Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 62

What we do need and what the community should be looking at, is to repair the gaping gap in patroller competency left by the rollout of the New Page Reviewer right, in which templating for deletion can still be wrongly done by very newbies and totally inexperienced users - a practice that continues unabated and with a high rate of inaccuracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The thing that's not really being said in this proposal is that this is a reaction to one specific user who nominates a lot of new articles for speedy deletion and more often than not doesn't bother to notify. It's at ANI right now. I tend to agree with your perspective, that changing policy over one user while ignoring issues with dozens if not hundreds of other users is not a good approach.

talk

) 02:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support in principle while some of the bugs need to be worked out, the fact that the EASIEST way to do this currently notifies page creators should inform our discussion. We need to identify and implement 'major contributor' discussion, too. For example, I started Bella Ramsey, but as a redirect. User:Sandstein came along a week later and expanded it into its substantially current form once more RS became available. That sort of thing should not be hard to identify based on number of edits, percentage of article size contributed, and the like. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, redirects need to be separable from the main edit history.  There are multiple reasons for this, but too much to explain here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Notifications should ideally be mandatory when we're dealing with good faith attempts at contribution to the encyclopaedia. They should not be offered, let alone mandated, for articles that meet G3 - "vandalism", G5 - "Created by banned/blocked users", and most especially G10 - "Attack page" criteria. It would also be entirely redundant to make them mandatory for G7 deletions as well - "Author requests deletion". Mr rnddude (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, inasmuch as we're talking about correct tagging. G3/5/10 have been applied on multiple occasions to articles that in no way met the respective criteria. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You bring up a valid point. Improper use of the CSD rationales is an issue which plagues Wikipedia. I have done some CSD myself (about 100 tags) and occassionally the rationale I use did not align with the deletion rationale the deleting admin used; one that comes to mind for me is a G10 article that I tagged as G3 because I was unsure if it was an attack page or just plain vandalism - Jack Smithson. I don't remember the content of the page. I use twinkle so it automatically notified the creator. This is one of those situations where it is difficult to really meet all possible situations within a single statement. I favour letting editors use their heads and work out what needs a notification and what doesn't. It's unfortunate that many take the recommendation to mean "please ignore this" instead of "use your bleeming head". It's even more unfortunate that many former patrollers and current CSD taggers don't have a good enough grasp of the policy to do so. You know, it occurs to me that rather than creating a new set of permissions or what not for CSD, AfD, or XfD, it'd be far simpler to create a quiz which tests your knowledge of the process instead. If you demonstrate competency in it, then you may have access to the relevant XfD, if not, then you'll be required to get more experience (say 1-3 months with 500 mainspace edits) before being allowed to resit the test. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is too strict. I have noticed that the curation tool for example will tag for delete but almost always fail to notify the page creator. There are also admins that delete copyright violations and other problem pages on sight without tagging or notification, is this still permitted? Anyway we could have a stronger statement than "should". Experienced editors will be expected to notify, and failure to do so will be mis-conduct. As mentioned above, for bulk deletes or where the creator should expect the content to be removed (eg socks, trolls, hoaxers and vandals) notification should not be mandatory. However if there is a possibility that the speedy delete is in error, or could be fixed, eg db-spam, or that the page creator will be educated, then notification will be expected. G6 and X1 nominations do not require notification either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. – SD is for pages that should be deleted on sight, without discussion. Administrators can do this themselves, and do it without advance notice, but non-admins can only flag them for administrator attention. Requiring users to give advance notice when flagging something for immediate action strikes me as oxymoronic.

  Sometimes when an administrator deletes such pages, on their own initiative or in response to a request, they will initiate a conversation or send a notice along the lines of "thanks for trying but that was deleted because...", or along the lines of "that was unacceptable and if you do it again there will be consequences". It is generally a Good Thing™ for administrators to do so if the contributor(s) might not already be aware of the situation and were not obviously acting in bad faith. Administrators can exercise their judgment on whether there is any point in attempting to communicate with spam bots and other bad-faith actors.

  It is not appropriate to require regular users to do so when flagging a page for administrator attention. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, per note 1 on the policy page: In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created. Thus SD means it can be done without lengthy discussion. It does not - except in certain cases, like G10 - mean however that it has to be done immediately. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  If what I wrote could be construed to have referred to the time since the article was created then I apologize: such was not my intent. My use of the term immediate was intended to refer to taking action upon discovery, "without waiting for any discussion". ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the purpose behind using should in the wording of deletion guidelines is to strongly encourage, but not require, notification of interested users. A very good reason for not requiring notification (replacing "should" with "must") is that it creates a silly loophole whereby users can argue that a deletion decision is invalid on the sole grounds that particular users were not notified. The problem is: how do you determine who is a significant contributor who is required to be notified of a discussion, and how do you ensure that these users are notified? Before you start coming at me with your own definition of a significant contributor, understand that it varies from editor to editor as well as from topic to topic, such that we can never create a universal definition that some user will not argue about in a deletion review, and that is the problem with any wording requiring notification in deletion discussions. I'm opposed to the proposal as worded and you can assume I oppose any rewording under this thread, unless I comment otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector. Notifications should be mandated where it is likely that the content was contributed in good faith and where positive behavior and/or content modification is likely, but this is subjective, difficult and shouldn't be policy. I also oppose restricting the requirement to certain criteria -- I have deleted thousands of pages under A7, G11 and U5 whose authors had no intention to contribute to the encyclopedia whatsoever. MER-C 06:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • MER-C has it right here. This is too complex a situation for a "must" and the ANI instruction is not a good analogue, as with that there are no ifs, buts, fuzzy lines or grey areas. If an editor is habitually not doing what they "should" in cases where they plainly "should" have done, they can still be called to account for that: Noyster (talk), 10:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose One of the worst ideas ever is requiring people to show people who are trying to make things worse how they can make them even worse. Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Hipocrite just above this, also because the first editor has no special right, because determinig "good-fait editors" is a near impossible task, because deletion nominators should not be forced to make a extensive set of edit just make a nomination (i.e. nomination should not be so hard as to discourage most nominations), because creating a policy based in one editor's behaviour or two is a poor idea. - note that I would support a MediaWiki feature that changed the deletion process including *automatic* notification of, e.g., editors watchlisting an article. Nabla (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Say a user creates
  WP:CRYSTALBALL articles, was blocked, and got all of its articles prodded, speedied or nuked. That user evaded the block creating two sock puppets (User:22nd Century and Beyond, User:After2099ad) that did exactly the same thing. For more information, click here (a notification I've added to the first sock in 2017-02-01). I notified because I didn't realise the account was a sock. Otherwise, I wouldn't notify. Luis150902 (talk | contribs
  ) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While an editor in general should notify the page creator, I don't see a need to codify it as must, and having a "you must X excluding situations Y,Z, etc." is always going to have problems with additional instruction creep for each situation that can pop up. Better to have a "you should do X, except in Y,Z you must" type statement. The page creator already would automatically have the page watchlisted. Plus, uninvolved editors (admins in this case) are the ones really deciding if the page is truly notable or not. For CSD though, it's really up to the admins in the end.
  talk
  ) 16:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since opposition to requiring a notification for all pages is high and most indicate they might support a less strict proposal (which I already suggested above), how about this:

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator when using the criteria A1, A2, A3, A7, A9, A11, G11, G12, G13, U2, U3 and U5 as well as any file-related criteria. This does not apply if the page creator has been blocked/banned from editing indefinitely or is already aware of the requested deletion.

For those who mentioned cases where redirects were turned into articles, those cannot be deleted anyway since SD requires that all revisions meet a criterion. If an admin deletes such a page, it's already in error and we probably should remind admins about that. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This is terrible. I didn't even get done reading it before i gave up trying to understand it.

talk

) 10:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't claim to be Shakespeare and English is, after all, not my native language but it would probably be helpful if you articulated specific concerns instead. Also, as usual, I am open to different wording. Regards SoWhy 11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is one of those situations were a little bit more explanation and little bit less jargon would help, might I suggest a reword to; Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator and should notify major page contributors, except when the page nominated meets criteria relating to pure vandalism, blatant hoaxes and/or attack page(s), or where the creator is a blocked or banned user. It's still overbloated, and I'm not sure that it is a viable solution anyhow. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I found the first one quite clear, but think that A10 and G3 hoax and vandalism ought to be in there. A10s sometimes have a good reason that's not immediately obvious, and some G3 hoaxes and vandalism (as tagged) also aren't when explained. Might it be easier to list the ones you don't have to notify about? It is nice to see notifications on a user's page when deciding whether to block them of not (other checks are, of course, made...). PS Writing in Shakespeare's English wouldn't be a good idea. Quite a few English natives have trouble with his wordings... Peridon (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Might it be easier to list the ones you don't have to notify about? - given that this would encompass a total of four criteria at most (three if we exclude G3 - G5, G10 and, if common sense allows, G7), it would be far easier to list those than the other 20 or so you would have to notify about. That said, the listing of each criteria presumes that each criterion "codename" is immediately identifiable to each person. I can identify only G2 - test page, G3 - vandalism/hoax, G10 - attack page, and A3 - no content, on command. Everything else, I have to hit the reference book,

WP:CSD, to check. E.g. A7 - notability is actually A7 - no claim of importance. Very different things. So the wording should be both clear and easy to understand - i.e. as little jargon as possible. That said, I still managed to forget that hoaxes were part of G3. Mr rnddude (talk

) 12:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Instead of adding the wording to the lede, we can always add the requirement to the criteria themselves instead. I just listed them for easier discussion. Regards SoWhy 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is perfectly logical. Always notify whenever a good faith mistake can be assumed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  One might think so but we wouldn't have this discussion if it were so simple. But I'd be fine if we used a less strict language. How about this:

  Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator unless the page creator has been blocked/banned from editing indefinitely, obviously has not created the page

  in good faith

  or is already aware of the requested deletion.

  Regards SoWhy 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I like SoWhy's version, although maybe a note about retired editors could be made. I also wouldn't be opposed to a sentence somewhere noting that if you are unsure whether the contribution was in good faith it is best to notify, and there is no penalty for notifying where it is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this then?:

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion [...] must notify the page creator unless the page creator has stopped editing indefinitely, obviously has not created the page

in good faith

or is already aware of the requested deletion.

Tazerdadog (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't seem to have gotten any answer to my previous question of how this applies to admins who see a page that obviously qualifies for speedy deletion and they just go ahead and delete it. In most cases, at least speaking for myself, a post-deletion warning or notice can be dropped not heir talk page, but there is no explicit mention of a deletion nomination because there wasn't a nomination.
  talk
  ) 22:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  I would think the way it should work is: if an admin speedily deletes a previously-unnominated page, they should be obligated to notify the user iff they would have to notify the user under this proposal if they had simply tagged the page. By my reading, the proposal doesn't address this explicitly, which may be a flaw in the wording of this proposal. Obviously, the text of a was deleted notification versus a tagged for speedy deletion notification should be slightly different. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think it (partly?) depends on why the page is being speedy deleted. For example, many G6 deletions don't really require a notification, all F7 and U3 deletions do. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  How about adding this

  The same applies if an admin deletes a previously untagged page, except maintenance deletions.

  As usual, I welcome better wording. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is all completely pointless - notifying someone you've nominated their article for speedy deletion is a nice thing to do but in most cases will prove to be pointless, the user probably won't know how to quickly make the changes needed to avoid deletion or they'll return after the deletion has occurred. Notification for PROD and XfD is both nice, sensible and could easily be made a requirement since there's likely to be a week of discussion time available for an article to potentially be fixed and made compliant with our policies. There's absolutely no point in having an administrator notify users during the deletion process, as users can't see their own deleted contributions. The most sensible solution here (and one which is probably going to deal with the CSD nomination notification issue that is the root cause of all this) is to automate clear and understandable notifications for deletions, making log entries easier to find, and possibly providing users with access to their own deleted user contributions. Nick (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The point of such notifications is less that the user might be able to prevent the deletion but rather so that they understand why the page was tagged for deletion and can strive to prevent making the same mistake again. Your alternative would solve this problem at least but would just shift the work to admins performing the deletions. That said, I personally wouldn't mind if admins were tasked with such notifications instead but this would not help in those cases where the creator is still online and could address the concerns before deletion. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• still oppose per myself in the previous section, plus instruction creep. Nabla (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Reworded simple good faith proposal

Per above discussion, my current proposal, taking into account the various suggestions, would be this:

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion for non-maintenance reasons [...] must notify the page creator unless the page creator has stopped editing indefinitely, obviously has not created the page

in good faith

, is already aware of the requested deletion or it can be safely assumed that they are not interested in being notified. The same applies if an admin deletes a previously untagged page.

This would address both the case of a retired user as well as users that for various reasons (bots, deceased etc.) can safely be assumed not to be interested in such notifications. Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 15:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I am reasonably happy with this. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I don't know about you, but I seem to have misplaced my telepathy hat and so am unable to judge how "obvious" the faith, good or otherwise, is of another editor. Since this implicitly asks us to ignore
  WP:AGF and determine who created a page in earnest mistake and who created it in bad faith, it asks every CSD nominator and page patroller to somehow climb into the heads of page creators. That means it creates yet another outlet for disagreements and drama without substantially improving anything.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
  18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense, notification should be allowed. @Eggishorn: I interpret this as excluding blatant vandalism. If you can't identify obvious vandalism, you shouldn't be tagging articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't generally tag articles. My objection has nothing to do with my own activity, but with what it asks of those who do. I agree that the proposer likely intends it to apply blatant vandalism. From what I have seen of how things work here, however, I see it as opening an invitation to be used as a

WP:POINTy tool. Not everything needs a rule, and the current standard already generates enough heat. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to word it better to remove some of the areas where disagreements will occur? Perhaps we could explicitly call out blatant vandalism and attack pages, which are the two main situations that phrase was meant to cover?Tazerdadog (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea, but it's an unnecessary idea, no matter how the text is tweaked. We really shouldn't make project-wide rules or rule amendments to deal with

the actions of one user. Whether the OP really is proposing this to deal just with that one user's edits or just was inspired by the discussions around them (and I assume it's the latter), the effect is the same. It's using blunderbusses to kill flies, and there is always collateral damage and unintended consequences from such an approach. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems might always exist but that does not mean we shouldn't have clear rules, especially when the vague wording is precisely the argument some users make for not notifying good-faith users. For example,

WP:CREEP below but the reason we need such a change is precisely that we cannot admonish users for not doing something that is not required. Funny enough, I always read "should" in the German legal sense ("sollen" = "shall"); in our legal system when a law says "... shall be done" it means "you have to unless in special circumstances". That's why I was kind of surprised that so many users believe that "should" means it's just a suggestion. Regards SoWhy

16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. As Eggishorn said, the current policy causes enough heat as is, and adding this proposed clause will aggravate that situation. This also reeks of process creep, which is something I am generally opposed to. -FASTILY 22:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree they're a useful practice, I don't think CSD notifications, even for supposedly good-faith contributions, are ever truly necessary. I also concur in Eggishorn's concerns that judgments about good faith would be a source of contention and bureaucracy. Rebbing 11:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as one of the first users to have run headlong into the "not notifying people you are deleting their shit," squad, I'm happy to finally codify that notifications are optional. Hipocrite (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (1) the creator of the page has no more "ownership" in it than any other editor (see
  WP:Don't feed the trolls both apply. Carlossuarez46 (talk
  ) 02:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    not canvassing. I'd even go as far to say that it is never canvassing (regardless of if they are the only contributor to the page that is notified). It is a standard accepted practice, so much so, that it is a streamlined option within twinkle. Furthermore, a good faith original author likely believes their creation is appropriate, which is the opposite viewpoint of someone nominating something for deletion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT
    ) 03:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • You're simply wrong. Why the creator is any more important to be notified than every other editor who contributed is precisely selecting someone who one supposes has a "pro" bias toward an article he or she created and ignores other editors who, pro or con or totally unbiased, tried to improve the encyclopedia by either improving the article, identifying the article's shortcomings, stub sorting, or asking for the deletion of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Firstly, notification is more important for
  deletion discussions. Unlike them, if something meets criterion(s) for speedy deletion, it will likely be deleted regardless of input from its creator. That aside, should the creator be notified of a speedy deletion the vast majority of the time? Yes, it serves the purpose of making sure they know that the page was deleted and helps them learn what type of pages are inappropriate; Should it be mandatory? No, especially in certain cases. It is a good practice that is adequately recommended by the current wording. Lastly, it is generally very hard to discern if an editor has "stopped editing indefinitely" or that "it can be safely assumed that they are not interested in being notified". — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT
  ) 03:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• still oppose per myself in the previous sections Nabla (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as my previous comment in the above section.[2]
  talk
  ) 16:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in an ongoing discussion at

I have a question. The question is whether the Under-Construction or In-Use templates, in any of their subspecies, should preclude tagging for

If the article is good enough that one could potentially save it from G11 by adding to it, then userfy/draftify the article. If it's so bad that no addition could possibly save it (generally the case with G11s), just delete it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You write: "If it's so bad that no addition could possibly save it (generally the case with G11s), just delete it." I can't. I am not an administrator. The question is about whether I should tag it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In all cases I'd tag it as promotional and leave a note on the talk page (if this hasn't been done already). I have seen an article created as a whole slew of pro and then a whole slew of anti and then merged into something approaching NPOV (all by one author over a good dozen edits) so it is possible. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note, עוד מישהו, that unilateral draftification of some else's page has been repudiated, somewhere at WT:Drafts. It's a backdoor pseudodeletion, and once in draftspace the newcomer won't get any help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• A borderline promotionally toned page is only irretrievably a G11 once it is revealed to be based on promotional sources. Once it is unambiguous there is no point delaying. If it is not unambiguous, it should not be speedied, but tagged per Thryduulf or AfD-ed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

This edit request to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two lines say "Not all numbers are used as some criteria have been repealed." Would you add a comma after "used" in both situations, to make it easier to read? 208.95.51.115 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done A comma doesn't belong there, and it's easy enough to read.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I disagree—I think a comma there to separate the clauses works well, and clarifies the sentence. I found myself reading it as "Not all numbers are used as some criteria" before getting tripped up by the second clause and having to go back to re-read the whole thing over. I have added the comma in each case. It certainly doesn't hurt the sentence. — Gorthian (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, a comma improves the flow there.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I too find the suggested comma improves the sentence. DuncanHill (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comma has been restored: Noyster (talk), 08:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

Why are there no criterions with the labels A4 and A6?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

They were superseded by other criteria, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Obsolete criteria for details. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This kind of question is why I've supported having something in the repealed spots, e.g. "A4. Repealed; see below", but I've been reverted when I've tried to do that. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Does that fall under any CSD criteria? South Nashua (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• These fall under the longer process described at
  WP:PNT. AllyD (talk
  ) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. South Nashua (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If an earlier revision of a given article exists which is not ‘exclusively promotional’ should the existence of such a revision protect the article from speedy deletion under G11? The recent speedy deletion of

The lede of this policy clearly states that "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible.". It also makes sense that this should be the case. No comment on the specific cases you have listed. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. There is no need for the G11 wording to cover this case if it is already addressed generally, so this discussion can be closed.Dialectric (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It comes up from time to time, and it has come up again at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_March_14.

• There is consensus support for
  WP:BLPDELETE
  , which covers deletion of a BLP of a person who requested deletion of their biography due to privacy and accuracy concerns. It apparently authorises speedy deletion of re-creations, even where G4 and G10, or any other CSD, do not apply.
• Some believe that WP:BLP overrides other documented policies? If so, document it.
• I think the solution is to rewrite BLPDELETE, to the extent that it authorises speedy deletion, here at WP:CSD, in a more objective form.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Perhaps a small addition to G4, like "or an article on the subject was deleted per
    Fram (talk
    ) 07:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• This is an issue that needs much more debate and examination. The whole concept of not allowing re-creation of a deleted article is not a simple matter. I have considerable sympathy with the view that articles deleted at AfD should not be re-created soon after in an essentially identical form, especially when the subject is a BLP. We would normally delete such a re-creation uncontroversially and that is what G4 documents. However, at the other extreme, an inadequately sourced BLP, or a BLP of a not-yet-notable individual will be properly deleted, yet might profitably be re-created at a later time when better or newer sources become available. G4 also recognises that such a re-creation is not only common practice, but may often be of benefit to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately BLPDELETE makes no realistic attempt to cater for this scenario, because it demands prior consensus. That is almost always a mistake because it runs against the Wikipedia ethos of
  WP:BOLD. It also ignores the fact that until an article is re-created, there is really no place to discuss a consensus for its re-creation, which probably ought to take place on the associated talk page. Perhaps it is worth asking WJBscribe
  what he had in mind on that point when he added "it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation" to BLPDELETE?
• I disagree strongly that BLPDELETE overrides core policies such as
  WP:NPOV: we should not let process prevent an article on a notable subject from being created, particularly as notability may be acquired with the passage of time. Making BLPDELETE a CSD criterion beyond what G4 already documents will effectively prevent the re-creation of any BLP that has previously been deleted via AfD. That is not a desirable result of changing CSD. One possible compromise is to have an agreed and documented procedure whereby any re-creation of a BLP deleted via AfD on the grounds of BLPDELETE would need to first take place in user: or draft: space and consensus developed on the talk page (or perhaps a central venue?), via RfC if necessary, before it was allowed to be moved into article space. This hopefully would imply that articles re-created without satisfying BLPDELETE should be userified as a matter of course, rather than speedy deleted. Of course, material that was libellous or a copyvio shouldn't enjoy such considerations, but neither should good-faith re-creations of notable, or even "borderline-notable" BLPs be automatically be consigned to the trash as if doing so is uncontroversial. It is not. --RexxS (talk
  ) 10:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't really believe WP:N is "core policy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I hope you don't think that the policy which determines whether or not an article should exist on Wikipedia is anything other than core. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • His point was that N is a guideline, while BLPDELETE is part of BLP policy. Guidelines don't trump policy. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I know what his point was, but that's process wonkery. In reality, WP:N is not trumped any any other policy or guideline. You can't name a single article (out of the 5,359,538 on Wikipedia) that exists contrary to
          WP:N, so it's simply nonsense to say some other policy has precedence over it. --RexxS (talk
          ) 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Obviously all articles that exist meet (or should meet) N, but meeting N by itself is in come circumstances not a sufficient reason to keep. An article can be notable but still deleted if it's a borderline notable BLP whose subject has requested deletion (
            WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST) or because it's an attack page, spam, or copyvio deletable under various CSD criteria. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}
            14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
            • Of course the fact that WP:N determines that an article could exist doesn't mean that it should exist, and
              WP:N, have you? --RexxS (talk
              ) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
              • It's not just wonkery, it's not just the importance of getting terminology right so others can follow the conversation. WP:N is a simplistic guideline for establishing a rebuttable presumption. Topics can be deleted while meeting WP:N, and deleted despite passing WP:N. WP:N is blind to many things, including privacy, and biased coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
                • It's complete wonkery and it's the sort of thinking that leads the ignorant into asserting that guidelines are optional at their whim, but policies must be followed. WP:N is actually a comprehensive guideline to determine whether an article could exist, but makes it clear that it doesn't guarantee that it must exist. If you read it, you'll see that it clearly states that it does "not limit the content of an article or list", but that the actual content is subject to the core content policies WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. If you still think that the policy determining whether an article may exist is not core, then we have a different meaning of the word. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
                  • I think I have read WP:N. It is an unusual guideline in that it is enforceable by the policy,
                    WP:COATRACKs for example, can be very strongly asserted as notable due to sources meeting the WP:GNG. My point is that WP:Notability is often necessarily a strong argument to use against WP:BLPDELETE. --SmokeyJoe (talk
                    ) 23:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Once the article is deleted, the talk page goes as well, so the article talk page is not an available venue. AfDs are closed with the wording "No further edits should be made to this page." so AfD is not an available venue. I doubt whether anyone will take seriously a DRV if the AfD is years old, but it is a possibility, although I've never seen DRV used for anything other than undeletion of the deleted article, which is not what would be required. I simply can't agree with you that "there are too many options". --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

But you could recreate the talkpage for purpose of the discussion, or start a new AfD surely? Those seem fairly minor issues with a discussion in one of those forums. I'm pretty sure I've seen such a discussion before, but I can't remember if the discussion took place at AfD or DRV... WJBscribe (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure it was at DRV. One of the purposes of DRV is "Deletion Review may be used... if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I think that would apply to the scenario we're discussing? WJBscribe (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Any talk page re-created to discuss the issue would deleted as

WP:G8 by the Vogons in the blink of an eye. "Examples of this criterion include talk pages with no corresponding subject page ..." I have no idea how anyone would start a new AfD for an article that is already deleted – has anyone ever seen that done? I know that one of the stated purposes of DRV is to justify re-creating the deleted page if fresh information came to light, but I'm thinking about the case where a completely new article is proposed (admittedly the title would be the same), not the undeletion of the previously deleted article. Nevertheless, perhaps folks would be willing to accept that as an outcome at DRV – it's just that I've never seen it used for that. --RexxS (talk

) 14:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If the issue isn't primarily over policy, but over the actual content, it may make more sense to take it to AfD. For example, I restored David Letele, which I had G4'ed, and sent it to AFD, not DRV, after someone challenged my close. This was because the issue was primarily one of whether newer achievements/sources were enough to meet our notability guidelines, which is a venue for AFD. Since BLPDELETES are more complex and policy-focused, I would prefer making a draft and submitting it to DRV, instead of creating a the page and then AFDing it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would always recommend going to AfD first, rather than DRV whenever fresh content is being considered for deletion, even when BLPDELETE is the primary focus. That way, it allows the possibility of appeal via DRV in case mistakes are made at AfD. That's part of our normal checks-and-balances and I can't see a good reason to bypass them because the issues are more complex. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)This makes sense, but it (and BLPDELETE) should explicitly list a prefered venue. I would prefer it to be at DRV, which explicitly focuses on reviewing deletions with a heads up at BLPN, which should be fine though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• It should be a requirement that any proposal to reverse a
  WP:BLPDELETE deletion should advertised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --SmokeyJoe (talk
  ) 12:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a sensible venue, but how will folks judge whether or not it should be re-created if they can't see what is proposed? Surely there must be at least a draft available before anyone can assess it? --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Has anyone objected to the user proposing recreation presenting a draft? WJBscribe (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It's common for temporary versions of articles to be restored for assessment at
      WP:BLPs who requested deletion, but that may be an option as long as there's nothing libellous/defamatory in the material. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}
      13:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @
        Draft:Michael Cole (public relations), which would still be a re-creation prior to gaining consensus? --RexxS (talk
        ) 14:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I actually did not remember adding the wording to the policy - it was some years ago. Is there anything to make me think that a draft would not be deleted? Yes. It would be a draft, not an article, and have been created specifically for the purpose of seeing if a consensus exists for recreation. Crucially, it wouldn't be in the article namespace, which is public and indexed by google until after such a consensus had been established. WJBscribe (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
          • @WJBscribe: I'm very encouraged by that to think that a solution is possible which discourages multiple re-creations of non-notable topics, while allowing a later, fresh draft made in good faith to test whether a re-creation would be desirable. If you do write into policy that G4 is applicable to any article re-creation following a BLPDELETE, then I think you'd also have to explicitly write into the policy that drafts of re-creations are excluded until consensus is settled. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of discussion procedures that are adding complexity, perhaps the wording "Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." should be changed to not prevent recreation. Instead it should permit creation again if the issue is addressed. Eg if the subject has become famous, or subject now wants the article to exist. If a discussion is needed then

WP:UNDELETE

we may send requestors to DRV, especially if the create action is protected. The other simple option is to ask the deleting/protecting admin about re-creating, and provide a proposed draft. G4 should only be used to redelete a BLP page if its rules apply, ie it is substantually the same or does not address issues in the discussion. A draft should not normally be deleted as a G4 unless a MFD or AFD explicitly decided "no drafts" (or sandboxes).

Already the secion under discussion says the page should be improved or rectified as the first option. The problems mentioned are "unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally". So recreation should only be permitted if all of these problems are fixed in line with the "improve" option first mentioned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete. My file? Leshanbrockjosephgage (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@

talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page. You should return to the page which has the speedy deletion tag on it; once there, press the "Contest this speedy deletion" button, and make your comment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 07:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This is mainly to address the problem of redirect creation being improperly suppressed, as MediaWiki:Movepagetext refers to Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria, which in turn refers to WP:G6. But G6 is also sometimes used directly to the same effect. This covers both scenarios.

Most of us feel that it should be unnecessary, as the creation of the resulting long-term redlinks in the article talk namespace is controversial, and so not covered by G6 in any case. But the one dissenting voice is an admin who claims to have created hundreds of these redlinks, and also claims that this is sanctioned by G6. And over the years I have come across many such redlinks created by other admins, but they have not objected to me fixing them, up until now.

So this needs to be clarified, and with regret at complicating the policy with another clause, I can't think of a better way to do it. We have a rough consensus at WP:AN (one dissenter as noted), but without much participation on the specific proposal, and of course the decision needs to be made here. Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there examples of problematic deletions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Good question! Yes, see:

• the talk:Kremlin log for the disputed one referred to above, discussed at User talk:Jenks24#Kremlin.
• User talk:Tassedethe#Talk:David Williams (footballer) for discussion of the other recent example.

But it's not a new issue... I've seen many such over the years but not recently (please don't ask me to dredge back years!) and the admins concerned have always agreed that in hindsight they were controversial and so not G6. What brought it to a head was not just these two, but the statement I've made hundreds of these moves in five years as an admin and you are the only person who has complained. [3]

The reason I did not cite the examples before is there seems some sensitivity on the part of the admins concerned... I'd prefer not to provide diffs for that claim, and it's not a behavioural issue, just a different good-faith interpretation of G6. And in my experience and apparently also of the admin cited in the first example, not a new or uncommon one. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the examples—I wasn't entirely sure what you were referring to. I don't do page moves nearly as often as I do, but I would fairly routinely make such deletions and consider them quite defensible. Surely we can all agree that pages and their talk pages shouldn't be out of sync. The way I see it, you can do three things with such redirects:

1. Delete them as housekeeping, assuming you have the privileges to do so
2. Edit them to point to the talk page of where the main page redirects to (i.e., Talk:Foo to Talk:Bar)
3. Replace with with {{talk page of redirect}}

I have seen such matters as housekeeping and have taken option 1, somewhat assuming that editors who do the others perhaps aren't capable of deleting them. "Kremlin" is one thing, but so many of these titles are not going to be places a user is ever going to try to directly access a talk page. So ultimately, I don't think it's a matter of great importance. I don't like to invoke

WP:CREEP, but I think it might apply if you're suggesting we decide upon a mandated course of action for such redirects. --BDD (talk

) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that pages and their talk pages shouldn't be out of sync, with the proviso that the talk page of a redirect shouldn't necessarily itself be a simple hard redirect. If not, it should probably always contain a link (not technically a soft redirect but the same idea) to the talk page of the target, as a convenience (but it's not hard to navigate there even if it doesn't). Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think if there's any likelihood the talk page might have meaningful incoming links (incl. external ones) then it shouldn't be deleted. I guess this is the case if it has some sort of content. Conversely, most of the time a talk page would only contain a project tag or two, and redirects to these had better be deleted. When landing on a redirect in the course of maintenance work, it's really helpful to see whether there are any discussions on its talk page – if the "Talk page" link is red, then there aren't. This convenience is taken away if such talk pages get kept. – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting... comparing the discussion above to that at

• These deletions are common, as claimed.
• These deletions are in principle controversial.

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what is controversial. I couldn't make heads or tails of the discussion at

WP:AN#Possible update to CSD, so I didn't comment there. Talk pages with substantive discussions should not be deleted. They may need to be archived or merged. Talk pages of redirects are mostly useless in my experience, although where an article was moved and the talk page has a long history with numerous incoming links, there is value indicating the current location of the redirect's talk page as an artifact of the page move. older ≠ wiser

01:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what is controversial either. But it is. Some of us see a redlink as valuable and useful, and apart from their having become accustomed to working in this way I cannot see why, there are far better ways of working that do not rely on this unreliable signal. Others dislike having our links (which include watchlists, contributions pages, edit summaries, and off-wiki links, typically from alderspace and its companion wikis in my case) broken for no apparent benefit.

I appreciate that you and others do not value and use these links. But some of us do, so much that we even have trouble understanding why others do not miss them.

Would you not call that controversial? Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the "broken links" issues. We're talking about talk page redirects that get left behind from page moves, right? In that case, both watchlists and contributions pages follow the new title. If the redirect is suppressed then the only broken link I can think of would appear in the move log entry, but then it will be immediately followed by a link to the new title, so I don't see the problem here. Of course, that's leaving aside the obvious case where the talk page has meaningful incoming links from the talk/project namespace, in which case of course there are links that get broken. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite correct. It creates a mess, with some links maintained and others broken. Sorry I didn't make that clear. See the talk:Kremlin case above for an example of a redlink making it difficult and time-consuming to find the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa:, I think it is unreasonable to attempt to maintain the integrity of links from outside Wikipedia to pages within Wikipedia. Simply keeping internal affairs in order is a monumental task without burdening it with responsibility for backward compatibility of links that editors have no visibility to or any control over. For articles that have long history at a particular title that have moved, I can understand we might want to ensure there is some sort of breadcrumb trail, but for talk pages where the only content was project tags, I can't see any possibility of controversy. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a possibility of controversy, it's an actual controversy. In both of the cases I mentioned above, there's a rough consensus at WP:AN that the redlink was a bad idea. But some see it as justified by WP:G6. Is that controversial, or not?

The principle that it is unreasonable to attempt to maintain the integrity of links from outside Wikipedia to pages within Wikipedia needs scoping down a little IMO. Historically we have considered this, although not at the highest level of priority. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting: 4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Rough consensus, hmmm, I see a couple of folks agreeing in what is an otherwise hard to follow discussion. TBH, I do not think either deletion at the time was in any way controversial. You as an editor who finds them useful in some way are of course free to recreate them or to request undeletion, but I don't agree any general prohibition is desirable. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, by "controversial" do we mean that everyone isn't 100% in agreement or that this could cause real friction? Going back to my three options above, I wouldn't even blink if a page like that got recreated pointing to the right place or with the right template. Wikipedians can certainly war over rather trivial matters, but I'm disinclined to try to solve this one unless the problems become more serious. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, of course we don't mean everyone isn't 100% in agreement. But nor do we mean this could cause real friction. What I mean is simply that some good-faith editors disagree with it. One would be enough in many cases. This disagreement is commonly (and thankfully) quite without friction. What do you mean by controversial? Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, a couple of folks agreeing, me plus several others, and one dissenter as noted above. Would you not call that a rough consensus? I know the discussion is hard to follow!

I'm not looking for a new or general prohibition. I'm looking for a clarification of what the policy already says, but is very widely misunderstood. I think the discussion just above as to exactly what is meant by controversial may be the key to this.

Agree that neither deletion at the time was in any way controversial, in that the admins followed a widespread interpretation of G6, and a practice that they'd seen many others do and had often done themselves. But that very popular misinterpretation does not stand up to careful scrutiny. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Taking another tack, we might also consider either following or changing the advice at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting: 5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And another similar hint: If a good-faith editor says that something is controversial, it probably is. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't really understand the rationale for prohibition -- and yes, it does appear you are seeking a new prohibition under the guise of clarification. As far as I can make out in the convoluted discussions, the rationale looks more like a variation of

WP:ILIKEIT than anything based in policy or general utility. There is so much dreck and detritus accumulated over the past decade and a half of Wikipedia editing, I generally applaud any editors that bother to try making the space a bit less cluttered with debris. Talk pages of redirects where the only edits were to add project tags are totally worthless. older ≠ wiser

22:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

They're not just worthless – they add unreasonably to the workload when these redirects are retargeted. Of course, the extra work they create should be weighed against any potential benefit they might have, but such benefits have not been shown in the discussion so far. – Uanfala (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

To me this discussion shows very clearly that these talk pages do not qualify for G6 speedy deletion. G6 is explicitly only for "uncontroversial maintenance". "uncontroversial" links to Wikipedia:Consensus. There is no consensus in this discussion that they should be routinely deleted and there is certainly no consensus to this effect in the linked discussion at AN. If there is no consensus that the page should be deleted, then the deletion cannot possibly be "uncontroversial". Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I see in the discussion so far is that the current practice is to delete such redirects, that there are good reasons for doing so (e.g. reducing the workload when the corresponding article redirect gets retargeted). On the other hand, the rationales that I recall were given for keeping them were two. The first is that the redirect could be expanded with project tags to aid article alerts: except in the extremely unlikely case where a redirect would have project tags that are not found on its target, this is redudant as the article alerts already use the project tags on the target article. The second reason for keeping them is to ensure the integrity of watchlits and lists of contributions, but these follow the article that has been moved, so preserving a talk page redirect at the old title isn't necessary. Correct if I'm wrong or if I'm missing anything, but neither of these rationales for keeping stand up to scrutinty. I'd be happy to accept keeping talk page redirect remnants, but only if there is a reason for that. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Just because you disagree with the reasons to keep these redirects does not mean there is a consensus to delete them. Yes a few people have been routinely deleting them under the impression there was consensus, but now it has been discussed it is clear that that impression is incorrect. Previous deletions were in good faith, but that does not apply going forwards. In my view, explicit project tags are always better than inferred ones as they allow people view the redirect to see who to notify when they want to discuss the redirect, it allows users who cannot create pages to discuss the redirect, allows everyone to view the page history without needing to access, read and understand logs and it allows the possibility of redirects to have project banners that differ from those at the target (whether that is broader or narrower). Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply,

WP:HTCAP anyone who can edit a talk page can also create one. Allows everyone to view the page history without needing to access, read and understand logs – erm, after a move, the page history doesn't stay at the old title. Allows the possibility of redirects to have project banners that differ from those at the target – no-one objects to such talk pages being created and kept in these rare circumstances, but just because some redirects talk pages make sense doesn't mean that all redirect talk pages do. – Uanfala (talk)

22:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Several of those comments assume that everybody browses Wikipedia in the same way that you do, which is not true. For example after navigating to a redirect page, the talk page of that redirect is far more accesible than is the talk page of the target. Also, from the top of this page, It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. (emphasis in original). There is clearly no consensus that almost all of these pages should be deleted, therefore routine speedy deletion is inappropriate and speedy deletion under criterion G6 doubly so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• This proposal is far broader than the problem it purports to address. There are situations where you might want to use G6 on a talk page that don't involve moving another page to that title or suppressing a redirect following a page move. This proposal would ban them for no particular reason. Hut 8.5 11:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hut 8.5: Please give some examples so that we can see whether there is consensus for such deletions, and if there is reword this proposal so it does not encompass them. A vague wave is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I think you've got that backwards - it is the responsibility of people proposing policy changes to show that they are necessary. I think it should be fairly obvious that "uncontroversial maintenance" extends beyond page moves with regards to the talk namespace and that "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace" (one of the suggested use cases) applies to the talk namespace as any other. If you want to prevent people from using G6 in some situation then write a proposal forbidding use of G6 in that situation, rather than writing one which bans use of G6 in all other situations and adding as many exceptions as you can think of. Hut 8.5 07:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Hut 8.5, I agree with respect to the onus of proof, but it would still strengthen and clarify your argument if you could also give an example or two. The goal here is consensus, and that is aided when we understand exactly what your point is. And it seems a bit vague to me without any examples. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Here are some specific examples of recent deletions of pages in the article talk namespace which I think your proposal would forbid:
          • Talk:Drega
          • Talk:Lal Sena/GA1
          • Talk:Salomão (surname)
          • Talk:Elektronika MK-52
          • Talk:The Code (film)
          • Talk:Ill Slim Collin
          • Talk:Credibility gap
        • Not really covered in that list is the situation I described above in which a page is obviously created in the wrong namespace, which happens to be the talk namespace. Incidentally while compiling the above list I found an awful lot of examples of people deleting talk page redirects created by page moves using G6, which suggests to me that this proposal may not be a good idea (policy is meant to reflect practice). Hut 8.5 21:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! And to clarify, are these all pages that you think are better as redlinks? I note for example that Talk:Lal Sena/GA1 now has 37 broken incoming links (here are 17 of them). Or maybe it's better to discuss all these in #Another tack below. Very relevant either way, so again thank you. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That GA review page should definitely have been deleted. The incoming links are places that mention it as an article which has been nominated for GA but where the review hasn't started yet. The page was deleted because someone had created it with content that wasn't a GA review, so the blue link status falsely indicated that the review was in progress. The page is better as a redlink until someone actually starts the review properly, even with the incoming links. Hut 8.5 07:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, agree that this was uncontroversial, and therefore a valid G6. My proposal was not intended to cover such pages, and I'm not sure it does. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal was Talk pages of main namespace pages should only be deleted as G6 if the talk page is being temporarily deleted to allow a move over it. This is a page in the article talk namespace which was deleted as G6 for a reason other than a temporary deletion to allow a move. I suppose you could quibble over whether your proposal applies to talk subpages as well as talk pages but that doesn't apply to the other pages I mentioned (or many others I could have cited). I'm sure that you didn't intent to prohibit the deletion of these pages, but nevertheless that's what your proposal does. It will need to be redrafted. I'd suggest just saying "G6 cannot be used on talk pages in situation X" rather than "G6 can only be used on talk pages in situation Y". Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point... How about Deletion (or suppression) of talk pages of main namespace redirects is controversial, and not covered by G6 - if a hard redirect is inappropriate, it may be replaced by pointers to the relevant talk pages.? Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• If you read G6, it provides examples of uncontroversial maintenance. No where does it mention any specific examples of things that G6 isn't for. Nor should it. If something is controversial, G6 shouldn't be used, it's as easy as that. Therefore, I oppose any such additions of negative language into G6, and
  WP:CREEP is relevant here. -- Tavix ^(talk
  ) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree that If something is controversial, G6 shouldn't be used, it's as easy as that. Exactly. But doesn't that mean that, in hindsight at least, G6 does not cover the deletions I gave as examples (and many more)? That's all I want to address. Clarifying G6 was the best idea we could come up with at WP:AN. Other ideas welcome. Andrewa (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Simple: if a G6 action is objected to, it should be restored. Nothing needs to be clarified -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Isn't that a simple recipe for chaos? In that almost anything a user or admin can do can be reversed, we could similarly just delete all policies and guidelines. The ultimate solution to instruction creep! Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I do not care to indulge in fallacies and hypotheticals. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
          • I wasn't serious. But it seemed the best way to express the logical absurdity of your post. To put it positively, you've avoided the question. If there are actions that are regularly occurring, contrary to guidelines, and contrary to the best reader experience, then we should look at clarifying the guidelines. To plead instruction creep in such a case on the grounds that such actions are easily reversed is... I'm afraid I'm stuck for the right word here. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Another tack

We seem to be meandering a bit above.

Both the examples given above, Talk:Kremlin and Talk:David Williams (footballer), have been recreated, and there seems no move to delete them. I think the results are already better than a redlink. But some editors above have expressed the opinion above that redlinks are preferable.

I'd like to seek a consensus that, in these specific cases, the redlinks are not a good idea, but rather that there's something useful that should be there (whether that's what we have or something better I don't care).

If we can't get consensus on that, then I will withdraw my suggestion, and we can close this.

But if we can get consensus on that (as I hope) then that doesn't automatically mean we need to update anything. We can't cover every possibility (and if we could we'd just automate it and leave it to the bots). It's just a first step towards seeing whether we can improve G6, either by my suggestion or some other. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at

Moscow Kremlin. As the talk page has incoming links, it falls outside the scope of what I was talking about above. I don't know what is the optimal solution in this case. Retargeting to sync with the Kremlin would be inappropriate as the incoming links are all intended for Kremlin (fortification). Creating with just project tags would be utterly confusing. Deleting was probably the easiest sensible course of action because a pointer is left in the deletion log entry (seen by anyone clicking on the link) to the new target. The only circumstances where this could get problematic is if in future the talk page is created for some other reason and this pointer is lost. In light of this it does seem like Andrewa's action of creating the talk page with a plain sentence indicating the new target seems best, as that will stay on the talk page regardless of any future content. However, I'm not sure if it will be doable to ask people to follow this example. – Uanfala (talk)

18:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As to whether it's doable, why not? We admins do have some level of commonsense too. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So far the only answer to the question I asked in this section has been that, in the case of Talk:Kremlin, a redlink was not the best outcome. Uanfala, I hope that is not misquoting you?

Any other opinions on either of the two examples?

If not, we most certainly should have a look at the other examples very helpfully supplied by Hut 8.5 above. But I'd prefer we had agreement on those two first. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Kremlin, deletion, even if not ultimately the best option, was a very good option nevertheless. If G6 had been modified to explicitly exclude cases like this, then instead of deleting the page, the admin would have most likely kept is a redirect synced with the article – and that, as we saw, is a bad idea. I echo Andrewa's invocation of the need of common sense, but I think their proposal, even if refined, is more likely to put obstacles in the exercise of this common sense than to guide users towards it. If any change is necessary, then instead of a policy prohibition, I think it should rather be an addition to the documentation (in the instructions for moving articles?) so that editors are aware of the issues involved in cases like Kremlin. – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The mind boggles as to how something that was not ultimately the best option can still be a very good option. Let's see, we didn't want it deleted, but it was good to delete it? Huh? Sounds like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four to me.

I think that what you're getting at is that the admin made a reasonable decision in the circumstances. Exactly. And I'm seeking to change those circumstances so that admins can get it right first time around.

But changing the instructions for moving articles would do that, yes. Misapplication of G6 is the common problem, whether the redirect is suppressed or later deleted, but if we could get admins to fix the talk page redirect rather than suppressing it or leaving it pointing to the wrong place, then problem solved. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Second attempt

''Deletion (or suppression) of talk pages of main namespace redirects is controversial if the intent is to leave a long-term redlink, and so not covered by G6. If the talk page redirect created by a page move is inappropriate, it may be replaced by pointers to the relevant talk pages, rather than suppressing its creation.

This is in response to an example given above, of a talk page subpage which looked like a GA nomination but wasn't. The redlinks this created were entirely appropriate.

Better? I'm afraid it's longer, but can't see any way to shorten it. I think it's accurate! Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm still highly skeptical this is needed at all, no matter how you word it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Noted. But do you see the point that both the examples originally given (and many more like them it is I think generally agreed), while they were deleted in good faith and trying to follow the guidelines, were actually both controversial and better kept (and now have been)? Andrewa (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • That's frankly irrelevant. G6 doesn't need an exhaustive listing of everything that may be considered controversial. Let's not start now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Why is it irrelevant? Agree G6 doesn't need an exhaustive listing of everything that may be considered controversial. But in this case, the very issue of whether it's controversial is itself controversial. So guidance is needed. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
        • And I rather strongly disagree. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, the situation is not a big enough deal to start inserting prohibitions into G6. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Noted. So it not being a mountain is the reason that the examples are irrelevant, is that your thinking?
          • I'd still be interested in knowing whether you think the examples are controversial. If they are (as I believe), then the existing guideline is widely misinterpreted. That seems a big enough deal to me. But I respect there are other views. Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added the word so for clarity. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just insert something into the criterion along the lines of "Consensus has been reached that G6 should not be used in certain cases - a list of these consensuses can be found [[WP:List of rejected G6 applications|here]] Tazerdadog (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be perfect. My only agenda is to achieve a reasonable consistency in the way admins interpret G6 with respect to redirect suppression when mainspace pages are moved. There is patently no such consistency at present.

The only problem I see is, how do we assess this consensus? I fear that we may get too many no consensus outcomes to make it work, and even no consensus as to whether no consensus means keep or delete. But definitely worth a try. Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not see this as the "perfect" solution for what is otherwise an imperfect assertion, attesting, (imperfectly), that the controversial use of redirect suppression should be corrected by the focused preemption of talk page deletions within CSD G6.

If the problem arises from the occasional misuse of redirect suppression, it should be mitigated

John Cline (talk

) 13:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that a change to wp:page mover#Redirect suppression criteria could be used instead of a change to G6. But a change to G6 seems neater, as there's no problem with that guideline as it stands. The only problem is misinterpretation of G6, in that it is being applied to controversial deletions.

an imperfect assertion, attesting, (imperfectly), that the controversial use of redirect suppression should be corrected by the focused preemption of talk page deletions within CSD G6... I'm not completely sure what this means, but I get the impression that you oppose any change to G6 for any reason. Noted! And you're not the only one I also note.

nothing written gives the slightest hint of rise to any of its improper use... Agree. It's a long-standing problem. But it's certainly not occasional misuse of redirect suppression (my emphasis). It's quite common, as seems generally agreed, and otherwise I would just continue to fix the ones I find and leave the others for others to fix. It's common enough to be worth addressing. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that CSD G6 is susceptible to misinterpretation, and misapplication there born, (I have said as much). This susceptibility, however, is not the result of poorly written criterion, and attempts at mitigation by writing more or changing that which is not defective are already known, in such cases, to be folly.

I, most certainly, am not predisposed to resist change, (here or elsewhere), and did not mean to imply that I was. I simply lament seeing your good intentions and selfless effort squandered by misplacing them here where nothing can reasonably be gained. Nevertheless, I wish you the best and hope that you ultimately prevail, in the right place and time, as your complaints are not without merit.--

John Cline (talk

) 11:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I admit I'm puzzled that there is not more support for this. Let me ask all (both for and against any change) to look at this recent RM, which reads in part The article <<Unconditional (Harrison Craig song)>> should be the redirect page, or deleted (my emphasis).

This is not a talk page, so it's broadening the issue. It's just an example that came to my notice just now (for obvious reasons).

Now in closing that I would have liked to point out that there's no justification for deleting the redirect (or so I believe). This should be clear from policy and guidelines (I believe). But is it? Where? Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_not_deleting items 1-5. Siuenti (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically this category was re-created earlier today, despite being deleted at CfD a few days ago. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't think of a reason it wouldn't. I am guessing the question is whether to first delete or first empty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've emptied it and will tag it now for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the G criteria apply to all namespaces, unless specifically excluded (such as G1 and G2 for user space). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

A proposal that would create a new draft classifier template and extend

In regards to this comment, I propose that there be a template telling the deleting administrator of a CSD'ed page that there is some information left over from changing the "unspecified" template to a criteria template that might need to be checked before deletion. ToThAc (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Just reading your post above I really couldn't understand it at all. Looking at the talk page section you linked to, and then following that up by checking the history of your deleted edits, I got the impression that you mean that a template should warn administrators that someone such as you may have removed relevant content that another editor has put in a speedy deletion tag. If that is not what you mean then you really do need to explain more clearly, as that is the only interpretation I can think of. If, on the other hand, that is what you mean, then I disagree, for two reasons. (1) Administrators are already warned to do several things when they are about to delete a page, including checking the editing history of an article. Specifying each individual thing they could check for in the editing history is not only unnecessary, but also likely to be counter productive, because the longer and more complex instructions become the more likely it is that essential points will be missed. (2) Editors who persistently remove such content without good reason, even after being warned, should just be blocked, exactly like editors who persist in any other kind of disruptive editing. Letting them carry on doing it and posting messages letting people know that they may have done it is not the best way to deal with the problem. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't really make sense of it either, but it looks like you are asking us to change something because a user asked you to stop doing something unhelpful.

talk

) 20:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Presently one of the bullets at G6 states Deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)"

Per

I am involved with the RfD discussions, but I think even an uninvolved editor would agree that these situations no longer meet point 2 of the requirements for CSD criteria ("It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus." [emphasis in original]). Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't agree. I'd prefer to see the criteria updated to explicitly clarify that such redirects CAN be speedily deleted. There may be rare cases where an edit history can't be merged, but those should be exceptional, and likely should be moved to a sub page or to some other title. Prior to
  WP:INTDAB, such redirects would have had no reason for existing. Unless there is consensus that there is no meaningful difference between disambiguation pages and set indices or other list articles, keeping such redirects only compounds the confusion. older ≠ wiser
  14:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Those are arguments for RfD. I disagree with them but that's why this is not suitable for speedy deletion as "all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted" clearly does not uncontroversially apply here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The cases where deletion of these are legitimately (IMO) debatable are few and far between.
      WP:MOSDAB altogether and start over with a different conceptual basis, whatever that might be. older ≠ wiser
      20:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Again, I (and others in the other venues) disagree with you which is why speedy deletion is not appropriate - there is not consensus for their being deleted in every case they could be. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• I disagree as well, primarily per
  WP:SIANOTDAB. If it needs to be at RfD until the controversy subsides, so be it. -- Tavix ^(talk
  ) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Exactly my point. They're controversial so the CSD criteria should make is clear that they are excluded - this is about tightening the criteria not broadening it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • No it shouldn't, and I pretty strongly disagree that it's "tightening" anything. There's tons of things that G6 doesn't include, but note that none of them are explicitly included in that section. Start listing things the criterion doesn't include, and more will
      WP:CREEP in. If someone objects to a G6 deletion, it should be reversed and discussed at the proper forum. -- Tavix ^(talk
      ) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The problem with that is that they currently are mentioned as the
        second bullet point example of things that are covered. I would support removing the mention completely if you want to propose that, but I don't think that is necessary. Thryduulf (talk
        ) 21:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
        • No it's not. You're confusing disambiguation pages and redirects (see Uanfala's comment). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the current wording applies to redirects. After all, if it's a a disambiguation page that links to zero articles then it's, well, a page that links, rather than redirects, to an article. – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've not seen that interpretation before, but I can't say that I'm opposed to it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• There are two kinds of pages with " (disambiguation)" in their titles: redirects and dab pages. That bullet point at
  WP:G6 says nothing about redirects, so applies only to actual dab pages. — Gorthian (talk
  ) 02:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Um, by definition a redirect is not a disambiguation page. When we're talking about a type of page, the title is irrelevant (as long as we exclude namespace prefices), and when a speedy deletion criterion says that it applies to one sort of page, you mustn't speedy other types of pages under that criterion unless it's really an IAR situation. Uanfala's point should have been needless to say. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Db-disambig}} did not apply to redirects. — Gorthian (talk
      ) 05:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      • No, sorry; I guess I did the indents wrongly. I was responding to the idea at the top, not to you, since I could see that you understood it. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK it seems the consensus is that the bullet about "(disambiguation)" pages does not apply to redirects, but the AN discussion and linked RfD discussions make it clear that I'm not the only one who thought differently. Would anyone object therefore to a clarification note that "This does not apply to redirects"? Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I object. It's clear from the above discussion that this would be unnecessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree. I would prefer to clarify that these redirects are covered by either G6, or G8 (as a dependent). This would update the criteria to bring in line with
  WP:SIANOTDAB
  , and current wording in G6 about not creating them. Proposal as worded conflates redirects and dab pages. but as I'm the original editor who G6&G8ed them:

1. dab pages: G6 {{
   Db-disambig
   }} of dab pages. Nobody is claiming it applies. There's nothing to be fixed. However, G6 does state "If it links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), simply change it to a redirect." It explicitly excludes creating redirects of the type in this proposal
2. redirects: This is currently being discussed at RfD. I'm not in favour of conflating lists and dabs. Isn't this the wrong venue for discussing whether to treat lists and dabs as equal in some regard when we have
   WP:SIANOTDAB? Widefox; talk
   02:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion the criterion fails to acknowledge that red linked titles can properly appear on a disambiguation page per
  John Cline (talk
  ) 05:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think this change is needed, because it clearly applies to DABs and not to the redirects to SIAs/Lists in question. People were just deleting them as uncontroversial housekeeping, not this specific clause. Since controversy has arisen, these should go to RfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Worth noting that the controversy is based on extending a search hack from dabs to SIAs. Widefox; talk 11:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  From Hack: Hack (computer science), an inelegant but effective solution to a computing problem. Not all "hacks" are bad, and in this case it's helpful since most SIAs are just DABs by another name. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  My point being that I've proven it isn't "effective" on dabs. So yes, it is a bad hack. One can't recommend or rely on it with dabs. If it was important surely getting it working on dabs would be a priority? What's the point in attempting to hold on to the hack by extending it to a minority of SIAs when it doesn't work on many dabs already, and doesn't work on the vast majority of SIAs? Saying that, I'm no fan of SIAs, so would welcome a revisit of the fundamentals. Widefox; talk 01:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support proposal, given Widefox's claim that G6 explicitly allows these deletions. [4]---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  Db-disambig}}" does not apply to a redirect, nobody has ever claimed it does. Widefox; talk

  01:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  That was said in the context of you applying G6 to delete those redirects in the past, and arguing that such redirects should be deleted. "G6 excludes creating them" is equivalent to "G6 bars their creation", and since G6 is a CSD, it's reasonable to interpret that as saying that G6 is a valid deletion criterion to be used on these redirects. Not sure there's another way to interpret what you said in that context. Maybe your word choice was poor and you meant to say something like "G6 does not have a clause regarding the deletion of these redirects"? Would be happy to strike if that's what you meant. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  So we agree I didn't say G6 explicitly allows these deletions. It's a straw man.

  My word choice was exactly what G6 says. We shouldn't base policy on an unreliable hack (maybe if a bot did create them all, this would be a plausible expectation, but we still shouldn't base policy on maintaining a broken hack), but I agree there's some clarity needed about SIAs and dabs, which I welcome and may solve most of these anyhow. Widefox; talk 20:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  There's no functional difference between saying that "these pages should not be created per G6" and "G6 allows the deletion of these pages", just like there's no difference between saying "biographies which don't make a credible claim of significance should not be crated by A7" and "A7 allows the deletion of biographies without a credible claim of significance." Not these redirects pointing to SIA all SIA pages is not more a reason for deleting them then an argument that our DAB pages are imperfect, so we should delete all DAB pages because DABs are "broken". There's no reason why a bot like User:RussBot, which created a lot of the (disambiguation) redirects that are now being deleted, could not create similar redirects for SIAs with a bit of tweaking. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That should be taken up at disambiguation. I support having a bot create all the dab redirects. Having redirects targeting SIAs is controvercial, and should be taken up separately - there's discussion here Wikipedia talk:Set index articles about fixing the definition of SIAs which is the underlying issue here. Widefox; talk

  10:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here. There's no such thing as "implicitly" allowed CSD deletions. It's either in as an uncontroversial, enumerated CSD criterion, or it's out and should go to a PROD/XFD process. By applying G6 to these redirects for years and then saying that "G6 excludes creating them", you either don't/didn't know what is allowed under G6 or you don't/didn't understand how CSD works. Arguing that G6 is "implicit" about allowing these redirects makes no sense, is demonstrably untrue given the backlash that that position is facing, and demonstrates the need for this proposal. Adding one line to the G6 criteria should be okay; most of the CSD criteria explicitly list out exceptions.

  I'm also not sure how this goes against

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic for "X (disambiguation)" is obviously the page which disambiguates between different articles named/related to X, which in some cases will be SIAs. This isn't about disambiguation, it's about the use of redirects for navigation. Even if the discussion leads to SIAs which are functionally DABs being converted to DABs, it still leaves out borderline cases (e.g. lists, broad concepts, SIAs with more content). Also, until the issue is resolved though, the use of "X (disambiguation)" redirects would both help readers and help tag intentional links in article text.--- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}

  18:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  As nobody is claiming "explicitly" (or {{

  WP:SIA so SIAs clearly need some broader consensus. Widefox; talk

  00:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: G6 is applied far too often as a "none of the others fit" criterion. This is not its purpose. If the specific situation is not explicitly covered by one of the existing CSD criteria, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• I reluctantly support the initial proposal. I'm reluctant because I think the net effect will be to create a lot of busy work at RfD, but deletion of these types of redirects is plainly no longer uncontroversial. See also my discussion questioning the point of SIAs. --BDD (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  I would welcome looking at the wider picture. Questioning SIAs as you've done there, or subjecting the keep reasoning to wider scrutiny given that it clearly goes against the "creation" in G6, and the old consensus of direction (SIAs and dabs diverging) we've been going until now. That a couple have been contested is a fact, the reasons given are based on treating SIAs and dabs in some way the same, which I believe should have more wider consensus, especially as the reasoning given go against

  WP:D ("..reasonably likely topic name..") and is a hack that is provably broken generally for dabs (as they don't all have such redirects today), so little utility in considering it useful to preserve (not delete) them to SIAs. The reasoning is an argument for more than not deleting, to make the hack work, it would need them creating both for all dabs and all SIAs, which G6 says not to create. I don't think we should base policy on a hack.Widefox; talk

  01:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  Db-disambig}} which nobody claims applies to redirects. Widefox; talk

  08:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I logged in to help out with a page that someone new to wiki was creating for a figure that I know is of note, at least within relevant domains, but checking in within a week of its creation, I found that the page had been subject to speedy deletion. There are a great many wikipedia contributors who do not spend their lives logged into WP and thus will not respond to notices that require immediate action. And telling people to go through the process of tracking down the person who deleted it to get their content back is, to put it mildly, obnoxious. I wonder how much content that would be legitimately useful to fill in various niches within wikipedia has been deleted for the bizarre reason that the editor was unfamiliar with the subject (which I think many people would consider a sign that the editor might be the wrong person to alter the page at all rather than that the editor should permanently remove the material). MikeNM (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) MikeNM (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:REFUND if you know the name of the page, but not who deleted it. Some people also ask me directly on my talk page. But it does not garantee the page will be back. Another option is to get the page up as a draft, then there is more time to get it into shape before it gets tagged for deletion. For tagging for A9 deletions, I ask that the patroller waits 30 minutes before applying the tag, to give the writer a chance to include a claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk

) 14:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To add to this, the policy already says Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. That some admins are too careless when applying policy is a known fact but not one that can be changed by changing the policy itself. Regards SoWhy 14:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with that, but would also add that A9 is a remarkably easy criterion to avoid. The entire article could be "<song name> is a song by <any bluelinked artist>", or "<song name> is a popular song in <literaly anywhere>" and it would be out of the woods. Since all we've got here is a vague example that was deleted "within a week of it's creation" which doesn't seem particularly hasty, I'm not sure a real issue has been identified here.

talk

) 00:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that the proposal at

Update: the File PROD proposal has passed. The criteria on files should be reviewed, including F5 (orphaned image) and F7 (invalid fair-use claim). --George Ho (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Another update: The File PROD-ding is implemented into the

The only change here is adding the phrase about software being covered. I would like to see this, as when patrolling and looking at new pages, software is increasingly likely to come up as a topic which makes no credible claim of significance - an example is Underwater (course). This would mean that these articles can be more easily deleted, bringing them in line with organisations and web content; I can see no reason that makes software special, an article has to provide a credible claim.

It is important to note that credible claim is a fairly high bar to deletion, so any questionable topics are still sent down the usual channels, this just means that the clear-cut cases can be deleted. I would like to gather thoughts and improvements here before I take this to a full blown RfC. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think the most recent discussion of this (or a subset) was in 2014, with substantial opposition, archived at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_54#Proposal:_Include_mobile_apps_without_assertion_of_importance_in_A7. AllyD (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think my comments in 2014 are the same now - the best counter-argument would be lots of recent AfDs for software where the consensus was basically "what a waste of time - snow delete already" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I should point out that much software these days (especially downloadable software) are already A7d as web content. They shouldn't be, but nevertheless, they are. Adam9007 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly - and I think its time to clarify the policy. It is interesting to note that most of the support !votes from 2014 came with the condition that the proposal be expanded to all software. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 19:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:WEB said that anything distributed primarily or solely on the web is web content (that would include mobile apps and probably most other downloadable software). However, that was changed after an RfC. Adam9007 (talk

) 21:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I have looked at the speedy deletion example you give, and I agree that it seems to have been invalid. I have posted to the deleting administrator's talk page about it. Please note, though, that I did not deny that there are times when administrators wrongly use A7 for software, just that it does not, in my experience, happen very often. I see that I actually said "very rarely" which I now think was an overstatement: perhaps "not very often" would have been better. You say that "until recently, such subjects did indeed come under web content", but what you link to regards guidelines for notability, which is a completely different matter from the policy on speedy deletion. The relevant quote is "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline" (my emphasis), and it would be a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works to cite that as justification for making the same interpretation of the speedy deletion policy.

For what it's worth, my impression is that on those occasions when administrators do delete software articles under criterion A7, it quite often, perhaps usually, relates to cases the article does not make it clear exactly what is being referred to, and anyone with little knowledge of software related matters could think it relates to content which runs on the web, rather than on a computer or other hardware. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:INHERITORG (a notability guideline), and Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability (anther notability guideline) apply to significance and A7 too, so misunderstandings are not exactly uncommon. For what it's worth, I have written an essay addressing them, including the misconception that downloadable software is web content. Adam9007 (talk

) 21:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater (course)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PACE Suite
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World 8-4
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3DimViewer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXMACT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagikCow (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm always skeptical of expanding A7 and including software is imho a bad idea for two reasons: 1) It will open a
  WP:ATD-M) no policy-based reason to delete an article about a software that is made by a notable entity. Regards SoWhy
  18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of any specific significance guidelines for the topics included in A7 - please do correct me if I am wrong. I think that whilst being slightly subjective for all of the topics covered by A7, software is little different to the others already covered by A7. An article of no significance tends to just describe what exists or simply state the product exists. Claiming significance includes awards and recognition of the existence of the product. I also don't feel that a lack of a significant notability guideline for software is a major issue. All articles follow the

WP:GNG - sources must be non-promotional, secondary and independent. These can usually be assessed by a new page reviewer - now we have the user group with certain requirements to join we can assume a degree of competence. However, I think that if we are talking about sourcing issues in an article, it is likely a significant claim has been made, even a company's website tends to give awards if applicable. Furthermore, sources != significance. I feel that a new page review can easily tell whether a claim would cause an article to be notable, rather than purely descriptive. I can't see any difference between the software inclusion and the web page inclusion, Best TheMagikCow (T) (C

) 19:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no significance guidelines; what does and does not constitute a credible claim of significance or importance has been the topic of many many many discussions on this talk page and elsewhere. I tried to collect some consensus at

WP:CCSI

but it's still mainly a collection of how many admins handle things. But, as I said above and others have said much more eloquently in the past, there are many articles about the subjects covered by A7 created every day, far too many for AFD or PROD to handle. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there is a widespread problem of such articles being created about software. On the contrary, as I pointed out above, oftentimes such articles can be handled differently by existing processes. Your proposal imho fails all requirements for new or expanded criteria:

1. It's not objective, as this discussion proves there is no agreement which software articles should be covered.
2. Many pages covered by the proposed expanded A7 should not be deleted per
   WP:NPRODUCT
3. There is no evidence this is a problem that PROD and AFD can't handle it
4. WP:ATD
   covers many non-spammy articles and G11 covers the spammy ones, reducing the need per #3 as well.

So I understand where you are coming from but the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. Regards SoWhy 20:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose As I said earlier, software articles often cause problems at AfD, because they can be very difficult to judge except wen in one's own specific field. Let me ask--what exactly would be a statement of importance or significance for software? as contrasted to an article that did not assert any? We're rushing ahead to do something to remove what we can't define -- that's the opposite of the intent of speedy. If it seems really clear, Prod can be used, because if someone later notices it, the article can be restored easily. If downloadable software is being deleted as A7, it shouldn't be, and admins may need to be reminded--or if necessary, the matter taken to Deletion Review. (For many other types of products, G11 is a usable speedy criterion, but software articles are generally not blatantly promotional, just descriptive. ) The only type of product that is really safe to speedy for lack of importance in A9, musical recordings, when the criterion is very straightforward. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It is content based, on a claim that would cause source to be written about the article and therefore the article would be notable if the fact/claim is shown to be true. EG:

XXY is a software product developed by YXX studios. It was released in 2012. It features

3D CAD

and other product modelling tools.

Would not be significant - it is purley desciptive.

XXY is a software product developed by YXX studios. It was released in 2012. It features

3D CAD

and other product modelling tools, and has won ZZZ award.

Could be significant due to the award being given. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Also,

...Is the one of the largest and most widely used CAD programs

Is a claim of signficance, as is this were true, sources are likley to exist. I can't see how judging this is any different to judging that of a website or company. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly it is often possible to show very easily that a software product has a caim to significance; what is much harder is showing that it does not--there is too much of a fuzzy area. The problem is that if someone write a very brief software article it may or may not be a notable produce. We do not want to speedy delete articles that do not on the face of it have a claim of significance if they are actually notable--this is supposed to be a much less demanding criterion. With a company article of even one sentence long it is often possible to show there is no possible reason for an article in an encyclopedia.. e.g. "Smith's is a corner grocery." Yes, it might conceivably be notable, but the odds are infinitesimal. Similarly with "John is president of the senior class at Uptown High School". DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose At one time I used to think that A7 should be extended to software, and certainly it is occasionally frustrating that an article on software which is blatantly obviously not notable or significant can't be speedily deleted. However, I have gradually come to realise that the frequency with which that happens is tiny compared to the frequency with which A7 is justifiably used on other types of articles, and speedy deletion should be reserved for those situation where requiring every case to go to a discussion would cause significant disruption, which is not so here. Add to that
  talk
  ) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall there used to be a a subrule to F4 which stated that non-free files with no source could be deleted after being tagged for two days. The documentation of {{di-no source}} states this functionality. When was this removed? – Train2104 (t • c) 11:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It was never in F4. This is what

Cryptic

14:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for digging it up. It seems like a good idea to start a discussion as to which is preferable, as having the policy not match the template is not a good idea. In addition, the pre-dating hack doesn't really work well with the daily maintenance category system, I had to recreate an old category today. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have updated {{Wikipedia files with unknown source subcategory starter}} to include a note as to not to delete emptycats until 5 days have passed so we hopefully have fewer "lost" DI's. Pinging @Fastily and Explicit: admins who normally do these deletions. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104 : I'm not sure that's 100% necessary. I have a script that finds and fixes 'lost' DI's (resulting from MediaWiki cache issues or malformed tags). Would you consider undoing that change? I will be filing a BRFA to do this automatically. Regards, FASTILY 20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. That said, though a script is a good idea for such rescue, I'm not sure if we should be deliberately leaving a properly made nomination to be picked up by the cleanup script. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take a moment to comment at Template talk:Db-meta#DeletionDiscussionLink did not work. --Izno (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems strange that U1 isn't on the list. What if a personal user page was kept at MfD, but the user later decides he no longer wants it? Must he MfD it again? Adam9007 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have boldly added U1 to that list. I don't see why a user should not retain that latitude within his userspace just because a pre-existing discussion decided to keep it. Anyone should feel unusually free to revert that addition if it is controversial. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree, if a U1 were brought to MfD, even if it has been nominated by others for MfD in the past, it would generally be then speedy deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Several times I have declined a speedy deletion request because somebody has used {{

		label: 'T2: Templates that are blatant misrepresentations of established policy',
		value: 'policy',
		tooltip: 'This includes "speedy deletion" templates for issues that are not speedy deletion criteria and disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles'

@JackPotte: I would suggest adding the line

-- {{db-author}}

which by analogy with JavaScript pages, should put the page into

db-author}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 11:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@

db-author}} yourself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions

) 12:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you that's another solution which forces the admins to think about deleting the uncategorized module doc after. JackPotte (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I recently marked Talk:Koinonia/Temp as speedy G7, but G7 is not the real reason.

The real reason is: "Delete a temp page which is no longer needed, which was originally created per instructions at

In that case deleting the temp file is under G6 - Housekeeping, we don't need another separate criterion for this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, I'll change the code on the file, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice: There is currently a RfC at

Also, I'm concerned about the following: Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately. An invalid licensing can be resolved by changing the licensing, right?

Also, the following passage is challenged: "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately." I tried {{

Considering whether any image fits the "invalid fair use" criterion, I wonder whether "invalid fair use" claim is resolvable by improving the image description, e.g. fair use rationale. --George Ho (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the Reuters image of Emma Morano , did you ask the decliner why it was declined? Using Twinkle for F7 on commercial images provides space for an optional explanation. I've always used that space to identify the press agency. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow, the swapping was reverted by someone else. --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And the image is speedily deleted. George Ho (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@

I don't understand what you are asking. Can you clarify? -- Whpq (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll rephrase,

subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added." Is that clause necessary anymore, now that PROD recently applies to files? PROD-ded files can be deleted seven days after; same for those tagged with "di-disputed fair use rationale". George Ho (talk

) 01:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd just treat this as two different deletion reasons that happen to have the same waiting period. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Whpq: I still don't see a difference between two templates indicating the same waiting period. However, I guess you and I would agree to disagree about the clause. Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale is transcluded in 25 pages], while Template:Proposed deletion/dated files is transcluded in 159 pages (was 300+ several days ago). Huge number, eh? Also, File:Take-That-Love-Love-X-Men-First-Class-music-video.jpg is tagged with the former template instead of the latter, but the concern is too complicated for the former. Same for File:QuantumLeap10Cover.JPG. Response? George Ho (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I found the {{

di-disputed fair use rationale}} to be somewhat misused, so I shifted some to FFD: [7],[8],[9]. I wonder whether the template is misused in other pages. George Ho (talk

) 18:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you've feel the template being misused George Ho is , at least at this point, only your opinion, and not (in my opinion) a sufficient reason to go around mass converting files tagged with "di-disputed fair use rationale" to prod templates. If you feel further discussion is warranted, then moving the discussion to FFD seems fine; however, if the "di-dfu" template is to be deprecated, then that's something the community should decide to do, not you. I suggest you stop the conversions to file prod for the time being until this can be clarified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All right, Marchjuly. I'll refrain from converting the template to PROD, okay? I'll convert only some to FFD if I want to. --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)