? Glades12 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A few days have passed without objection to changing the text of the template, so, notwithstanding whether the template will be moved or otherwise, I'll proceed with fixing the text as specified at the sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Not all copy-and-paste moves are copyright violations. If the editor who copied and pasted the content provided attribution per the Creative Commons licence, there is no copyright violation (unless of course the original is a copyright violation). Adam9007 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point, which all the more makes this particular template name rather confusing; "copypaste" is vague and (as Bsherr said above) doesn't really mean anything specific. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this template should be deprecated with a note to be more specific - e.g. if it's a copyright violation use G12, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll throw out a ping to Amorymeltzer and get their thoughts on how best to remove/modify this template's use in TW. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll throw out a ping to Amorymeltzer is indeed probably the quickest way! An issue can be opened on GitHub, but for "straightforward" a ping'll do (albeit, I was/am away for a bit). This should be fine as long as the template persists under some name. FWIW, it doesn't look like PageTriage uses it (or any G6) for its CSD activities. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't concur with deprecating the template. I think it just needs to be clear that it's use is for cut-and-paste moves, not copyright violations. Would there be any concerns about moving the template to db-cutpastemove (or something of the like) and changing "copy" to "cut" with appropriate links to cut-and-paste move documentation? --Bsherr (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See Template:Db-copypaste/sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll also mention that, when the issue of a cut-and-paste move does occur, this template remains the best way to identify it when an article history merge is not otherwise required. --Bsherr (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the template is currently doing multiple jobs when each job needs its own specific template. Picking just one of the jobs and making this the template for that creates a strong likelihood that regular users will continue to use it for both jobs meaning that either pages will be deleted under the wrong criterion (bad for accountability and editor retention) or pages will be evaluated against the wrong criterion and deleted when they shouldn't be or not deleted when they should be (both bad for obvious reasons).
Deprecation in this case does not mean not having a template for any of the jobs, just deprecating this specific template. There are (at least) two ways to achieve this - (1) moving the template to a new title for one job, replacing the redirect with a deprecation message and creating a new template for the other job; or (2) replacing the current template with a deprecation message and creating two new ones (whether modifying copies of the current one or starting from scratch). I have absolutely no preference which is employed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can understand that. How about moving it without a redirect, then? The existing links are rather limited. TfD generally frowns on deprecation. --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't understand the frowning upon deprecation, at least in this instance, as that would be significantly more helpful to the people who use it than straight deletion or moving without a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not much experience with templates, but if memory serves "deprecating" a template generally means that people keep using it anyway, causing problems. Thus they tend to be deleted instead. Although disambiguating it might work, are template disambigs a thing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well disambiguating would be essentially the same thing as deprecating here - the template would no longer have the original functionality but would present the user with a message explaining why and what they need to use instead (which is one of two things, depending on their intention) rather than an unhelpful redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks are often sufficiently helpful. A user encountering a redlink with this template (which, assuming we change all of the documentation, means that rare someone who has memorized the name of this template) will, I think, quite naturally venture to WP:CFD to see what's wrong, no? --Bsherr (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Even assuming you mean TfD rather than CfD, then why should they have to figure out (a) what went wrong, (b) why, and (c) what they have to do to fix it, when instead we can just tell them what they need to know in the very place they are looking right now? In my experience many people remember the names and syntax of templates they use frequently and do not normally refer to the documentation at all - see for example the recent example of one of the welcome templates. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:CSD. Just a typo. --Bsherr (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Or one of the many places the template was undoubtedly used in the past, such as linked in discussions like this. Old page histories might even be confusing to sysops, new and old alike! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the text, as mentioned above. I think there is consensus to move the template to a more appropriate name, even with the open question about what to do with the origin page (even if the origin page is marked deprecated or made a disambiguation page, etc., the template would be moved, rather than recreated, to preserve attribution). Can we agree on a name? --Bsherr (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Great Mesmo

I want to delete my user account, because I do not know almost English, I wanted to edit with Google translator, but some words always translate poorly for me, please delete neither account The Great Mesmo (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted; you may just abandon your account. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You are apparently better at Spanish, so I recommend just contributing to the Spanish Wikipedia instead. Glades12 (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Web applications and A7

I just had a discussion with Naypta about the A7 tagging of Symbiose (web desktop) and they pointed out that strictly speaking, web applications (such as Google Docs) could be considered "web content" and thus fall under A7. Personally, I don't think we should differentiate between desktop applications and web applications in 2020, since more and more apps are now created using web technology but are still basically software (cf. Chrome OS).

As such, I would like to propose a minor change to A7:

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[10] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does not apply to articles about products, books, films, TV programmes, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software (including web applications), or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Thoughts? Regards So Why 10:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. When we consider the reasons why web content is included but software excluded from the criterion (the amount of work required to determine what counts as a credible claim of signficiance being suitable or unsuitable for a single non-specialist admin to reliably determine, frequency of occurrence, etc) then it seems clear to me that web applications are fundamentally software that happen to be on the web than they are web content that happens to be software. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This would make A7 far too lax to the detriment of trying to keep garbage out of the encyclopedia. A web application is software, but so is any web content, or anything really in digital form that is processed by a computer. I understand the meaning of software in the context of A7 to be packaged software that is ran on a client device. A web application is more appropriately considered web content (i.e. something contained on a website). Given the relative ease of creating a web application it is closer to the latter that the former. I don't see any benefit from specifically distinguishing web applications and web content in the policy, but I do see it creating a loophole where bad articles slip through the cracks and it making it easier for people to use Wikipedia for promotion. - MrX 🖋 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the distinction between web applications and websites is not very clear, by contrast whether you use a piece of software through the internet versus downloading and installing it is very clear. Furthermore WP:WEB defines web content in a way which includes web applications (Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content). Hut 8.5 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I've been thinking about this some more since the earlier discussion on my talk page, and I can genuinely see both sides of the argument here. It may be difficult for a non-specialist administrator to determine clearly whether there is any significant claim for notability of a web application, but on the other hand, I can see plenty of instances where that might be difficult for any website, not just a web app. I think there is a real danger here that we get into the weeds of what is and isn't a web application, and to be honest, even as someone who actually writes the things for a job, I'd find it difficult to come up with a hard and fast determiner of what forms one, as Hut 8.5 rightly points out. At the point at which you're looking for a determiner between a webapp and a website, you're kind of playing the game of "how much JavaScript can I shove into this site to turn it into a webapp", which I don't think is a great one.
SoWhy used the example earlier of Google Docs, and I thought some more about that as well. I think actually, on reflection, Docs should be A7able were it that it had no clear claim of notability whatsoever, for the same reasoning we use for other web content. I could easily this afternoon go and throw some JavaScript together and produce some god-awful word processor on the web, then create a WP article on it. It clearly wouldn't meet WP:NWEB, I don't think that's in dispute - and it could be dealt with through XFD or PRODing - but with this modification to the A7 criteria, it would be able to remain on-wiki for some time until those processes were resolved. In clear-cut cases, I think we ought to be removing these in the same way as any other web content, for the same reasons. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support (but perhaps we should expand A7 to include all software instead) This would make A7 simpler, especially for non-computer-savvy users who may not see web-based content (e.g. a website) and web-delivered content (e.g. software only or primarily available via download) as separate things. I've already seen many articles on the latter deleted under A7 as web content. A computer-savvy user like myself would be able to tell the difference between a web application (e.g. a browser game) and a desktop application that happens to use the web or the internet (e.g. a web browser or email client), but in my experience it's hard work getting non-computer-savvy users to see the difference. This issue was why the RfC a few years ago led to the redefinition of web content as currently described by the web content notability guideline. Under the old definition of web content, software was only a product if it's widely available in a brick-and-mortar store, which is preposterous. Adam9007 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment; I went digging around the dusty history of CSD for exactly when and why "web content" was added to the first place, and it goes all the way back to mid-2006, with some very 2006-style concerns. "Websites" added per this discussion and later clarified to "web content". The primary concerns at the time were a flood of non-notable web forums and similar, and the discussions originally grew out of an expansion of "unremarkable group". An attempt to [7] to explicitly include browser games had a mixed reception a year or two later but ultimately seems to have stuck. The current criterion is indeed making a weird distinction as far as the 2020 internet goes - if anything, insignificant mobile apps are at least as much of a problem as browser apps, these days. I'm fairly torn on what the solution is here: I think there's a place in A7 for removing this kind of content, but it may be time to reconsider how we phrase it to avoid drawing 2006-era lines around 2020 content. ~ mazca ^talk 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. Content is "the information made available by a website or other electronic medium" (according to Oxford), and I think that is closer to the definition that was intended here. The purpose of A7 is to deal with subjects for which the "barrier to entry" is so low that we deal with an overwhelming amount of non-notable articles. Certainly, because of technology, barriers to entry for many things are getting lower, but I don't think we ever had a proper discussion about whether web applications meet the frequency requirement for CSD (and I'd be surprised if they do), and then whether there is a reason to distinguish them from applications delivered other ways. Regardless of the outcome, we ought to be clear in defining the meaning of this. This can't be too hard, can it? Maybe the narrower definition would be "(1) any information or media only practically available on a website, and (2) websites themselves." The broader definition might be "anything on the Internet". -Bsherr (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Support I have never regarded article about web applications to be "web content" subject to A7, and I have declined several speedy deletions on that ground in the past. I think that most admins who patrol speedy deletion tags have taken the same view, but I haven't done any surveys, so I could be mistaken about that. If I am correct, this proposal would not change behavior, merely codify current practice. In any case, the same reasons for excluding a software in general from A7 apply. The likelihood of a new article about a software product that is actually notable failing to clearly explain its significance is higher, and the ability for a single editor to to correctly decide whether a topic should be deleted is less reliable in general, just as ism the case for, say, books. If other admins hav been deletiong articles about web applicatiosn under A7, they should stop doing so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Support, User:SoWhy's suggestion (as web-delivered applications are not a website), however I think that A7 should cover patently unnotable applications. Phone apps are a dime a dozen now. --Eostrix (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

G5 and WP:PROXYING

WP:PROXYING states that "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.", and in the past i have interpreted this to mean that users are allowed to reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor, so long as they take complete responsibility for the content. In that case, does this provision allow any editor to override G5 speedy deletes by taking responsibility for the article? An article creation is a large edit, after all. If so, maybe we should say this in the main CSD page, since that could help editors salvage articles. Koopinator (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Any speedy criterion is a "may", not a "must" and any editor can contest a speedy nomination in good faith, making it then ineligible for speedy deletion in most cases. So generally, that should be possible. However, editors should remember the "they have independent reasons for making such edits" requirement of PROXYING as well. The whole point of G5 (and WP:BMB, see above), is to deter such banned users from circumventing their bans. If an editor is contesting every G5 based on the fact that the article is salvageable, they are essentially continuing the disruption caused by the banned user. Saving a select article here or there is entirely compatible with G5 and BMB imho but large-scale rescue missions are not. Regards So Why 12:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog of local copies tagged for deletion per F8

If WP:F8 is supposed to be straightforward and clear, why do we still have a huge backlog of local copies that were tagged under criterion F8? Is there an explanation for this if the relations between Wikipedia and Commons would not suffice? --George Ho (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@George Ho: Presumably because it isn't a quick process - the patrolling admin has to verify about 11 different things about each file. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Then what are other alternatives besides PRODding, FFD, and proposing another file criterion (probably to surpass F8's abilities)? What else can be done about F8? --George Ho (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
There aren't any - prod, FFD or F8 are the only options. As far as I can see, all the checks are actually needed so that we don't delete a file here only for the Commons file to be deleted as well. No new speedy deletion criterion will be approved as it would be either redundant to F8 or not uncontestable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It's because User:Magog the Ogre handled the overwhelming majority of these for a very long time; he hasn't edited since mid-March, nor performed any admin actions since the end of March; and nobody's stepped forward to take over. —Cryptic 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Are the instructions (Thryduulf) on the category page sufficient to work this backlog or are there any gotcha's? --Izno (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Whats the point of G5?

Hello, I often see pages that are marked with G5 and then get deleted. But the pages themselves are normal, good articles or stubs, which you can't criticize much. Just now 60 fairly good-looking pages were tagged, here one of them. So I don't see it as a reason to delete a good page just because it was created by a sock puppet. Can someone explain this to me in more detail? --TheImaCow (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: WP:BMB essentially: If you are banned, you are not allowed to edit. If we keep "good" articles, it encourages those banned editors to circumvent their bans instead of abiding by them and appealing them at one point, thus increasing the general workload (by having to keep hunting their socks) and creating a system that essentially punishes those who abide by their bans more than those who seek to circumvent them. Regards So Why 10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy, Thanks for the explantation! TheImaCow (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

TheImaCow, Just to expand a bit on that, there is a large industry of paid editing on wikipedia, where companies or people pay to get articles about themselves into the encyclopedia. They don't pay us, they pay private contractors (see WP:UPE) to write these articles for them. A good chunk of our socks are UPE. UPEs don't actually care if they get blocked, because accounts are free and they're treated as throw-away resources. All that matters is that the article stays, because that's what they get paid for. G5 is one of our tools to fight that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Roy, isn't all that next to useless, because for every new job they use a new throwaway account, on a public access computer, so a discovered connection is plausibly deniable, and the jobs while thematic are unrelated to each other? We should make new page creation require an account validated by a telephone, and let checkusers cross-reference page-creating accounts by validating telephone number. (any IP can edit, but making new pages is special). I believe the most reliable tell of a UPE is their failure to return personable (non-robotic) conversation when engaged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I don't know that it's "next to useless", but it certainly is a battle that shows no sign of abating. We catch a lot of socks. It would be naive to believe that we catch anywhere near all of them, or even most of them. It's like fighting a pandemic. You have a lot of tools as your disposal. Most of the tools are not very good, but hopefully in combination, they're enough to let us survive. G5 is one of those tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Extend A11 and U5 to drafts and AfC

I've looked over past discussions on extending non-general criteria to drafts; while most of them would be overly complicated to incorporate, A11 and U5 seem like a perfect fit. Unlike A7, where there's at least sometimes a chance there's a draft on a notable subject that just needs more work, there is no mistaking what would be A11 or U5 candidates and zero chance they'll ever become valid articles. For recent examples of both, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Polvina and the Errors, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bush League Fantasy Football, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alannah Yip. These would be deleted without question in other namespaces, they result in straightforward MfDs that suck up time, and the purpose of drafts is not to have content that unquestionably won't fit in articles.

The problem with just letting these sit is that 1. even if they'd be deleted after 6 months they're still languishing for at least that long, thereby giving these things attention they shouldn't be getting, and 2. they can be indefinitely resubmitted to prolong their existence. Right now what I see is people trying to shoehorn these into G3 or G11 deletions, with an occasional straightforward deletion summary citing WP:NFT or WP:NOTWEBHOST (some time ago I did the former at Draft:Toastaricious), so this would be in line with what people seem to want to do. I don't think there would need to be any significant rephrasing to make it work in drafts, just applying it the same way as in articles or userpages should work fine. Any thoughts? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Extending A11 to draftspace has been proposed before with no consensus to change anything. Iffy★Chat -- 08:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

First off all, I'll say plainly that i'm not necessarily against these proposals at all. (Has anything plain ever been said less plainly!) Although I'm pretty adamantly against widening CSD criteria any further into articlespace, applying WP:NOT a little more firmly in user and project pages will cost us little and gain us much (okay, we don't get the server space back, but we do set out our stall a more clearly: what we are not should be a clear as what we are, in principle). SERIAL ^# 08:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous discussion was mainly against expanding A11 because the proposers failed to show any actual need to do so (per #3: Frequent). Not sure the two examples above from August 2019 and April 2020 really qualify as "frequent", especially considering the risk of misuse. As for U5, I am generally in favor of preventing people from using Wikipedia as a webhost but the potential for abuse seems high: Draft:Alannah Yip does not strike me as a good example to argue the case. In fact, the MFD was not centered around people believing this was a misuse as a webhost but instead potentially spamming and the username of its creator does not indicate that they are the subject of the draft. Moreover, if this had been an article, it would have been a potential A7 (and not even a clear one at that, considering the sourcing one can find on GNews, like [8] [9] [10] about her qualifying for the Olympics). This does lead me to believe that any expansion of U5 into draft space might well be misused to circumvent the non-applicability of A7. Regards So Why 08:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I know there's been no consensus in the past; that's why I'm making a proposal now, since I think it's worth revisiting. And as to frequency, we have criteria like A5 even though such deletions are rare; streamlining obvious calls is a good thing, even if they're relatively infrequent. Also, as I said, I think a search through MfD is a dramatic undercount. People are already deleting these things, just using other criteria. Would be interested in the perspective of MfD regulars. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 09:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Arguing that other underused criteria exist seems more like a reason to retire those criteria instead of adding new ones. But if they are already deleted incorrectly, surely some examples could be named? As I noted, I'm not against it on principle but rather because I think the potential harm will outweigh the potential good. Regards So Why 15:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As SoWhy says, you first need to demonstrate that there is a problem that needs fixing, and that your proposal would fix that problem without causing other problems. Nothing in this proposal appears to attempt to do any of that. I'm also more philosophically opposed to expanding CSD into draftspace for problems that are potentially fixable as the entire point of draftspace is that it is a place where content can be worked on and improved without having to be ready for mainspace immediately. An advertorial about a notable topic can be rewritten, etc. Before I could support this proposal you need to explain why having some poor content in an unindexed space for a limited time is so significantly bad that we need to make it harder for people to write new content without having to immediately jump through hoops. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

These are not pages that are going to be articles, they're people abusing the servers. The point of draftspace is indeed to work on potential pages, and the game some drunks made up in a bar last night or random people contemplating life's vicissitudes on Wikipedia clearly aren't going to be pages. Making people jump through hoops to get rid of those things seems like the bigger problem. On a quick search through declined AFC submissions, for instance, I found User:Jagannatharao Jonnalagadda/sandbox/My Name of God and Draft:You Know?: Decoding 'Knowing' in The English Professor/Student Relationship. No amount of editing can fix these, and it's a waste of everyone's time to go through the motions of declining, letting them sit 6 months, then doing the inevitable deletion, and for absolutely no gain. In addition to being terrible by themselves, they actively hinder searches for salvageable content by adding unnecessary noise to sift through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 09:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

OK you have explained there is a problem. You have not demonstrated that this is a problem that occurs frequently enough for a CSD criterion - there is no immediately obvious evidence these are overloading MFD for example and there is nothing in your comment that indicates why they need to be deleted speedily rather than with consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

They're considered suitable for speedy deletion without consensus in article space and in userspace, just being in a different namespace doesn't make their content at all suitable for Wikipedia. If we can trust the judgment of editors and admins to appropriately delete such pages in mainspace or userspace, there should be no reason to expect they'd do otherwise in draft/AFC space. And while I can give more examples (in 2 minutes I found Draft:CL DoCuMeNtArY and Draft:Theory of maintenance break), that it's not currently overwhelming MfD isn't (in my view) a good reason to send no-brainer pages through it for the sake of process. Even taking a few pages a week out of MfD is that much less for people to have to sift through, so it lets people focus that much more time and effort on those pages that might actually be salvageable at MfD and might actually be salvageable in draftspace. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I think it's a fair point: if something would be speedily nuked in eiother user space or article space, it's unclear why we wouild want to keep it in draft space either. On the other hand, I'd like to see some numbers. One MfD a day? Five? One a month? Guy (help!) 08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Speedy deletion is very much only for things that need to be done frequently and will always be deleted. A couple of times a week is nowhere near the required level, especially as of the two examples you give only the first would be speedily deleteable in mainspace (A11 obviously invented, and borderline G1 patent nonsense), the second (Draft:Theory of maintenance break) is clearly an attempt at an encyclopaedia article, and while the subject is almost certainly not notable that is not something that is for speedy deletion to judge (other than the narrow exceptions in A7/A9), and I've seen drafts of a very similar quality about things that turned out to be notable. One of the purposes of draftspace is to be a holding space for poorly written content about notable subjects, so they can be worked on and cleaned up without biting anybody. This means we absolutely need to be much more lenient than in the article namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to overwhelm this discussion, but to use another better example of what I'm getting at here's User:Jay neir/sandbox/What is K to 12’s Technical-Vocational-Livelihood Track?, which I might delete U5 if it wasn't already submitted to AfC. I'll let other people weigh in from here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And I would decline a U5 nomination for that if it was in userspace. It's not blatantly misusing Wikipedia as a webhost, it is either misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia or misunderstanding the nature of a Wikipedia article, but the intention seems to be a good faith attempt at writing content for Wikipedia. It's not impossible (although unlikely) that, if the subject is notable (I haven't investigated) that it could be rewritten to be an encyclopaedia overview of it. It needs an MfD discussion before deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we have different interpretations of that user's intentions, I just don't see it. Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason not to assume good faith regarding their intentions. If you have to assume bad faith in order to speedy delete something, then there is a good chance that it should not be speedily deleted - take a step back and check you really do have a reason to assume bad faith before proceeding. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: See also my reply immediately above, but draftspace and mainspace serve different purposes and one of the explicit purposes of draftspace is that it is somewhere that articles can be developed and improved over time without needing to meet all the standards, policies, guidelines, etc immediately. Additionally, unless there are problems like copyright violations there really isn't a strong need or benefit to deleting crud in draftspace - leaving it for six months when it will be cleaned up anyway is a much better use of everybody's time. MfD exists for the few exceptions that genuinely do cause problems. It's also worth stressing again that speedy deletion is only for things that will always be deleted - unless there are a large number of examples presented at the relevant XfD that are all always unanimously deleted then we cannot be sure of that. Namespace matters in many contexts, so you cannot just say that because it would be speedily deleted in the main namespace that it would always be deleted in draftspace. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, yes, I agree - but it still shouldn't be a policy-free zone. Guy (help!) 10:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between "policy free zone" and "be more lax with the requirements for speedy deletions". Nobody has shown any evidence that there are so many policy-violating drafts that cannot wait six months for deletion that MfD is overloaded, and there have been multiple discussions on this exact topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea of expanding U5 to draftspace has also been suggested and rejected before, e.g. here. I don't think it's a good idea because it is very likely to be interpreted as just "bad draft", or "irredemable draft". There is a fundamental difference between draft space and userspace here, because anybody who attempts to write a draft is saying that they are trying to write an encyclopedia article. Somebody who tries to write an encyclopedia article and does a very bad job is still trying to write an encyclopedia article. WP:NOT#WEBHOST forbids content which isn't related to Wikipedia or its goals, and writing and developing encyclopedia articles is absolutely related to Wikipedia's goals. Hut 8.5 12:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Support in principle, with precise wording to be proposed and agreed first. Extending A11 to draftspace is pretty easy. The existing wording at WP:CSD#A11 is pretty strong, and it is a different issue, albeit a valid issue, in getting taggers and deleting admins to stick to the policy. I suggest consideration of addition words: "The criterion does not apply to any article that has even one independent reliable source". Logically, on analysis, this sentence is redundant to the existing words, but I have seen this particular catch as one that would have stopped many bad speedy deletion nominations.

Extending U5 to draftspace I think requires more attention to the precise wording. My concern comes from seeing some people at MfD reference U5 for a draft where U5 would not apply even if the page were in userspace. This may be an issue of the editor not reading WP:CSD. However, the principle, that if the draft would be speedy deleted if a usersubpage, then it should be similarly speediable as a draft page, is sound.

For both, I think there needs to be a strong statement that the draft being brief, short, or terse, is not a factor (unlike A11 in mainspace). I don't think draft submission should be a factor. In practice, drafts will be speedied post submission simply because submission draws attention.

It may be best to create a freshly worded criterion D1 that merges the common ground between A11 and U5. I think the non-contributor aspect of U5 should be retained. I think the " plainly indicates that the subject was invented(etc)" should be retained, with the A11 caveats, without requiring the "abuse of Wikipedia" aspect of U5.

I try to closely follow both MfD and AfC. This new draftspace criterion, basically A11/U5 extended to draftspace is needed. While draftspace being a hidden space that does not damage the look of Wikipedia means that there is no reader-based harm aspect, having to pass these pages is damaging to the reviewers. To ignore such a page is to sort of assent to its continued existence. To REJECT such a page means work that is plainly wasted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

oppose as not a common problem, and even some examples given are not clear cut. Though I think that U5 should still apply to userspace material with an AFC tag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as A11 is a bit hard to define, its not used all that much in mainspace imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose in spirit. I agree we need a less restrictive hoop to jump through with respect to disposing of content that is never going to improve enough to move to mainspace ("I know it when I see it"). Right now the best way to demonstrate a good cause would be to sort through all the backwater Userspace/Draftspace pages that have <0% chance of being accepted to mainspace and put them up for MFD to build the Frequent case. I salute you @The Blade of the Northern Lights: for thinking the very large/long game. Hasteur (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment @SmokeyJoe: @The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm not sure whether this is better placed here than in its own proposal, but I was thinking that a new criterion would be useful, criterion D1, which is for pages in draft space that are A) clearly autobiographical, as evidenced by first-person writing or a page title similar to the creator's username, and B) about a person that is clearly non-notable. I see PLENTY of these pages every day that aren't spammy enough to warrant G11 but have no chance in hell of becoming articles, and I think that a criterion for these autobiographies would be able to rake out a lot of this junk (stopping the page creators from getting six months of free social media exposure) whilst not affecting any work-in-progress pages on topics that may possibly be notable enough for an article, as hypothetical expansions of A7 and arguably A11 to draft-space would. Passenger pigeon (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Passengerpigeon: your first step should be to nominate these at MfD. If there is a large number of them that are consistently getting deleted then we can consider whether a speedy deletion criteria is needed. Without any evidence of frequency or uncontestability there will never be a consensus for it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  - Also, another point I forgot to add was that I don't think expanding U5 into draft-space would be effective enough. Autobiographical profiles that are relatively short and not spammy are perfectly acceptable userpages, so wouldn't be eligible for U5, but in draft-space, they are hopeless articles that will never be submitted and if they are, never pass our notability criteria. Passenger pigeon (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    - That doesn't change anything at all - if you want to expand CSD you need evidence that the things you want to delete are always deleted at the relevant XfD and that they occur frequently enough that they cause a significant issue at that XfD. Unless and until you actually nominate them that evidence cannot exist. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
And then there's the situation I came here about today, which is one user who has created 11 drafts that are their original story ideas for existing television shows. They don't quite rise to the level of a blatant hoax (although the user does assert that they're actual shows, and that's how the ANI report about the user was initiated). If they were in user space, they could be deleted U5 without a problem. If they were in article space, they could be deleted A11. As it is, my two options are to do a mass MfD for all 11, or to just speedy delete them all under WP:IAR. The latter is a nuclear option I'd only use if the user got to the point where they were going to be blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. So, I guess, here comes a data point with frequency of MfD nominations. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:IAR should never be used in combination with speedy deletion, and there is no apparent reason why they can't be bundled into a single MfD if they can't wait for G13. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  - The drafts in question are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House)—a total of 7 drafts are nominated. The things I did speedy today were in the realm of copyright infringement. And I guess if a user has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE, it's a G3 deletion rather than IAR. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the proposal. Franky U5 is being overused in userspace for things which re at elast arguably plsusdible drafts that would be declined, but not rejected, if submitted to AfC. The point of draft space is, as Thryduulf points out, to allow a degree (not total) of flexibility while a draft is developed. I think that if this were implemented it would be used for things a single editor thought were essentially non-notable, or were just BAD DRAFTs. But a single editor can be wrong even an experienced one or an admin. Thyat is why notability decisions proceed by a consensus discussion. Besides, drqafts are NOINDEXed, and no ree social media exposure occurs there.Very much a solution in search of a problem, and one that wouold do mo9re harm than good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)