Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 6 December 2023 (→‎RfC: Does CSD:G4 apply to a page deleted in AfD and immediately recreated as a redirect page?: reformat so that closed discussion is boxed together). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggestion: Expansion of G5

I want to suggest the expansion of G5 to include articles created in violation of community or arbitration contentious topics procedures. For example, the

Arab-Israeli conflict by ArbCom. I would propose a new template "as a page created in violation of a contentious topic remedy" with support for both community and arbitration contentious topics. Awesome Aasim 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@Awesome Aasim: How often have such pages been taken to XfD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about take a look at the enforcement logs for those. For example,
Wikipedia:AELOG. This kind of deletion has already been enforced, but it is not mentioned in the CSD, nor is there a template that an editor can use to request speedy deletion under this. Awesome Aasim 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've always taken
WP:G5
as already covering this kind of deletion, since non-ECP editors who edit those topic areas are in effect violating a ban, but not opposed to clarifying this.
Note that the actual restriction in effect is
WP:ARBECR which is technically separate from the contentious topic system, so the wording would have to be more general/clearer than what you propose. Galobtter (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Maybe amend wording to something like "in violation of their ban or block, or a topic-wide remedy". Galobtter (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already spun up a draft in
Wikipedia:GS/RUSUKR (by the community). Awesome Aasim 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
general sanction" that would be wonderful. You can also move my template out of user space and into template space. Awesome Aasim 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
(Non-Galobtter comment) I've boldly
BRD but this seems pretty common-sense, and is how a number of admins have been treating these deletions for a while. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Tamzin Thanks :D
I'll see if I can finish spinning the template up so it can be listed on the page. Awesome Aasim 21:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Mostly done I just need to do the documentation pages and then update the speedy criteria category box. Awesome Aasim 22:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions? When did this get decided? In past years, I have proposed new criteria for speedy deletion that evolved into long discussions and I don't see anything like that here. There is not even anything in the CSD G5 criteria that specifies this specification as falling under the CSD G5 criteria or explains when it applies. Only the category is listed under CSD G5, there is nothing in the description about general sanctions.
How come other editors proposals to change or add new CSD criteria go through days or weeks of discusion and this one just appeared out of nowhere? That's not how the process works. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this didn't need discussion is because deletion is already allowed by
WP:ARBECR. This basically clarifies that "violation of a ban" includes automatic topic-wide restrictions which are in essence automatic topic bans for users with less than a certain number of edits, rather than actually changing policy/practice. Galobtter (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, it's not an "expansion" of G5, just updating its wording to reflect reality. Non-extended-confirmed users are banned from some topics, and G5 applies to the violations of bans. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if there's a substantive objection to the change I made, I'm happy to be reverted or to self-revert. But if this is just a procedural issue, the point of policy is to reflect standard practice, not the other way around, and this is not the first time WP:CSD has been amended in such a way, nor will it be the last. (Among other things, last December HouseBlaster boldly removed CSD A5 based on a 5–0 !vote. a far cry from a megabytes-long debate.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the recent changes to the policy as I think we should discuss the wording a bit more carefully. In particular, "by any user in violation of a general sanction" leaves too much room for interpretation IMO. G5 should not be a general tool to enforce sanctions, but should be restricted to when the sanction specifies that all pages in a topic area should undergo a certain level of protection and a user whom that protection is meant to exclude creates a new article which is unambiguously in that topic area. If that is your intended meaning, then we should make that more clear. If you intend for a more expansive reading, then I view that as a substantial change to policy that requires consensus to make. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
extended confirmed restriction". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 22:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That prohibits the creation of articles, surely?
G5 is already very controversial. Speedy deletion should only be for non-controversial cases. So if we're going to expand the wording to cover this case, we should specify it very carefully to make sure that it covers only cases where deletion is unambiguously the correct outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, the spirit of G5 is to retroactively enforce editing restrictions that we cannot enforce by technical means. For example, if you are blocked, then you (the person) may not edit anywhere. We can't prevent you from creating another account from a different IP, but if we discover the connection we will block your sock and nuke all your creations. Likewise, if you are not EC, then you may not edit or create articles in a restricted area. We can't prevent you from creating articles, but if your new article happens to fall in that restricted area then we can speedy delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well "prohibit" is a complicated word to use, because of course an ECR doesn't prohibit a non-EC user from creating any articles, just from creating certain ones. And one could imagine other GS that are flexible in other ways, like the hypothetical "1 article per user per day" I gave. I think "that prohibits the creation of the article in question" would accomplish the same thing as "that restricts the creation of articles"; I have no real preference between the two. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be a very bad idea to allow G5 deletions for throttling-type rules like "1 article per user per day". G5 should only be used when there is a violation of a clear ban on creations, either because the editor has been banned altogether or because that topic has had creations by certain classes of editors banned. Ambiguous language causes
WP:CREEP. We should be unambiguous here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The lack of any wording in CSD allowing ECR deletions didn't stop ArbCom and the community from enacting ECRs, and hasn't stopped admins from enforcing them by deletion. I would probably also oppose that throttling-type rule, but that's beside the point. The point is that sometimes ArbCom or the community enacts general sanctions restricting page creation, and this criterion should reflect that. (If the criterion doesn't reflect that, nothing really changes except making things more confusing. Admins will keep enforcing those general sanctions, and ArbCom definitely isn't going to desysop anyone for carrying out its own bidding.) Yes, we don't want to add ambiguity, but there's nothing ambiguous about either wording I've given. "Restrict[ing] the creation of articles" and "prohibit[ing] the creation of the article in question" are both clear concepts, compatible with
WP:NEWCSD #s 1&2. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"Restricting the creation of articles" could easily mean allowing creation but restricting certain aspects of the created content, such as requiring it to have inline reliable sources. I don't think we would admins to see that wording, recognize that a created article was constrained in that way, and decide to delete it outright. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree, but I don't want to bikeshed this. Does the "that prohibits the creation of the article in question" wording work for you? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tweak it a little bit: "by any user in violation of a
general sanction that prohibits them from creating the page in question". On the second bullet about topic bans, I would add "This also applies to general sanctions imposed on a class of editors across some topic area", since an ECR is essentially a preemptive topic ban on all non-EC editors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That sounds ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term "general sanction" the best term here? Before I clicked on the wikilink and read more, I thought it meant what we used to call GS, which I think is another word for what that page calls "community-authorised discretionary sanctions" or "community-authorised sanctions" such as Russo-Ukrainian War, Uyghur Genocide, etc. Perhaps we could clarify it by specifying by any user in violation of a contentious topic restriction or community-authorised discretionary sanction restriction that prohibits them from creating the page in question –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of additional words for something we already have a term for. I feel like the link does a good enough job clarifying what "general sanction" means. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems like a lot of additional words. Why isn't the existing "violation" enough? This applies to pages created in violation of a
Cryptic 07:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
+1, clarifications can be added to the bullet points if people genuinely misinterpret the language, but let's keep the actual text short and to the point. Galobtter (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would this look for the wording:

This applies to pages created by

community sanctions or remedies
and that have no substantial edits by others.

  • To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.
  • For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
  • When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
  • For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the
    extended confirmed restriction
    . A page created before the restrictions were imposed or after the restrictions were lifted does not qualify under this criterion. Nor does a page created after a person meets the eligibility criteria for the topic area.
  • G5 should not be applied to
    need to be reverted
    before deletion.
  • {{
    Db-banned
    |name of banned user}}     (for banned or blocked users)
  • {{Db-gs|general sanction code}} (for violations of general sanctions)
  • Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users, Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions
I think this fixes some of the ambiguity of the wording per above. If it looks good maybe we can roll it out, so that it can be clearer to other editors that this is a de facto reality. Awesome Aasim 15:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions:
  • "community sanctions or remedies" should be changed because the sanctions could also be coming from ArbCom.
  • "and that have no substantial edits by others" is now grammatically attached only to the sanctions bit, which is incorrect. What we want is for "others" to be attached only to the ban/block bit, and the sanctions bit should really say something like "and that have no substantial edits by editors authorized to edit in the area in question".
  • I think we can be a bit more concise on the clarification bullet. "For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of restrictions preventing the user in question from editing in the topic area at the time of the creation, such as the
    extended confirmed restriction
    ." (Delete the rest of the bullet.)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that extra comma missing. So...
  • community sanctions or remedies → general sanctions
  • no substantial edits by others → no substantial edits by others not subject to the general sanction
I think it is starting to look much much nicer! Awesome Aasim 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I think this all really just boils away to the question of how to best administer ARBECR and similar GS. I believe this specific set of discussions started because there was some unclarity in how to flag covered articles for attention by sysops, and someone had the idea to simply tag them as G5 for simplicity. Subsequently, there's been some thoughtful pushback against that route, both for being a bit hasty and from concerns regarding second-order consequences.

It may be an old school move, but from a flagging perspective there's nothing preventing the creation of a new template and category for articles potentially subject to deletion under ARBECR that is entirely independent of the CSD workflow this is a wiki after all. So no changes need to be made here for that to happen; the deletions are already authorized.

Our options then look roughly as follows not intended to be exhaustive:

I don't really have a strong opinion yet developed here and may not get the chance to develop one with the IRL end of the year crunch ahead, but I thought this might help focus some thoughts on where everything fits in the big picture sense. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Idea

How about we make it clear what

WP:ARBECR permits, but does not require, deletion. It is the same thing as the rest of BRV. We can use discretion to delete. Given that, could we maybe just retire G5 altogether? The templates could be changed to notify administrators that the article may have been created in violation of a ban and may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia standards. Awesome Aasim 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for new redirect criteria

Over the past couple days, there have been a lot of nominations at

WP:RDAB Yoblyblob (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@Yoblyblob The example you gave looks like G6. It was created obviously in the wrong title, so it probably can be speedied under there. I think G6 is well equipped to handle this case. Awesome Aasim 19:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should still have a clear criterion for this (assuming the consensus is that they should be speedy deleted) rather than stretching G6 and relying on the CSD-ing admins to mind-read back to 2005. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need a new criterion for this. Despite the recent spate of nominations, I don't think the missing space issue arises frequently enough to justify a new criterion. If you're talking about a new criterion for
    WP:RDAB in general, I don't think that would be wise, because "errors in disambiguation" is open to interpretation. Discussions where it's invoked, like the conversation underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13#285 (Number), don't necessarily arrive at a decision to delete. - Eureka Lott 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

RfC: Does CSD:G4 apply to a page deleted in AfD and immediately recreated as a redirect page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is clear that Option 2 (G4 does not apply to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD.) has consensus. It is also clear to me that the present wording of G4, using phrases like "applies to sufficiently identical copies" and "excludes pages that are not substantially identical", already forbids the deletion of redirects under this criterion, since a valid redirect has no content text that might be similar to (let alone identical to) the page that was deleted - it only has the #REDIRECT directive plus some optional
categorisation, perhaps by means of templates that themselves could not be mistaken for article content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

An ongoing DRV discussion brought up the question of whether the "sufficiently identical" language in CSD:G4 applies to pages deleted in AfD, and immediately recreated as a redirect by someone who wasn't pleased with the result of the AfD. Several editors believe that since the redirect page is different from the one deleted, any editor is welcome to recreate the deleted page, even if the "Redirect" option was brought up in the AfD and failed to reach consensus.

The options, as I see it, are:

  1. G4 applies to all cases where consensus was not followed, including recreation of a page as a redirect.
  2. G4 does not apply to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD.
  3. G4 applies to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, but only if that option was brought up and rejected in the AfD.
  4. Other?

To be clear, we are talking about a page recreated shortly (<30 days) after an AfD closed as Delete.

Either way, there seems to be enough confusion about this to justify adding a sentence about recreation as a redirect to the language in CSD:G4.

Would appreciate more views on the subject. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX, would you mind changing the bulleted list to a numbered list to make it easier to reference each option? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid RFC, not having a neutral statement of the question to be decided. I also note that the only confusion seems to be by the OP. Everyone else in the discussion can see that a redirect is in no way identical to an article.
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Option 2, sort of. We should keep G4 to just the cases of duplicate article creation. RfD is enough of a working process that there is an avenue available to those who believe the redirect should be deleted or retargeted. I think the difference between redirect as an AfD decision, which leads to the article history being preserved, and a post-deletion redirect creation is significant enough that someone doing the latter is not overturning the result. I don't think additional guidance is needed in the text of G4, and I'd rather just talk to any editors who tag, or admins that action, G4s that don't quite apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that after the AfD, we'll need an RfD for the same page to delete the redir? Wouldn't the same arguments for changing the original article to a redir still apply? I understand your point about the history. Do we need an AfD !vote along the lines of, "Do not recreate as a redir if deleted"? I would think most who !vote "Delete" also do not wish to see the article instantly resurrected as a redir, even if they don't spell it out. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I'm saying. My experience with AfD and RfD is that the arguments tend to be quite different. In the rare (as far as I'm aware) case where AfD participants really dig into the
    criteria for redirect deletion, the case for an eventual RfD would be pretty open-and-shut. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I understand. Why do you object to adding clarifying words to G4, then? This doesn't seem intuitive at all. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be persuaded, but I'm having trouble seeing this as a common issue. Have you looking into how frequently this comes up? Since my sense is that it's rare—rare for redirects to be created post-deletion, rare for such creations to be contentious, rarer still for them to be speedily deleted—I'd rather not complicate the language of the criterion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very rare indeed, as you say. Most editors accept that AfD consensus is binding, and if consensus was against turning an article into a redir, we shouldn't turn it into a redir, including post-history-deletion. But if we accept your interpretation of G4, it means that there's no point in !voting "Redirect", as we can now just wait out the AfD, and show up the next day to recreate the page as a redir, and get a second shot through the RfD. I don't think keeping this option a secret is the best way to prevent it from becoming prevalent. If it's allowed, it should be spelled out as such, and if not, it should be explicitly prohibited. There seem to be enough people on the DRV I linked above who seem willing to use this option to bypass an AfD deletion, and I'm sure the popularity of the technique will spread quickly once the word is out. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have trouble seeing the situation so nefariously, but I've said about as much as I feel is wise, and I look forward to hearing from others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changes: This is entirely unnecessary. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. — A redirect replacing an article clearly fits this description as a redirect is substantially different from a page that was deleted at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: I've read through the DRV and the only person arguing that G4 applies to redirects for articles deleted at AfD is you. There was consensus there that G4 did not apply. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why keep it a secret? Why not spell it out in the wording of CSD:G4, and not waste people's time on AfDs debating redirect as an option, when they can simply show up a week later and recreate the page as a redirect anyway? Beyond simply repeating what you've already said in that DRV, I don't see you addressing any of the policy issues in this RfC. Owen× ☎ 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: There is no secret, the wording is already clear to the point that you've been the only one advocating that G4 applies in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "No secret"? 'Redirect' is one of the most commonly !voted choices on AfDs. Do you really think editors would be wasting their time arguing about it, if they know they could just show up the next day and recreate the deleted article as a redir? If this is what our policy is, let's make it abundantly clear, and stop wasting people's time on AfD discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About there being no point in !voting 'redirect': When the outcome is 'delete', the page is deleted. A 'redirect' outcome as an alternative to deletion means that the page is not deleted. Deleted vs. not deleted. The point of a 'redirect' !vote and a 'redirect' outcome is that there is no need to execute the deletion in a technical sense because it's fine to preserve the history underneath the redirect, based on a premise that the content is not something that must not remain publicly accessible even in history (bad BLP content, etc.). Conversely, when the page is deleted and a redirect is created at that name, history is not preserved. —Alalch E. 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying "why keep it a secret that G4 doesn't apply to Draft:X when X was deleted in an AfD". It's the same with a redirect, except it's even more obvious that it doesn't apply to a redirect which can't, categorically, be "suffuciently identical", and a draft can. These are different types of pages each with different deletion discussions. The type of deletion discussion must match the type of the page. I think that this is obvious to most people. —Alalch E. 22:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's exactly what CSD:G4 does spell out! Read it and see: "It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace". If Draft:X was important enough to explicitly exclude, why not redirs? Owen× ☎ 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because redirects are not substantially identical to articles that have been deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It mentions drafts because people do sometimes get confused and think that draftspace content copied from a deleted page is G4 liable, because the content is identical which is the primary element of G4, and, more importantly, it extends G4 to respond to circumventing deletion to host content on Wikipedia. It doesn't mention redirects because it's harder to get confused when the content is not identical, or even similar at all (a redirect is not similar to an article), and you can't circumvent content being deleted by creating a redirect at the same name, as redirects have no content. —Alalch E. 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. I already made a comment about this in a deletion review that led to this RfC—special:diff/1187380309.—Alalch E. 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 (strongly). G4 specifically does not apply to articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. It makes no mention of being substantially identical to a different version of an article discussed in the AFD (such as a redirect). Any redirect can betaken to RFD, where the arguments tend to be quite different from those made at AFD.Frank Anchor 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As others have said, G4 does not, and should not, apply. Would suggest withdrawing this RfC as it appears there's no chance it'll gain consensus (nor was much workshopping done here, which should've happened before opening this RfC). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per everyone except the OP. A redirect is not an article and therefore cannot be substantially identical to one. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: G4 is about substanially identical recreations. For example, a non-notable article getting recreated a tenth or twentieth time, or an identical redirect already debated at RFD. It does not apply if the recreation addresses the reason it was deleted. Awesome Aasim 14:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I vote Option 2. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is, and has been throughout recent memory, CSD policy.
    WP:1AM, even though this is a policy interpretation matter rather than an article content dispute. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option 3, reworded: “G4 applies to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, but only if that option was brought up, and was rejected in the close of the AfD”. And if in doubt, ask the deleting admin.
    I support G4 being useful in broadly supporting consensus at AfD for six months after the AfD.     SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, do you believe option 3 as reworded is supported by the current wording of G4 on this policy page, or are you suggesting that this policy page be changed to encompass this usage? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - I could buy into something like this, but would advise saying "EXPLICITLY rejected". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a redirect explicitly rejected at a recent xfd (imagining a G10 style reason) could get the creator blocked for disruption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It could... but if the redirect is G10-able, then G4 needn't apply because G10 does. This interpretation of "the spirit of G4" (immediately below as I compose this) is not only at odds with how CSD criteria are applied (strictly) as well as NEWCSD #2, uncontestable Almost all pages that could be deleted using the criterion, should be deleted, according to consensus. In fact, the vast majority of redirects created after an AfD deletion are kept, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it is the spirit of G4, would not be surprised to see it happen, but I think it happens extremely rarely if ever. Probably not worth the fuss. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not worth the extra words. Extra words would fail WP:NEWCSD#3 Frequent. Use RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. If a redirect is useful, it should be created, period. BD2412 T 03:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Indeed, but who gets to decide whether it is useful or not? The same can be said of an article, yet we still enforce consensus when it is deleted in an AfD. Why do you feel redirects should be handled differently when consensus was against creating one? I don't think your terse response add any clarity. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "who gets to decide whether it is useful or not?" The community decides. We have an entire process addressing that. BD2412 T 13:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that a consensus reached in an AfD against a redirect has no bearing on the subsequent recreation as a redirect, and we have to go through another round of XfD to remove that redirect? Aren't we putting process above practicality here? Owen× ☎ 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a whole different discussion than what G4 is meant to cover. That moves outside the territory of non-controversial deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In very few cases do AfD discussions consider the merits or otherwise of a redirect, and even when they do very few participants express any opinions about the suggestion so they cannot be considered to have been the subject of a discussion as required by G4. There are occasional exceptions (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakbrook Mall) but in the vast majority of those cases either the presence or absence of a redirect matches the consensus in the discussion. That leaves cases where a redirect is recommended but not created, which is not a matter for any sort of deletion, and redirects created contrary to consensus - which are so infrequent that CSD is completely inappropriate - especially as there may be alternative targets not considered by the AfD. This is not process for the sake of process, but process for the sake of getting the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 specifically talks about AfDs that discuss a redirect as an outcome. If you wish to ignore Option 3 because you believe it to be rare, you are free to do so. But rare or not, I don't see how ignoring consensus in an AfD that specifically discusses--and rejects--a redir solution helps get the best outcome for the encyclopedia. The two-phase solution you and others here seem to imply, of an AfD immediately followed by a RfD, is anything but cruftware. We specifically wrote G4 to avoid these unnecessary steps. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We specifically wrote G4 to avoid these unnecessary steps? Without searching archives, I strongly doubt that. G4 is primarily about deleting reposts. Some keeps an offline copy, waits a week, then tries to quietly out it back. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some wikiarchaeology, the very first version of what evolved into today's G4 dates from June 2003, it read If a page or image is a reposting of previously deleted content, and was not listed on
    wikipedia:votes for undeletion, then an administrator may delete it without listing it on votes for deletion. (votes for deletion was the ancestor of all today's XfD processes). So, no, G4 was very much not written specifically to avoid AfD followed by RfD or anything similar. Thryduulf (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The origins of G4 and some prior discussions relevant to this one
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.

Was there an unintended change in scope of G14?

This edit by Oiyarbepsy back in Jan 2021 was described as a "restructure for clarity", but it seems to have also resulted in a significant change to the scope of G14. Whereas previously, the bit about "pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)" was limited to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)"redirects -- after the restructure, it appears that all aspects of G14 are now also applicable to set indexes as well as to disambiguation pages. As a result, a well-meaning editor (NmWTfs85lXusaybq) has been changing set index pages to redirects because they only contain one existing article. However, one of the reasons for the existence of set indexes distinct from disambiguation pages is precisely to allow for entries that do not have an existing article. Was there ever any discussion about this, or was this change in scope accidental? older ≠ wiser 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the previous discussion about this, but I did experienced this issue when I nominated G14 candidates of SIAs and lists before, including
talk) 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not aware that there was any previous discussion on this point. I think the edit was only intended as clarification -- but inadvertently resulted in expanding the scope of G14. Previously, the applicability to set indexes was limited to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember, and can't find, any discussion about changing the scope. I would support changing the scope back to the original. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure if this is related but wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27 shows what appears to be an emerging consensus to overturn multiple G14 closes as invalid.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not related, other than both being a response to NmWTfs85lXusaybq's actions. It's about a different misinterpretation of G14. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update

This applies to disambiguation pages and redirects to disambiguation pages:

  1. Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
  2. Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
  3. A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page.

Bullets are changed to numbers to facilitate referencing. There is minor change to the lead-in. #3 has been updated to clarify the scope. older ≠ wiser 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1188537615"