Misplaced Pages

talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:58, 15 May 2020 editBarkeep49 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators40,825 edits →G13 and articles moved to draftspace: Replying to Hasteur (using reply-link)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:03, 19 December 2024 edit undoAnnh07 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,718 editsm Reverted edit by 2605:B100:D0A:CC0C:68CB:AB0B:C9A1:9027 (talk) to last version by PpperyTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} {{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}__NOINDEX__
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 77 |counter = 89
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#> |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#>
Line 14: Line 16:
}} }}
{{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes}} {{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes}}
{{/Header}}
{{Copied {{Copied
|from = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria |from = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
|from_oldid = 584487717 |from_oldid = 584487717
|to = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion |to = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
|to_diff = 584576665it |to_diff = 584576665
|to_oldid = 584575352 |to_oldid = 584575352
|date = 20:38, 4 December 2013 |date = 20:38, 4 December 2013
|small = |small =
}}{{Copied
| from = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
| from_oldid = 749905429
| to = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy
| to_diff = 749906249
| date = 16 November 2016
}} }}
{{hatnote|See also ] for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|units=days|small=yes}}
{{Cent}}
__NOINDEX__


== Template doc pages that have been converted ==
== Contesting deletion: proposed changes to the text ==


There are two types of template /doc pages that have been sent to TfD and always deleted. Navigation templates that had their doc converted to {{tl|Navbox documentation}} and WikiProject banners that had their doc converted to the automatic one with {{para|DOC|auto}}. Can these be tagged with G6? Sending them to TfD really adds nothing to the process. ] (]) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph of the introduction to CSD currently reads:
{{talk quote|1=
{{strong|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 {{Button|Contest this speedy deletion}} button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the ] 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 {{Tl|Db-blanked}} (see ]). If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in ], it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used.}}


:I've tagged such pages with ] before, giving a justification like "template uses {{tl|navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. ] (]) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I see two issues with the current wording:
:: Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. ] ] 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
#The following sentence: {{tq|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 {{Tl|Db-blanked}} (see ]).}} 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 (]), 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 ].
:::I am also such an admin. ] (]) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
#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: ], ], ], and ] also ] and ] (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 ] 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. – ] 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. ] (]) 12:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::Something like that was proposed for G6, but as {{u|Bsherr}} pointed out in ], 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. – ] 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. ] (]) 19:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
*I think the exceptions can be accommodated without that much extra instructions, something like the following could do:
:{{talk quote|1=
For most speedy deletion criteria, {{strong|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 {{Button|Contest this speedy deletion}} button that appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the ] 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 ], 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 ], ], ], ] or ].}}
: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. – ] 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. ] (]) 19:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


===New T-criteria proposal===
==Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers==
Based on the above, and the fact that despite multiple admins indicating that G6 shouldn't be used for /doc deletion in the Template space, I would like to propose that we add a new T-criteria specifically to fix this issue. It would be something along the lines of {{tq|T'''X''': documentation subpages that are no longer transcluded by the parent template}}. I'm happy to discuss wording and scope (or clarifications as to what constitutes "no longer used"), but from a point of initial consideration:
{{Closed rfc top|result=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''. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#fac">愛</span> ])</span> 08:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)}}
#Objective: yes, as a /doc is either transcluded by its parent template (or for whatever reason, ''any'' template) or it is not
Note that there is a different live proposal to this one at ].
#Uncontestable: the only situation where I could see an unused /doc needing to be kept is for cases of attribution (if it were copied to another /doc for example) but in those cases it should just be redirected anyway. At TFD they are 100% deleted.
#Frequent: I decline at least one per week, and TFD is rife with them.
#Nonredundant: As indicated in the discussion in the main section, we are misusing G6 to allow for deletion, which seems to be the only other criteria that people seem to want to chuck these under.
Thanks for the consideration. ] (]) 21:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)


*'''Support'''. ] (]) 23:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
] 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 ] logs all links to DAB pages except ones precisely through a correctly-formed (disambiguation) qualifier as ] 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 ]. Such redirects should never be linked, and they clutter the searchbox.
*Can this be made more general? Maybe "a template subpage not used by its parent, or another template"? With the understanding that Template:*/sandbox and Template:*/testcases are "used" despite not being transcluded. —] 23:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Are there any other template subpages that are as frequently obsoleted, to the point of being objectively and uncontestably delete-worthy? ] (]) 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
*::They seem to mostly be deleted with G6. ]. —] 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*::: What I see in that list is almost exclusively ] (which some other admins did too apparently), to which this speedy deletion criterion as currently worded wouldn't apply because they were redirects not templates. Then there's ], ], expired editnotices, some stuff like ], and run-of-the-mill speedies under other criteria or other parts of G6. {{pb}} The POTD example brings up an interesting point - this concept of delegation of deletion authority isn't specific to template namespace, it can be seen at ], ], ] etc. {{pb}} '''Support''' as proposed anyway, though, I'm just bouncing some ideas off the wall. ] ] 00:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (edited 03:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC))
*:Making a new objective criterion, dealing with the misuse of the catchall G6, more “general” seems to miss the point.
*:You want to make unused template subpages speediable? Does “unused” mean “never used”? How frequently is “unused template subpage” the driving reason for deletion at <u>xfd</u>? ] (]) 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Wouldn't it be TfD, not MfD? ] (]) 01:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*::: Yes. Changed to xfd. —-] (]) 07:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for /doc pages as proposed. '''Oppose''' anything else without a much more objective proposal than that suggest in the conversation above. ] (]) 00:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. As one of the editors that tend to send them to TfD, I sometimes skip them just because of the extra hassle of combining multiple templates into one nomination to make life easier for everyone. These templates {{em|always}} get deleted and usually only one editor even cares to comment, which is expected, since no one cares and the newer doc is {{em|always}} better. ] (]) 07:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*I '''support''' the general concept (ideally as a more general thing, because it is a frequent-ish occurrence), and I want to propose some draft language. {{tqb|1='''T5. Unused template subpages'''{{pb}}This applies to unused ] of templates, such as ] subpages which are no longer used in favor of centralized documentation, /core subpages which are not called by the template itself, and old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}. It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}} . Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ]. }} Wordsmithing welcome. <small>(Being <em>very</em> pedantic, what ENGVAR does WP:CSD use? Favor or favour? Centralized or centralised?)</small> <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
*:<small>it seems to use -or and -ize spellings. ] (]) 19:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
*:Wording looks good, and I don't think a T5-exemption template overcomplicates things any more than the G8-exemption template does. Worth checking back after a year or so and potentially trimming if it never ends up employed in practice.
*:<small>On the pedantry side of things, excepting the accessibility provisions the ] only applies to articles so there is no requirement or need for CSD to be internally consistent in its ENGVAR.</small> ] (]) 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the general concept, with the wording used by HouseBlaster. As a second choice, the original /doc-only proposal could work. Anything that moves well-defined routine operations outside of G6 is a positive. ] (] · ]) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)


===Pre-RFC finalisation===
As matters stand, such redirects tend to get listed at ] because there is no ] criterion which clearly covers them. ], 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. ] item 3, another possibility, contains an element of discretion: "unambiguously created in error".
Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above? ] (]) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


:Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to {{tpq|...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation)}} would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it.
RFD has recently been flooded with misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers. They invariably get deleted, sometimes ]ily; but it's ] to waste multiple editors' time on them. Examples include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].
:As for {{temp|T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose. ] (]) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing {{t|collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc. ] (]) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simply {{tq|This applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages...}} (i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of it ''only'' being centralised /docs. ] (]) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That works. ] (]) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::What about using a bulleted list, like ]? {{tqb|'''T5. Unused template subpages'''{{pb}}This applies to unused ] of templates, such as:<ul><!-- {{tqb}} does not play nice with bullet point markup --><li>] subpages unused by the template itself</li><li>/core subpages which are not called by the template itself</li><li>Old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}</li></ul>It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ].}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::A+ ] (]) 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes. ] (]) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: We should also probably include the current de-facto process of ] here as well. ] ] 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Misplaced Pages. Probably not the best from a ] perspective, but I still find it cool. {{tqb|'''T5. Unused template subpages'''{{pb}}This applies to unused ] of templates, such as:<ul><!-- {{tqb}} does not play nice with bullet point markup --><li>] subpages unused by the template itself</li><li>/core subpages which are not called by the template itself</li><li>Old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}</li><li>Unnecessary subpages of {{t|Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used</li></ul>It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ].}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8? ] (]) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. ] (]) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not seeing much benefit in moving something which is a core part of G8 out of that criterion. ] (]) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. See ]. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. – ] (]) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)


:I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is? ] (]) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I propose a new CSD item to get such redirects deleted more efficiently than now. R5 and higher are available; see ]. A CSD rule would need to be carefully worded to exclude valid redirects such as {{-r|O (Disambiguation)}} to '']''; an album title which could have been designed on purpose by a malicious Misplaced Pages editor to puzzle and annoy DABfixing and redirection specialists. I propose, as initial attempt:
::I mean, edit notices are all subpages of ], so it is not <em>that</em> much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.{{pb}}I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to ]. Best, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. – ] (]) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine. ], while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 should <em>not</em> apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think adding {{tqq|subpages of ]}} to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts? <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree. ] (]) 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Makes sense to me too as a module namespace regular. ] ] 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::Fine by me. ] (]) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


===RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages)===
:'''R5. Redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers'''
{{archive top|status=enacted|result=
There is strong consensus to enact T5 as a new criterion for speedy deletion. Participants argued that this criterion would reduce the load on G6, and highlighted that deleted pages would be eligible for ]. Some editors noted that deleting administrators should take special care in identifying templates and modules orphaned in error, as well as when dealing with taxonomy-related pages.


] (]) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
: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 ].
{{nac}}
}}
Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


'''Proposed text'''
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 ] 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.
{{ivmbox|1=
'''T5. Unused template subpages'''


This applies to unused ] of templates, such as:
I am notifying the existence of this discussion to ], ], ] and ]. ] (]) 19:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
*] subpages unused by the template itself
=== Support/Oppose (new R5) ===
*/core subpages which are not called by the template itself

*Old subpages of {{t|POTD protected}}
*'''Support''' but I would remove {{tq|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. ] (]) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
*Unnecessary subpages of {{t|Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used
*:I would agree with that to, it doesn't matter of there's a primary topic or not, the same principals apply. ''']''' (]) 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, subpages of ], as well as anything tagged with {{t|T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to ].
*'''Support''' creating a new criterion or expanding either R3 or G6. ]] 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. <s>I'm still thinking about the main thrust of the proposal.</s> ] (]) 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 ], especially as RfD is not overloaded and these are almost never actually harmful. ] (]) 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 (my first run through took 8 months), and all such links turn up there. They ''are'' harmful: any such link is a ] error. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 {{tq|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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the author of ]. 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 ] 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 ] criterion arguably already covers new ones, while old ones may have hidden nuances worthy of examination at RFD.<small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. These discussions always end up with "close as delete", which is the point of speedying them. -- ] (]) 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. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 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. -- ] (]) 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. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 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. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages has arbitrarily chosen is extremely hostile to new editors, etc. ]] 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 ] going to ] and ] going to ] (] 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. ] 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 ] without the "(Redirected from Skye (Disambiguation))" anyway. ''']''' (]) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' in favour of making {{u|DPL bot}} more permissive with misspellings of the disambiguating qualifier. These sort of redirects {{em|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 ] errors. It's worth to note that ] 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. —&thinsp;''']''' <sup>(] &#124; ] &#124; ])</sup>, at 20:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Because ] 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 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 Misplaced Pages. If this means a redirect remaining for a time no harm is done to the project. -- ] (]) 10:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|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. ] (]) 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Sadly, {{-r|Tsar Alexander (disambaguation)}} lives on. R5 would kill it off. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ''''']''''' 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. ] (]) 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: ], ], ] and ] (all reasonable IMO). ''''']''''' 07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Hog Farm}} Whatever your personal opinion of the frequency requirement, it would need the consensus of a well-attended policy discussion to remove it. ] (]) 11:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''', as I feel that this fits in with other CDS's the ] advice, and ]. <code>'''>>]'''<sup>]</sup></code> 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? ] (]) 10:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
*Not remotely frequent enough. To those saying these waste the time of editors at RFD, ]. A new, barely-used criterion for speedy deletion is not a solution for overeager relisters. —] 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. ] (]) 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." -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 02:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
*:So that would include titles like <del>]</del><ins>{{-r|North by Northwest (moive)}}, which is currently being debated at ]</ins>? That sounds reasonable, though it's a major extension of the original proposal. ] (]) 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. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 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. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 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. – ] 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. -- ] (]) 10:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
*::True. Although ], it's difficult to devise a rigorous and efficient search for such titles. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' in the extended version ] (]) 20:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''d 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. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 02:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

=== Comments (new R5) ===
:'''Comment''': {{Hidden ping|Narky Blert}}Perhaps R3 or G6 could simply be expanded to cover this? ]] 20:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

::Also, perhaps this should be listed at ]. ]] 20:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
:::{{done}} ] (]) 20:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I meant the template itself. ]] 20:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::I've gone ahead and added it myself. ]] 20:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

*Considering how frequently RFD participants misinterpret ] 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 ] and ] as a couple recent examples.) - ] 20:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
**{{u|EurekaLott}}, what "errors in a disambiguator" are, in your opinion, covered by ] and what errors are the result of misinterpretation? – ] 21:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
*I've gone ahead and split comments from the supports and opposes for readability, feel free to revert. ]] 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 ] is something like the {{code|(disambiguation)}} of ] but also the {{code|(game)}} of ] or the {{code|Hungary}} of ]. 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.</br> 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 ] straight away. – ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
**:I think the ] 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 :) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
{{Closed rfc bottom}}

== Speedy deletion and deproded pages ==

Are articles that survived a ] attempt eligible for speedy deletion? For example, the articles on ] and ] are currently up for speedy deletion, and both were previously proded and deproded. The ] 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? - ] 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") ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ]] 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).{{pb}}As such, {{u|Iridescent}} was right to decline the first one ({{re|Primefac}} ). The second one was, as Primefac correctly points out, not a PROD but as BLPPROD that was removed merely on procedural grounds, not because {{u|Girth Summit}} indicated any disagreement with deletion itself. So it was eligible to be nominated for speedy deletion again.{{pb}}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 '']'', a RS newspaper, which might be sufficient to let the article survive AFD if native speakers can assess those sources. Regards ]] 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. ]] 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 ]] 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. ]] 09:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::At the very least verifiable copyright violations and articles that are eligible for ] shouldn’t be kept simply because someone made a poorly planned out prod.--] (]) 21:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
{{Od}}
* I agree with the comments above by {{U|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. ] ]] 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. ] (]) 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. - ] ] 21:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
:{{re|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 ]] 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 {{t|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. - ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages, which I have been caught by a few times, as have others. ] ]] 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. ] ]] 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

== Reviewing ] as part of ] ==

I have wondered whether ] (dfu), which was first nominated for deletion back in 2009, is misused in some way. Furthermore, I question it being listed under ]. The "{{tq|do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded}}" statement is intimidating enough especially for uploaders, and the "{{tq|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, <u>where the covers were also discussed</u>. The deletion was reviewed ], 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. --] (]) 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. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 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 ] and ]. -] 23:47, 22 April 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 ], ], and ]. 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 ] or ] (some time ago I did the former at ]), 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? ] (]) 08:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:] with no consensus to change anything. ]★] -- 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). ]] 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 Misplaced Pages as a webhost but the potential for abuse seems high: ] 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 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 ]] 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. ] (]) 09:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Arguing that ] 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 ]] 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. ] (]) 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 ] on Misplaced Pages 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 ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ] and ]), 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. ] (]) 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|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? ''']''' <small>(])</small> 08:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} {{replyto|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 (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], which I might delete U5 if it wasn't already submitted to AfC. I'll let other people weigh in from here. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages as a webhost, it is either misunderstanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages or misunderstanding the nature of a Misplaced Pages article, but the intention seems to be a good faith attempt at writing content for Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Then we have different interpretations of that user's intentions, I just don't see it. Fair enough. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|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. ] (]) 08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Thryduulf}}, yes, I agree - but it still shouldn't be a policy-free zone. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 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. ] (]) 10:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

*The idea of expanding U5 to draftspace has also been suggested and rejected before, e.g. ]. 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. ] forbids content which isn't related to Misplaced Pages or its goals, and writing and developing encyclopedia articles is absolutely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. ''''']''''' 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

== Proposal: new criterion for mass-created GNIS permastubs ==

] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ], 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.
{{hat|Original proposal}}
'''A12: articles on ] "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 ] 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
{{hab}}
{{box|'''Updated proposal''' ] (]) 12:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
'''A12/X3: articles on ] "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 ] database.
* <ins>The article either (a) cites no sources, or (b) cites only GNIS.</ins> 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
}} }}
*'''Support''' as proposer. These are frequently and uncontroversially deleted at TFD. Some of them are also currently being shoved into G6, but reducing the load G6 bears is a feature of this proposal, not a bug. It meets all four NEWCSD criteria:
*#{{tick}} Objective: Either a subpage of a template is being used or it is not
*#{{tick}} Uncontestible: Always get deleted at TFD
*#{{tick}} Frequent: {{np|Primefac}} personally ] at least one erroneous G6 nomination per week
*#{{tick}} Nonredundant: They are certainly being tagged as G6 (see above), but G6 is ] and we should be decreasing the load it carries
*<li style="list-style:none;">I also think that using CSD has the benefit of making these deletions easier to overturn via ] if the use for the subpage later arises. Best, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</li><!--{{subst:i*}}-->
*:I have pinged all participants in the above discussion using {{tlx|bcc}} to avoid clogging the discussion.{{bcc|Chaotic Enby|Cryptic|Gonnym|Izno|Jlwoodwa|Jonesey95|Pppery|Primefac|SmokeyJoe|Thryduulf}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I am going to be eating ] tonight. I forgot to include the exemption for subpages of ]; I have silently corrected it. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 01:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*<small>Notified: ], ], ], and ]. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 03:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
*Are the two ''specific'' examples of POTD protected and Taxonomy truly necessary? —] 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I believe so, yes, because they are currently either deleted under G6 or G8 and the intention was to fold them into this as a template-specific reason. ] (]) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with or without the examples, per my comments in the pre-discussion. ] (]) 03:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' ] ] 04:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as long as people are careful. CSD nominators and deleting admins will need to be careful about pages orphaned through edits that should be reverted. In monitoring orphaned /doc subpages, I sometimes find templates where the {{tl|documentation}} portion has been deleted, typically in error. – ] (]) 05:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', anything that reduces the workload on G6 is good to have as a standalone criterion. Although I would be careful with taxonomy templates related to unused taxa, since old taxa can still be documented, or even attempt to make a comeback with varying level of success (like ]). ] (] · ]) 08:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''', seems logical and is being proposed by folks who know what they're doing. I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be ]ed upon request? ] </span>]] 08:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|I assume this'll be one of the criteria that can be WP:REFUNDed upon request?}} Yes, explicitly: {{tpq|editors are free to request undeletion}}. ] (]) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above ] (]) 14:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Makes sense per above. Can’t see any reason why not. Cheers, ] (]) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As Jonesey said, nominators and admins need to take care that unnecessary deletions are not made. However, this is overall a good idea. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#x2693;&nbsp;] 21:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Fine both with or without examples; the NEWCSD analysis is on the nose. ] (]) 02:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --] (]) 04:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
=== Author removal ===
T5 should allow removal by the creator of the page, right? Seems uncontroversial but needs to be added to the list. ] ] 05:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


:I agree on both counts. ] (]) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is pretty narrow and cut-and-dry. ] is an example of an article that would be covered by this criterion. ] 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.
::Agreed; easy enough to tag something with {{t|t5-exempt}} in those cases. ] (]) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts? ] (]) 07:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC) :::Agree as well. ''']''' (]) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:I understand the idea behind that proposal but I don't think this is really something CSD can handle adequately. For example, ] would fall under the proposed criterion despite apparently being a place 103 people lived in 2010. As you yourself proved at ], determining whether a place really fails GEOLAND requires some extensive digging (since the place might have been populated in the past). Regards ]] 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. ] (]) 08:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::For what it's worth I removed the population from ] as it was unsourced and failed verification, but I agree with the CDP exclusion since they're often considered notable. –] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ''''']''''' 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. ] (]) 21:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
**I've edited my proposal to include this limitation. ] (]) 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 reference. –] ] 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{ec}} '''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. ] (]) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


== G6 and G7 when others object ==
*'''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 or . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] and there's a decent external writeup for . –] ] 02:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's not our fault other services copy information from Misplaced Pages 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 ]] 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 ] search and then bulk-nominate all those which fail the criteria, similar to what we've been doing in the past. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 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. ''''']''''' 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 ]] 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. ] (]) 13:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A CSD wouldn't be feasible here, but I think adopting the "]" could work. Has anyone developed a list or count of applicable articles? --] <sup>(])</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ] search has been done, and it's really easy to derail a bulk nomination. Centralising the cleanup will make things a lot easier. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
*I've created a project at ] to start sorting through these stubs. All are welcome. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 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 ] and/or is just a ], 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 ] has a link the the cleanup page that has a section. Perhaps making a pass through each state and marking them as non-notable would be a good first step? ] (]) 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. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 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 could be extended. ] (]) 15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*There's also ] going on for CA articles. While of course most of the 30,000+ articles in ] are legitimate communities, it remains disturbing how the ] has been passed on from the mass-creators to those of us interested in geographic places and care about ] and ]. Despite users raising the issue of GNIS errors in California at ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
**To further demonstrate the scale of this problem, in one county alone I have identified ] 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 ] have far, far more. There are over 3,000 counties in the United States.
**Furthermore, ], 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 ] that this is an unfair shifting of the burden of proof. ] (]) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
***Then speedy deletion is ipso facto the incorrect remedy. New critiera must be (reasonably) uncontroversial. --] (]) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
***] 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 ], we identify as the first of the 5 pillars of Misplaced Pages "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. ] (]) 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 ].'' 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 ] though there are some issues with that as well, such as incorrect placenames. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ]. 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, {{tq|Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research.}} It only refers to '''articles''' here; it goes on to say a few sentences later, {{tq|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 ].
::::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 ]. You scroll to the bottom of the page and open the navbox to take a look at each of them, and you see ]. 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. ] (]) 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
* I think I have an '''oppose''' for this proposal and it comes down to the ] available, such as ''redirect''ing 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 ]s the material where appropriate. Or a redirect/merge to a ] or similar. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


Given all the words on this page about how speedy deletion needs to be uncontroversial, I shouldn't be necessary but given discussions like ] and ] I'm increasingly thinking it would be beneficial to make it explicit that anyone, even creators, requesting or endorsing G6 or G7 speedy deletion do not override good-faith objections to deletion from other editors nor past deletion discussions with a consensus for something other than deletion. ] (]) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (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. ] (]) 23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yes I agree, G5 should also probably be included for similar reasons, although the JDELANOY did anyway result in a consensus to delete. ''']''' (]) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:No, per ]. If there's already consensus for deletion at XfD it's not controversial. --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's not how speedy deletion works. If there are good faith objections it's controversial unless and until someone competent closes a discussion with a consensus for deletion. Speedy deletion needs to be essentially unanimous, that consensus can emerge despite objections is irrelevant. This is also much broader than just one speedy deletion you happen to agree with. ] (]) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It's interesting that you use the phrase {{tq|essentially unanimous}}. A good faith objection can fit under that definition. --] <sup>(])</sup> 18:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It shouldn't though. ''Any'' good faith objection should, by every reasonable interpretation of everything in this policy, overrule an author request or similar. If you have two editors, one saying "delete" the other saying "don't delete" that needs to go to a consensus discussion. ] (]) 18:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I suppose a better way of phrasing it would be that any good faith objection means that a page cannot be speedily deleted under G5, G6 or G7 except where there is an almost unanimous consensus at an XfD, as determined by an uninvolved admin (ideally the XfD should be closed as speedy delete by that admin before or immediately after they delete the page, but this doesn't need to be part of CSD policy). ] (]) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:any more thoughts on this? ] (]) 11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::These three criteria kind of exist on a continuum here. G6 is ''defined'' by a lack of objection - any remotely-interpretable-as-good-faith objection at any point, pre- or post-deletion, should be enough to prevent/reverse it, and if you can talk yourself into refusing such an objection, then it wasn't a G6 to begin with. G7 has a higher bar; in most cases I'd ask the requester to articulate a reason, but probably accept anything coherent. ("Stuff shouldn't be deleted because it shouldn't be deleted" isn't coherent, and I'm afraid that's how I read the objections to WP:JDELANOY.) A G7 in someone else's userspace (so it'd have been a U1 too) has an even higher bar - it'd have to be a pretty good reason.{{pb}}G5, the main issue is sorting out whether the request is in good faith. If we're already at the point where we're deleting someone's pages on sight solely because of who made them, and they're already evading blocks to do it, AGF ] - I'd want to be absolutely convinced that whoever's asking for the page back isn't the same person with yet another account. I'd certainly object to any language being added here that weakens that, because it absolutely ''will'' be weaponized as "It says right in ] that you have to undelet this, no questions asked." —] 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::A brand new account requesting undeletion of something deleted under G5 is definitely a red flag (it might be in good faith, but its probably more likely not; a banned editor's request is not good faith) but an established editor's request should generally be honoured unless it was also deleted for some non-user-related reason (e.g copyvio). ] (]) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== What does "no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" mean? ==
== ]s and A7 ==


G5 says that a page can only be deleted under that criterion if there are "no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions". However, if the sanction being violated is a ] restriction, does this refer to no ''editors'' not subject to the sanction, or no editors ''other than the original author'' not subject to the sanction? For instance, if two non-EC editors collaborate on an ] page, is that G5able? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 00:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I just had a discussion with {{u|Naypta}} about the A7 tagging of ] and they pointed out that strictly speaking, ]s (such as ]) 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. ]).


:Yes, if two non-EC editors collaborate to create a RUSUKR or other EC topic, it is G5able. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
As such, I would like to propose a minor change to A7:
:{{tqb|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. 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 <ins>(including ])</ins>, 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. }}


== Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not? ==
Thoughts? Regards ]] 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. ] (]) 11:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instance ] today (as ] is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD? ] (] · ]) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages for promotion. - ]] 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. ''']''' (]) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. ] (] · ]) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::: ] ] ] 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! ] (] · ]) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:: {{ec}} I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to ], but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. ] ] 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
: I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are ], but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. ] ] 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.{{pb}}In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). ] (] · ]) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. ''']''' (]) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to {{tq|sufficiently identical copies}}, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. ] (] · ]) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{tl|salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. ''']''' (]) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::As far as I can tell, {{tl|salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. ] (]) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? ] (] · ]) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance . Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance ]. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of ] at {{param|1}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under ] or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay ]. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like ] before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. ''']''' (]) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at ] saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption ''there''. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —] 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The issue is that normal ] requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like ] or ], to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: And, of course, ]. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. ] ] 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::To clean up old SALTing, <u>where there’s any doubt</u> you should go to ]. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.
::::::::::Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. ] (]) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. ] (]) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by ]. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with {{-r|Willy on Wheels}}, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). ] and ] might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{]}} based on your wording (and the design of {{tl|Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) ] (] · ]) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Adding the "possible salt evasion" template ===
*'''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 ] 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''). ''''']''''' 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{]}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point to ] mentioning its existence? ] (] · ]) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's redundant to {{tl|salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —] 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not really, {{tl|salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{tl|salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). ] (] · ]) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== A7 and groups of people ==
*'''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 {{u|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.<p>{{u|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 ], 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. ] ☺ &#124; <small>]</small> &#124; 12:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)</p>
*'''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 ]) and a desktop application that happens to use the web or the internet (e.g. a ] or ]), 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. ] (]) 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" per ] and later 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 to explicitly include browser games had a ] 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. ~ ] <sup>]</sup> 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". -] (]) 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. ] ]] 12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


] is applicable to "people". Is there any reason why it has to be a single person, rather than a group of people?--] (]) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
==G14 question==
:Well, no. Changing it from a single person to "persons" was ] (linked discussion ]), about half a year after it was first introduced. The last vestige of "groups" was removed in ], which was labeled a revert and a clarification but was neither. —] 01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
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, ] (]) 05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::You ''do'' have a way with words. So, just to be clear, A7 would therefore apply to clans and tribes, right?--] (]) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (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.<br>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). ] (]) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't see why not. —] 01:37, 8 December 2024 (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. ] (]) 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Thanks.--] (]) 01:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, {{yo|Thryduulf}} I think the bullet would be helpful, given that my attempted G14 of ], which I think pretty clearly falls into the ok cases outlined above, was just declined. ] (]) 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. ''''']''''' 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. ] (]) 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. ~ ] <sup>]</sup> 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


== G13 and articles moved to draftspace == == RFC on interpretation of G11 ==


See ]. ] ] 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
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). <b style="font-family:Papyrus">]</b> <small>(] &#8226; ])</small> 09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think you ought to sign your proposal.--] (]) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (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, ] (]) 11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
::I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and ] says "''Sign the statement with either ] (name, time and date) or ] (just the time and date). ] ] 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ec}}{{rto|Anarchyte}} I don't think this question has been asked directly. A plain text reading of ] 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 ] edge case looking for rules to be codified (see also ]). 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 ]) ] (]) 11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at ]? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--] (]) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Underhanded feels like a mighty strong motive to ascribe to something needing to be considered in the very guidelines surrounding the process. Best, ] (]) 11:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:03, 19 December 2024

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut

Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

  1. Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
  2. Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
  3. Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion and Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
  4. Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

this header: view • edit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
See also Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy deletions for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.

Template doc pages that have been converted

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

I've tagged such pages with WP:G6 before, giving a justification like "template uses {{navdoc}} instead", and it's always worked fine. As long as the /doc page is just boilerplate (as opposed to substantial/unique to its template), I think it's clearly uncontroversial maintenance. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Which highlights the problem with G6 that no two people agree on what exactly it includes. If I were still an admin patrolling speedy deletions I would not have been willing to carry out such requests. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I am also such an admin. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

New T-criteria proposal

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

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

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

Pre-RFC finalisation

Before I put this forward as a formal RFC, are there any final thoughts about the wording of the new criteria based on the discussion above? Primefac (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Is centralised documentation intended as the only reason for lack of use that allows for speedy deletion or is it intended that all unused documentation subpages are eligible? I can see the current wording being read both ways. If the intent is the latter then rewording to ...documentation subpages which are no longer used (e.g. due to centralized documentation) would solve the issue (as would just removing what I've put as a parenthetical). If the former is intended then someone better at wordsmithing than me will need to have at it.
As for {{T5-exempt}}, I'd say it would be beneficial as there are bound to be some pages that appear unused but actually aren't (something related to subst-only templates, or uncommon options in transitory templates) or which are needed for some other not-immediately-obvious purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The most common reason I see for /doc pages nominated for G6 is when it is a "simple" /doc (maybe only containing {{collapsible option}} or similar) where the documentation gets moved to the main template and the /doc is no longer necessary. Other situations do include where multiple similar templates end up sharing a /doc, but usually what happens there is they are all redirected to that central /doc. Primefac (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I like HouseBlaster's statement, but I wonder if the confusion comes because it's three long examples given after the initial statement; would it be better to say just simply This applies to unused subpages of templates. Such pages include template documentation subpages... (i.e. split it into two sentences). That might reduce the confusion of it only being centralised /docs. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
That works. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
What about using a bulleted list, like WP:G8?

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
A+ Primefac (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
We should also probably include the current de-facto process of Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates here as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I seriously love that I can still learn about new processes on Misplaced Pages. Probably not the best from a WP:CREEP perspective, but I still find it cool.

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

  • Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
  • /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
  • Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
  • Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. We currently process a ton of subtemplates at TFD after the deletion of the primary template (this is backward to the proposal and discussion here, so it's not the exact same case) as G8. Is there merit to spinning that out of G8? Izno (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I see the rationale, but I do agree it's the opposite end of the spectrum. I wouldn't be opposed but I don't necessarily see it as being necessary to combine them. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much benefit in moving something which is a core part of G8 out of that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this party, but I submit for consideration, somewhat warily, Editnotices that are no longer used, typically because they have been blanked after sanctions expired or someone thought better of having an edit notice at all. We can use the "blanked by author" criterion for some of them, but most are blanked by people who did not create the notices. See this TFD. I will understand if including them would stretch the definition of this criterion, since they are not subpages, but they are in template space and tied to specific pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it would best to propose edit notices as a separate criterion, because as you say it's a stretch to include them with this one. My only query would be how frequent deletion of them is? Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I mean, edit notices are all subpages of Template:Editnotices, so it is not that much of a stretch to include them. However, I think to simplify things, we should have a separate discussion after the T5 discussion where we can consider whether it is frequent enough to merit a CSD and, if so, whether it should be T6 or a bullet point in T5.I will launch an RfC in 24 hours if there are no further comments/objections/feedback to the proposal above. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
It's OK with me to exclude it here. There are maybe about 100 to 200 blank editnotices right now, but I don't think anyone has been paying attention to them (many were blanked in 2021), so I'm guessing that deletion rates would be something in the low single digits per month. TFD is probably fine unless someone wants to go to the trouble of making a separate CSD criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I was going to launch the RfC, but it turns out there is one additional thing we need to determine. WP:TCSD, while currently obsolete, used to apply to both templates and modules. I see no reason T5 should not apply to modules, given that modules are really templates which we have to put in a different namespace due to technical restrictions. I think adding subpages of Module:Sandbox to the list of things ineligible for T5 would solve any problems. Do others have thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
From the perspective of someone largely ignorant about modules your proposal makes sense, but defer to those who know what they are talking about if they disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too as a module namespace regular. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Enacting T5 (unused template subpages)

ENACTED There is strong consensus to enact T5 as a new criterion for speedy deletion. Participants argued that this criterion would reduce the load on G6, and highlighted that deleted pages would be eligible for WP:REFUND. Some editors noted that deleting administrators should take special care in identifying templates and modules orphaned in error, as well as when dealing with taxonomy-related pages.

Frostly (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should T5 be enacted as a new criterion for speedy deletion for templates and modules? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text

T5. Unused template subpages

This applies to unused subpages of templates, such as:

  • Template documentation subpages unused by the template itself
  • /core subpages which are not called by the template itself
  • Old subpages of {{POTD protected}}
  • Unnecessary subpages of {{Taxonomy}}, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used

It excludes /testcases and /sandbox subpages, subpages of Module:Sandbox, as well as anything tagged with {{T5-exempt}}. Reasonable exceptions apply for subpages which will be used soon, and editors are free to request undeletion.

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.

Author removal

T5 should allow removal by the creator of the page, right? Seems uncontroversial but needs to be added to the list. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed; easy enough to tag something with {{t5-exempt}} in those cases. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

G6 and G7 when others object

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

Yes I agree, G5 should also probably be included for similar reasons, although the JDELANOY did anyway result in a consensus to delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
No, per Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY. If there's already consensus for deletion at XfD it's not controversial. -- Tavix 17:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not how speedy deletion works. If there are good faith objections it's controversial unless and until someone competent closes a discussion with a consensus for deletion. Speedy deletion needs to be essentially unanimous, that consensus can emerge despite objections is irrelevant. This is also much broader than just one speedy deletion you happen to agree with. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It's interesting that you use the phrase essentially unanimous. A good faith objection can fit under that definition. -- Tavix 18:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It shouldn't though. Any good faith objection should, by every reasonable interpretation of everything in this policy, overrule an author request or similar. If you have two editors, one saying "delete" the other saying "don't delete" that needs to go to a consensus discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I suppose a better way of phrasing it would be that any good faith objection means that a page cannot be speedily deleted under G5, G6 or G7 except where there is an almost unanimous consensus at an XfD, as determined by an uninvolved admin (ideally the XfD should be closed as speedy delete by that admin before or immediately after they delete the page, but this doesn't need to be part of CSD policy). Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
any more thoughts on this? Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
These three criteria kind of exist on a continuum here. G6 is defined by a lack of objection - any remotely-interpretable-as-good-faith objection at any point, pre- or post-deletion, should be enough to prevent/reverse it, and if you can talk yourself into refusing such an objection, then it wasn't a G6 to begin with. G7 has a higher bar; in most cases I'd ask the requester to articulate a reason, but probably accept anything coherent. ("Stuff shouldn't be deleted because it shouldn't be deleted" isn't coherent, and I'm afraid that's how I read the objections to WP:JDELANOY.) A G7 in someone else's userspace (so it'd have been a U1 too) has an even higher bar - it'd have to be a pretty good reason.G5, the main issue is sorting out whether the request is in good faith. If we're already at the point where we're deleting someone's pages on sight solely because of who made them, and they're already evading blocks to do it, AGF does not hold - I'd want to be absolutely convinced that whoever's asking for the page back isn't the same person with yet another account. I'd certainly object to any language being added here that weakens that, because it absolutely will be weaponized as "It says right in WP:CSD that you have to undelet this, no questions asked." —Cryptic 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
A brand new account requesting undeletion of something deleted under G5 is definitely a red flag (it might be in good faith, but its probably more likely not; a banned editor's request is not good faith) but an established editor's request should generally be honoured unless it was also deleted for some non-user-related reason (e.g copyvio). Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" mean?

G5 says that a page can only be deleted under that criterion if there are "no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions". However, if the sanction being violated is a CT restriction, does this refer to no editors not subject to the sanction, or no editors other than the original author not subject to the sanction? For instance, if two non-EC editors collaborate on an RUSUKR page, is that G5able? JJPMaster (she/they) 00:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if two non-EC editors collaborate to create a RUSUKR or other EC topic, it is G5able. signed, Rosguill 00:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not?

It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instance Arshin Mehta Actress today (as Arshin Mehta is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
/Archive 88#Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion * Pppery * it has begun... 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to title blacklisting, but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are a lot of false positives, but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to sufficiently identical copies, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, {{salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance . Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance Special:AbuseLog/39211633. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of creation protection at {{{1}}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under CSD G4 or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay WP:NOSALT. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like Articles for deletion before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at WP:SALT saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption there. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —Cryptic 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is that normal WP:RAAA requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like Jimmie Harris or Luke Barber, to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
And, of course, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive229#Quick stats on salted pages. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
To clean up old SALTing, where there’s any doubt you should go to WP:RFUP. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.
Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by WP:RAAA. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with Willy on Wheels, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}} based on your wording (and the design of {{Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding the "possible salt evasion" template

Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point to WP:G4 mentioning its existence? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It's redundant to {{salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —Cryptic 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Not really, {{salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A7 and groups of people

WP:A7 is applicable to "people". Is there any reason why it has to be a single person, rather than a group of people?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, no. Changing it from a single person to "persons" was the very first expansion of A7 (linked discussion here), about half a year after it was first introduced. The last vestige of "groups" was removed in this edit, which was labeled a revert and a clarification but was neither. —Cryptic 01:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
You do have a way with words. So, just to be clear, A7 would therefore apply to clans and tribes, right?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why not. —Cryptic 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on interpretation of G11

See Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you ought to sign your proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and WP:RFC says "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). El Beeblerino 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at WP:AN? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)