Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:34, 6 February 2006 editDeathphoenix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,544 edits →Speedy deletion criteria for userboxes: Jimbo has the power← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:34, 7 January 2025 edit undoTule-hog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,597 edits →Subpages of talk pages: rm my redundant re 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}__NOINDEX__
{{shortcut|]<br>]}}
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 90
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{talk header|WT:CSD|search=yes}}
{{Copied
|from = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria
|from_oldid = 584487717
|to = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
|to_diff = 584576665
|to_oldid = 584575352
|date = 20:38, 4 December 2013
|small =
}}{{Copied
| from = Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
| from_oldid = 749905429
| to = Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy
| to_diff = 749906249
| date = 16 November 2016
}}
{{hatnote|See also ] for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.}}


== Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not? ==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|]<br>]
----
|-
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
*
*
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


It isn't very rare to see salted pages being recreated at variants of their original title, for instance ] today (as ] is fully protected from recreation). In these cases, I've seen G4 be used, although it might not necessarily fit if the content isn't the same as the deleted one. Does G4 still apply, should it be expanded/another criterion added, or is that something that shouldn't be in the purview of CSD? ] (] · ]) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
;Oft referenced pages
:G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. ''']''' (]) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
* ] (])
::Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. ] (] · ]) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
* ] (])
::: ] ] ] 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
* ] (])
::::Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! ] (] · ]) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
* ] (July 2005 proposal to expand WP:CSD)
:: {{ec}} I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to ], but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. ] ] 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
* ] (Summary of suggested changes as of November 2005)
: I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are ], but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. ] ] 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
----
::The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.{{pb}}In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). ] (] · ]) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. ''']''' (]) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
::::True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to {{tq|sufficiently identical copies}}, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. ] (] · ]) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{tl|salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. ''']''' (]) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::As far as I can tell, {{tl|salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. ] (]) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? ] (] · ]) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance . Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance ]. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of ] at {{param|1}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under ] or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay ]. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like ] before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. ''']''' (]) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at ] saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption ''there''. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —] 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The issue is that normal ] requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like ] or ], to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: And, of course, ]. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. ] ] 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::To clean up old SALTing, <u>where there’s any doubt</u> you should go to ]. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.
::::::::::Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. ] (]) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. ] (]) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by ]. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with {{-r|Willy on Wheels}}, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). ] and ] might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{]}} based on your wording (and the design of {{tl|Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) ] (] · ]) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Adding the "possible salt evasion" template ===
== G10? ==
Following the above discussion, I have made a prototype for a template alerting administrators of possible salt evasion, which is currently at {{]}}. What do we think about moving this to templatespace, with a corresponding tracking category, and adding a bullet point to ] mentioning its existence? ] (] · ]) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's redundant to {{tl|salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —] 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not really, {{tl|salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{tl|salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). ] (] · ]) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== RFC on interpretation of G11 ==
Could we make a G10 - advertising? --]]]]] 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:The problem is that often an advertisign page can be NPOV'd into a decent article, if the company/product is notable. ] ] 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
::True, but there arent nearly enough people willing to invest time making these kind of articles good. Plus to NPOV one of these you essentially have to re-write it completely, hence the original content is worthless and should be deleted. Consider also that I just trawled the last datadump, and found there are ~15,000 articles with less than one link, no tags and no bold text, in other words there are ~15,000 totally unwikified and untouched articles, a good portion of which are spammy crap, but just not speediable. We ''really'' dont need any more of this. ] 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:DES is unrealistically optimistic, I'd agree - but the real problem here is that it makes admins make subjective judgements - and we are janitors not judges :\. <small>] <sup><font color="#6BA800">]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">]</font></sup></small> 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:::(''after Edit Conflict'') I have edited several pages ther were obvious ads when submitted into reasonaple NPOV stubs while on new-page patrol, so i think I know whereof I speak. This can't be done with every ad page -- far from it. But enough that a speedy criterion is a bad idea IMO. I also agree with Martin, CSD's ashould be very clear-cut, bright-line sorts of rules. ] ] 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
::Maybe we could adopt a tag n' bag policy (a phrase I stole from David I believe) on this kind of stuff then, whereby admins can only delete this when it is tagged as such by someone else. In other words it would mean 2 pairs of eyes see each deletion. ] 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*However, considering that most advertising is for small-time business and/or linkspam for websites, we could expand A7 (once more) to deal with companies and websites that fail to assert notability. The average city's greengrocer is not notable, and neither is the average geocities subpage. ]]] 22:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
**True, but again, thsi soemtimes needs research. One of the first articels i ever nomited for deltion was what I thought was a non-notable retail company. It turnd out they were huge in their niche. If it needs much research, it probably shouldn't be a CSD. ] ] 22:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
***Yes. Especially for real-life companies this is likely not a good idea (especially since such pages and deletions are relatively rare). There may be a point in some kind of speedy deletion for websites, though; we do get a lot of linkspam, and articles on minor blogs, forums and such. ]]] 23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
* I am also inclined to oppose this proposal. We've had ''many'' articles nominated for deletion as advertising which were not ultimately deleted. I don't see a bright line that would be so obvious that it could be fairly and consistently applied by every admin. These should continue to go through the AFD process. ] <small>]</small> 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
* Not only is it highly subjective which advertisement articles can be saved, but I see no evidence that these are a significant load on AfD. ] 03:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


See ]. ] ] 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== R2 clarification ==
:I think you ought to sign your proposal.--] (]) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and ] says "''Sign the statement with either ] (name, time and date) or ] (just the time and date). ] ] 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at ]? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--] (]) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
Does CSD-R2 (redirections to userspace) apply to shortcuts? eg. see: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. These sorts of things may tend to be more or less vanity links, though I know that some of them (], ]) were created by independent users in good faith. In my opinion, they shouldn't all be obvious deletes. --] 19:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
*To my knowledge, for practical purposes, ] links are considered part of Misplaced Pages namespace (even though technically they're not). I have never seen a ] link before, but I'd consider them part of userspace. Links from Wikispace to Userspace are not speedies, but are fair game for ]. ]]] 19:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
* Because these redirects are not in the article namespace, they are not eligible. I do not make a judgement on whether they should be, but that's the letter of the rule. ] 19:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::As Radiant! said, they technically are in the main namespace (they show up in various Special: pages when you filter them by the main namespace, they appear in the database as namespace=0), but policy-wise are treated as effectively not in the mainspace.
::So if ] counts as a shortcut, might things like ] and ] be considered borderline shortcuts and thus should go to RFD instead of being speedied? Or should they be speedied because they're not WP<tt>:</tt>, U<tt>:</tt>, T<tt>:</tt>, C<tt>:</tt>, H<tt>:</tt>, or P<tt>:</tt>?
::Similarly, even though things like ] and ] are in the mainspace, should they be considered to be effectively the same as &#123;{]}}, and thus should be left alone? (DG added his with the comment that it was intending to prevent creation of that page, and Zscout370 was created after it was vandalized by WOW)
::(sorry for the weird questions... I originally thought that the CSD-R2 rule was relatively straightfoward, and that an would be an effective way to do some cleanup) --] 21:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::*All those other things you mention are redirects (or shortcuts, there's no real difference) from mainspace to userspace, which qualifies them for speedy. The only reason why "WP:" is considered "Misplaced Pages:" namespace is because most anybody assumes it's just an abbreviated name, and that's what the ton of shortcuts are based on. Actually I don't think we should have shortcuts for templates, categories or userpages, and have some doubts about help and portal pages, and would recommend RFD'ing the (relatively small) lot of those. David's shortcut is actually made by Stevertigo, and qualifies as a user test. Zscout's page was created once, which hardly warrants a {{tl|deletedpage}}. ]]] 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*There's currently 32 U: T: C: H: P: shortcuts, and 39 WT: shortcuts. They're all listed because I don't quite understand the issues enough to bring it up in ] myself. The obvious userspace CSD-R2 ones though I can do, I'll put that on my todo list. --] 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*Okay, I'll throw them in. WT is short for Wikipedia_Talk, though, those are well-established. ]]] 22:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


== ] and people who have gamed the extended-confirmed restriction ==
== Another expansion of A7 ==


If someone games the extended-confirmed restriction (and is found to have done so at ] or ]), are pages they created during the window after they reached 30/500 edits but before they were determined to have gamed the restriction G5-able? This specific case seems to have come up ]; the editor created the now-draftified ]. My opinion is that it obviously should be G5able (otherwise we're rewarding gaming the restrictions); if someone is found to have gamed the restrictions then, by definition, all their edits in that topic area were in violation of the relevant general sanction, even if we didn't know it at the time. --] (]) 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed we get ''a lot'' of AfDs for non-notable websites, could we expand A7 slightly to explicitly include ''Websites'' that do not have a claim to notability per WP:WEB. At the moment they have to go through AfD, which, IMO, is nonsense. What do people think? ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
:Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not. ] has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned). ] (]) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way. ''']''' (]) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13. ''']''' (]) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Subpages of talk pages ==
:I agree: A7 should be expanded to websites. We have criteria for notability (]), <s>so it's easy to determine which sites are/aren't notable.</s><sup>1</sup> There's no need to make all those websites go through AfD. I would also support an expansion to companies, since we have ], but this would be a bit more difficult. ] 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::<sup>1</sup>Why can't I ever explain myself clearly? That sentence doesn't belong there :(


I am looking to nominate the unused discussion page ] for deletion, but I can't find a suitable speedy reason, and {{tlx|prod}} warns me I should only use the template on articles.
I oppose this, as what qualifies for notability on web sites is highly debated, and unclear. Please take a look at the record when people cite ]. Also, A7 focuses on the *claim*, not whether it meets a criteria. If you're suggesting we should speedy delete things for failure to meet ] or ], then you're talking about an entirely new speedy category. Note,that we *dont'* speedy things for failure to meet ], and never have. We speedy articles on persons with no *claim* of notability. Any claim, even a claim that doesn't meet ] or ] is sufficient. For instance, a person with just one album on a major record label may fail ] and ] but is not an A7. Also, it seems the typical web site article actually does make a claim of notability, but the problem is determining if it is verifiable, which is something that needs investigation, and is subject to debate. --] 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:We also need to keep in mind that these different WP sections are guidelines, not policy. The weaknesses of many of these, such as ] and ] mean that any expansion of A7 causes these flawed guidelines to be taken as policy, even though they aren't. Better to send possibly non-notable websites (and groups, but I missed out on that discussion) to a place to get them cleaned up and better established than allowing for the fast deletion before people may notice it. --] <small>(])</small> 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I also oppose this. The sort of checking required to see if an article meets ] or ] automatically discounts it from a speedy delete, IMO. --]]]] 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


What's the right course here? ] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Obviously, I ''have'' read WP:WEB, and it seems quite clear to me.<sup>2</sup> I'm not saying that we shouldn't focus on the claim: in fact I think we should keep this new criterion inside A7. I perfectly understand the concept of "claim" of notability, and I never speedied anything for failure to meet WP:BIO. Not all articles about websites '''claim''' notability, exactly as not all biographies claim notability, and it's the same for bands, ''and'' for companies. I found an article some time ago that said "xxx" is a small web design company with 6 employees, and provided a link to its website. That article made no '''claims''' of notability, but I couldn't delete it. This is exactly what I'm talking about, and I would like to know if/why you don't agree with this. ] 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:<sup>2</sup>Note that this refers to "Please take a look at the record when people cite ]" above, and it isn't related with the following sentences.
::Reply: What you find to be typical, I find to be exceptional. I see most web sites in AFD making some claim. In fact the worst potential web site articles, tend to make the biggest and most bogus of claims. While, before the last A7 expansion, the typical band AFD involved bands making no claims whatsoever. If you see what I don't, I don't know what to say to you. We shouldn't constantly make new rules, because of the odd inconvenience. Also, note that before the expansion to include {{tl|nn-band}} there was a long, long, stable pattern of deletion of nn-bands, that rarely were contested. Web sites are an area of much less agreement. A7 is all about stopping those who never tried to pretend they were notable, but just don't know we required notability. Many people make band aricles here, in good faith, hoping to "get a break". Most don't lie, or pretend they're internationally famous, if they're not. But web sites do regularly do exactly that. Its the bragging web sites that are the problem. The modest web sites, aren't, and a few AFDs for them, is no big deal. --] 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


:]. ] (]) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I never said it is typical, but it happens sometimes. And I see no inconvenience in making this small change to A7. See my proposal below. I understand that this wouldn't solve the main problem (spam), but this can't be solved without: a total rewrite of A7, with clear guidelines for notability, and I don't like this idea (and many other editors oppose it, by the way) '''or''' a G10 for advertising, and this is discussed above. ] 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::It's a redirect - should go to ]. Not sure why it needs to be deleted, though... ] (]) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose full stop. During the discussion to get ] up to guideline status consensus formed around the position that the guidelines should '''in no way''' form the basis for a speedy deletion criterion. ] ] 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC) :::@] it wasn't a redirect at the time they asked this question. See ]. ] (]) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Even if I didn't explain myself clearly, my last paragraph makes it clear that I don't think the guidelines should form the basis for anything. In fact I'm proposing to extend A7 to ''anything'' that doesn't assert notability, or at least to some more categories: websites and companies. No guidelines involved. ] 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::I apologise, we edit conflicted and my comment is in response to the proposal from ] and is not directed at you. ] ] 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a legitimate proposal, as many websites hit AfD on a regular basis, but to make it into CfD it would need to be strictly limited to a set of conditions that will almost never result in a false positive. I can't imagine any such conditions at the moment, but something to think about. ] 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my current proposal for A7:
:<s>''Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, '''company''', band, club or '''website''' that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.''</s> I withdraw this proposal.

Obviously this wouldn't make a big difference since most new articles about websites and companies are advertising, but it could be useful in a small number of cases and it would do no harm. ] 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:I tend to oppose this. almost all articels about websites, even those that are fairly obvious vanity or spam, include soemthing that is at elast arguably a claim of notability, so if we are going to follow the A& "no claim" rule at all strictly, this woudl not be of much use. And if ther is any attempt to speedy articels about websites on the grounds that they are not '''in fact''' notabel, we instatly run into the problems of verification -- this is not IMO the kind of bright-line procedure where speedy deletion is generally appropriate. ] ] 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:I oppose too. This criterion seems to be expanding at a noticable rate. Let's either limit it to people or expand it all the way out to any article which does not assert notability. Most articles make some assertion of notability, and I'd rather we placed the burden on afd than on drv. ] ] 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Then what about this:
:<s>''Unremarkable subjects. An article that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.''</s> I withdraw this proposal.
I don't understand why this should be limited to people. Any article that doesn't '''claim''' notability should be speedily deleted. ] 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:: I oppose. Sorry, I've always opposed this criterion, I believe determining an assertion of notability is something too subjective to be left to individual admins. That said, I would rather this proposal were adopted than a different one which targeted specific categories of articles besides people. My problem is that some people will speedy an article which reads blah blah are a football club, whilst others will expand it so it reads blah blah are a football club. They have won the European Cup, there National League twice and their leading scorer is currently Captain of his national team. Or blah blah are a football club notable for having beaten Very Notable Team 1-0 in a cup competition in 1927. I guess I just expect that if we're improving Misplaced Pages we're attempting to add, not remove, wherever possible, within the boundaries of verifiability, NPOV and NOR, obviously. I feel this criterion is subjective, and as such is inappropriately used at times and that any expansion thus expands the scope of such subjective use, to the possible detriment of the project. ] ] 22:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I may seem incoherent, but I agree with you. I don't like A7 and this is why I think it should rewritten. In its current form I find it unuseful and problematic. It gives too much power and too much responsibility to sysops. An article may claim notability and be not-notable, and another article may not contain any claim and be way more notable. While I have proposed an extension of A7 to ''anything'', I would equally support a deletion of A7 if it can't be changed and made better. In fact, I have currently decided to abstain from any judgements based solely on A7, since I find it too difficult to decide what a claim of notability is. Example:
::::''John Doe is very notable in his neighborhood.''
:::This is a claim of notability, but ''what kind'' of notability? A sysop is forced to decide if John Doe is notable. ] 07:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some middle ground is needed. Maybe we're even looking at it the wrong way here, perhaps we should expand CSD A3 (which provides for deletion of articles with no content other than a link)? In practice a lot of this kind of stuff is speedy deleted already... there are new pages added all the time with nothing but a few unformatted sentences about some "up and coming" forum and a link to it. When this kind of stuff does go to AfD, it's the typical case where the only support votes are from people connected to the site in question... and obviously these are very prone to cause minor sockpuppet-fueled drama at AfD.

Perhaps a criteria for speedy deletion should be along the lines of "Short, uncited articles that serve only to describe and promote an external link". As this thread shows, making website articles in general fall under CSD might cause a whole lot of problems. --] 00:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:This seems a good idea, since it would cover a lot of spam articles that should be deleted. But what if the site is notable? Example:
::''Imdb.com is a website that lists all movies ever made.''
:] 07:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**That's a perennial misunderstanding. If someone writes a totally worthless article on an otherwise interesting subject, then in order to create a good article on that subject one has to start from scratch anyway. Hence, it is entirely irrelevant if the previously worthless content is deleted or not. Besides, this is already covered in existing criteria. If someone writes an article about Julius Caesar with the sole content ''"check out juliuscaesar.com"'' then it will be deleted for lack of content. And eventually someone will write a good article regardless. Remember that people aren't stupid; just because something ''can'' be deleted doesn't mean it ''will'' be. ]]] 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:Absolute, total, complete oppose. The last expansion is causing a lot of otherwise notable groups to fall by the wayside because people would rather tag a group as nn than do some research, and an adoption of this will cause even more problems. Absolutely, positively not, and we should also start rethinking the prior expansion on groups now that it's been in place for a while. --] <small>(])</small> 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
===Go by the Google===
*So many website articles are deleted on a regular basis that it's at least worth brainstorming about. However, unlike for e.g. people, we have a very easy test for websites: Google. While I'm not saying that google should ever be the all-end test of websites, it sounds safe to state that an article about '''any website that gets less than 1000 google hits''' is delete-worthy. And it would catch some of the junk on AFD. Or would anyone have a counterexample? ]]] 00:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:The Google Test is never, ever suitable as the sole means of judging the notability of a topic. ] 01:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::Google isn't appropriate for, say, an 1800's musician from Iran, but applying Google to websites, I think I more or less agree with Radiant. Is that the total number of hits, or with very similar search results ommited? --] 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::It's not exactly about notability... this is about a criteria that seperates the unanimous delete AfDs from the ones that actually might meet ] if discussed. Can you think of any websites that don't get 1,000 google results but meet ]? I can't either. I thought the google criteria seemed awful at first glance, but it actually makes sense. --] 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I continue to oppose. I can't think of an example, but I'm entirely certain that examples would materialize if such a rule were instated. A rule like this would allow a website with limited Google hits to be deleted without the slightest consideration given to mitigating factors. ] 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*If you can't think of an example, your assertion is probably false. Also, your claim that anything that is a candidate for speedy deletion is in fact deleted without further consideration is most definitely false. Articles are rescued from ] and improved on a daily basis. ]]] 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:An obscure, yet notable, subject is going to get low Google hits. Not worthy at all. --] <small>(])</small> 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I consider two reliable sources that I find through my library, outside of Google, that give informative independent information about a topic, to often be more significant than 100,000 (reported) google hits. We shouldn't be rewarding people for SEO tactics. Also, keep in mind, many sites change their names, and search on the new name fails, but the old one gives high results. Also keep in mind that no web sites gives more than 1000 *unique* Google hits, as that's all Google shows. So, when you say "more than a 1000" you must apparently mean more than 1000 non-uniques, which is utterly worthless, as one page on one web site, can appear as hundreds of thousands of hits (due to something called ''infinite namespace''). --] 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

: The point of CSD isn't to worry about the articles that pass (eg. reward the SEO's), the point is to choose objective criteria that makes sure almost no article fails when it should have gone on to AFD instead. Small-time websites that start their SEO campaign with Misplaced Pages, instead of at least starting by spamming other sites first, will at least be caught by this. --] 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::To the contrary - if they're spamming Misplaced Pages, they're probably also bombing Google with all sorts of fake sites. I expect them to have plenty of Google hits. ] 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Look over AFD and you'll see this generalization is false. Most articles on webpages in WP aren't about googlebombers, but about Joe Average people who create a l33t fansite or forum about whatever and expect a Misplaced Pages article will impress their friends. ]]] 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
====Reference sites====
My counter (for the above) would be for reference sites. Consider the Google result for This site gets 140 or so inward links (some from us) as you can see. But it's a rich vein of material, well sourced and thorough, if you are working on bridges (] for example, which I just did a lot of work on tonite) and tunnels in the Pittsburgh area. The ] Library of Congress source, that it gets some of its material from, has a lot of great material but you have to OCR the .tifs... this site author already did that. So this is an awesome, and easily verified as correct, (because you can go check HAER and see if he OCRed them right or not!) '''reference''' site. I am of the opinion that it needs a writeup, if only to document why it's a good reference, and what sort of stuff it can be relied on to have, how far out it covers, and how to use it. Now, I'm still a newb, maybe that's a wikipediaspace thing rather than main articlespace but that site is, I allege, notable and verifyable, but fails the google test utterly (it also has no forums and therefore no users to count). I wish there was a site like it for other areas (BTW: other sites I like for bridges are structurae.de and bridgemeister.com... both would also fail the google test badly but both deserve mention, perhaps in our bibliography if we have one rather than in articlespace???) DO we have a bibliography or a place to document references (these are documented in the bridges wikiproject already I think) that's generic? ++]: ]/] 05:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
*Well frankly, the sites you mention are probably good for a note in the bibliography (which we have in most articles, they tend to have a section of weblinks at the bottom), but I doubt it'd gain much support for an article of its own.
**As it turns out, there already IS an article for ] it was just written without the .de on the end: ]. Does that change your view at all? ++]: ]/] 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*By the way you know what's worse than websites with a lack of google hits? '''Internet memes''' with a lack of google hits. ]]] 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
**] already existed as an article, and has for some time . I just created the other one, ] so we'll see what happens. I am trying to get better at footnoting and referencing (I think I'm pretty good already, but maybe not) And to your second point, could not agree more. My first AfD nom was a neologism, and I am happy to say it sailed through. ++]: ]/] 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
***As a note ] got nomed for AfD within hours, if not minutes, of its creation. Now it's getting pileons from people who seem not to have thought about the points I made about reference sites. Perhaps projectspace subpages are better places for collecting reference sites but that's too obscure, I think. A master bibliography or a category or something might be a good thing. Good reference sites can be hard to find. ++]: ]/] 17:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
****Seems to me that they have thought about it, but simply disagree with you. A list of reference sites would be useful in a WikiProject, but that doesn't mean they all need articles. And this rather proves my point that websites below a certain Google/Alexa threshold are ] in AFD, and thus might as well be a speedy. ]]] 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Maybe, maybe not. Some certainly give the appearance of not having thought about it, just piling on. ++]: ]/] 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Given the comments on the delete votes, I don't see a lot of thought at all. Parroting various guidelines and bolding the vote isn't really much thought at all. In other news, ] may be the most defeatist proposal I've seen on this site yet. --] <small>(])</small> 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
******Well, for comparison, find an AFD on a notable website that has at least one vote to delete, and see if people pile on delete votes there without thinking about it. I'm not sure what you mean regarding a "defeatist proposal", the only point of WP:SNOW is to avoid bureaucracy if the outcome is already clear. ]]] 21:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*******I mean that it's defeatist. Instead of letting things run their course and allowing for the possibility of information coming to light to change things, we just shrug and say "Yup, looks good to me." And it's funny that you mention internet memes above, as that's an excellent example. When old memes like the Prime Number Shitting Bear get deleted because, well, it only gets 400 google hits today when it was popular 5 years ago, there's a problem in the system. The false assumption that Google = notable is rather arbitrary, silly, and too front-loaded. --] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*******I think you're missing the point here. I'm not saying we should block the chance of new information. I'm saying that ''if it becomes obvious that a certain well-defined class of articles (nearly) always ends up deleted when put on AFD, then those might as well be speedily deleted to save everybody's time''. I am not (as yet) asserting that certain memes or websites are such a class, I'm only suggesting that they might be. Most dissenters so far are arguing rhetoric and principle here, rather than finding counterexamples, which would actually be far more convincing. ]]] 22:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
********It's more that I get the point and find it to be less than compelling. Any policy that's going to sit there and speed up a removal process already flawed by inherent laziness in the system is something that's completely wrong and somewhat defeatist as opposed to actually searching for solutions. --] <small>(])</small> 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*********Well, if you have a cure for the "inherent laziness in the system" please let us know. ]]] 12:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**********How about instead of pushing for faster deletion or faster ending of policy, we articles are actually reviewed to see if they meet standards before reaching a point where they can be AfD'd? If notability can't be established within the article per a more detailed review, it then goes to AfD to be debated. Either that, or it goes to AfD with the new information presented (or lack thereof) to help get a clearer consensus. Either way, it's much, much better than just saying "speedy it" or resigning ourselves to a snowball effect. Actually, you know, asking people to improve articles instead of deleting them can't be the worst thing in the world. --] <small>(])</small> 13:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
* (moving out for indent reasons) Do you mean like RC patrollers putting something in the talk page of the article first, giving it a day or two to see what happens, if it's not clearly a CsD, instead of immediately putting it up for AfD? ] put together an excellent template (]) for just that purpose but it hasn't gone into wide use yet. There is a fair bit of discussion on this topic at ] as well. Obviously I'm biased a bit... ++]: ]/] 13:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**We do ask people to improve articles (]). The problem lies in finding a suitable balance that (1) doesn't cause deletion of worthwhile material (but note that a worthless article on a good subject is not in itself worthwhile material), and (2) makes it easy to get rid of inappropriate junk, because we get plenty of that. And once more, you misunderstand ] if you think that that's what it's used for. ]]] 14:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
***I'm not sure if that was addressed to me, I haven't mentioned ], and this may not be the right place to talk about this but I'm just thinking that some stuff goes too AfD too fast under the current process. ++]: ]/] 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
****Oops, that was to Badlydrawnjeff. Yes, some articles are put on AFD too fast, but the main reason for that is that ] is backlogged for ''a year and half''. ]]] 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*****Mainly because AfD has become Wiki:Cleanup in a lot of ways. The problem with the size of AfD isn't the amount of non-notable articles that get created, but the number of notable articles that get thrown on there. To delete more articles or throw policy out the window for what's arbitrarily decided is a foregone conclusion isn't really going to solve anything, especially when I think much of our Speedy Deletion policy could be construed as a "don't bite the newcomers" violation. As opposed to outright deleting articles that make no initial claim to notability (there's absolutely zero excuse for ] to be listed on AfD in less than a half hour after creation), we should be working toward making sure they should be deleted, not making sure they are deleted. --] <small>(])</small> 14:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
******Then I invite you to watch ] and/or the deletion log for a couple of days to find out the amount of crap that gets added to Misplaced Pages on a daily, or even hourly, basis. We don't need additional bureaucracy for that, rather the opposite. Before you judge anyone, walk a mile in their shoes. ]]] 14:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*******You think I haven't seen what's there? Quite the heady assumption. --] <small>(])</small> 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
********I think that, since you recommend additional bureaucracy for deletion, you are unaware of the sheer amount of necessary deletion going on that would be severely hampered by the very bureaucracy you propose. ]]] 17:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*********Well, that's an incorrect assumption. --] <small>(])</small> 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*********Interestingly enough, the proposal you started up is almost exactly what I was thinking of. I like it. --] <small>(])</small> 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

==Neologisms==
*There's an overemphasis on the Google test, and invented article titles are often deemed "neologisms" deserving deletion even when the topic itself is quite notable and a rename is more suitable. The Prime Number Shitting Bear was a very popular meme that I was sorry to see vanish for no well thought out reason. ] 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
***Please cite some examples of false claims of an article being about a neologism. Internet memes are always popular to ''some'' people, and unless they actually become widespread (q.v. AYBABTU) this is indistuingishable from linkspam. ]]] 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
***Here's one: ]. I was pretty much the only real contributor who voted to keep it, but I still think it should have been kept. Several people voted to ''delete'' based solely on the name, but the name was invented; I suggested ] as a more suitable name (which also fails the Google Test, but is more clearly invented). ] 01:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
****Okay, several people claim this is a neologism, and you claim that this is a false accusation. A brief websearch shows that this word was in use in 2003, so it's not exactly new. However, the same search indicates that nobody much ever ''uses'' that term. Hence, as a meme, it's a failure - unless you have evidence to the contrary that I haven't seen yet. Some people might term it a proto- or paleo-logism, but the term "unstable neologism" seems very appropriate. ]]] 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*****My claim is not that the article title is not a neologism, but that like many such as ], it is not intended to be a well-known term, but an invented title (albeit a poorly chosen one). Sometimes a well-known concept simply doesn't have a widely-accepted name, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't write about it. I recently discussed this somewhere else. ] 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
******This article may not be the best example... reading over it, I note a lot of it being original research or a howto-guide to trolling. It is also partly written in the first person, lacks sources, seems to be a copy/paste job and describes irrelevant parts of culture on Kuro5hin. Note that "neologism" is hardly the only reason cited by people voting to delete, and note that a sock invasion on an AFD has a tendency to backfire (on grounds that if an argument is not supported by logic but instead by force, it is likely wrong). So I am not at all convinced as to your claim that ''"invented article titles are often deemed "neologisms" deserving deletion even when the topic itself is quite notable"''. ]]] 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*******You're right that there were legitimate reasons for deleting that article, and it probably wasn't solely due to the article title not turing up search results. I didn't actually intend this to be an argument against your proposal. I disagree with your proposal on the grounds that you're attempting to establish an objective measure of notability that is useful but not suitable by itself for justifying unilateral deletion - I don't have an example, but I'm absolutely sure they exist. CSD is intended only for rules that both significantly decrease the load on AfD and ''almost never'' result in deletion of useful content. ] 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*In any case, unless I missed something, neologisms are not '''speedy'''-deletable, so perhaps this discussion belongs on the Deeltion Policy page, or the pump or some other palce for discussion general deletion policy? ] ] 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**The reason we're discussing it here is that I asserted that any article about a website or internet meme of which the subject gets less than 1000 google hits would be a snowball case on AFD, and thus would be a reasonable criterion for speedy deletion. I have yet to hear a example to the contrary, or a solid counterargument that isn't empty rhetoric. ]]] 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
***Oh ok I missed the conention, that is relevant. I do think that a once popular and important but now declined site might well get less than 1000 hits on a current search, but still be notable for historical impact. No concrete examples off the top of my head, though. ] ] 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
****See, now that is a reasonable point. However, most articles on websites/netmemes that turn up on AFD state to be about ''current'' memes. Thus, restricting a CSD to that would work (the point after all being to obviate the need for repetitive debate). ]]] 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*****There I agree with you, an allegedly current internet meme that gets few google hits pretty obviously isn't a notable membe and can be speedied, adn this is indeeed a common case. An allegedly currently popular website supposedly notable largely for its popularity ditto. A website that reports on significant research or carries significant and relaible information in a narrow field might be notable/significnat/encyclopedic despite having relatively few hits, IMO, but again i don't have a specific example to offer. the number 1000 is of course arbitrary, and might be tweaked, but I ahve no particuarly quarral with it. ] ] 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

== C1 and stub-types ==

See ] for a discussion of how C1 applies to stub-categories, in particular when they contain (only) a stub template (and no articles), and whether it should be clarified as regards said application, on way or another. ] 00:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Image deletion ==

I thought it germane here, so please notice ]. Would it be wise to try and develop some kind of CSD for images that violate ] in this manner? Thanks. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== CSD I3 ==

I am not sure what to do when I come across potential images that fall into this critera. Should ''any'' image with the "with permission" or "commercial use only" uploaded after May 19, 2005 be labled for speedy? This is what assume from Jimbo's message regarding the manner. I'm looking for clarification so I can feel free to label such images for speedy. Thanks. --] 08:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*Yes, that's the idea. We've been getting more stringent regarding copyright laws, at Jimbo's request. When in doubt about a particular issue, tag it {{tl|PUI}} instead an list it on ] ("Possibly Unfree Images"). ]]] 11:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*If you believe an image may be available under a free license, leave PUI and contact the uploader. If you don't think they'll respond, do a little hunting yourself and add a suitable tag and a link to your source if you find evidence that the work is freely licensed. You have the option of speedying on sight, but use common sense. ] 01:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This is a proposed very simple way to deal with non-controversial article deletions. The proponet propses a live test in the near future. I think the idea is a good one, but that some degree of community support is needed to sanction a live test. Please visit ] to express your views. ] ] 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Not even neologisms yet ==

If you look at the vast number of pages created every hour, a substantial number of them are just defining some new word. It seems like a primary thing people new to Misplaced Pages want to do is define some term they and their buddies use. See ] for an example of what I mean... it's just like "Hey, I made up some new word, here it is, Misplaced Pages!" Now while I personally think the article creation process should be overhauled to help inform people that creating articles like this isn't a good idea, that's beside the point here.

Is there any good way to speedy delete these articles? In practice they often are speedied, but technically they don't usually fall under a criteria for speedy deletion at present. If a word gets 0 Google results, and like in the case I cited above the article pretty much admits it's a freshly coined term not used by anyone but the creator's buddies... it's kind of silly to have to go through the process of AfD with something that will never survive it. But is there a clean way to add these to CSD, to reduce the load on AfD?

I know people aren't very keen on using Google as a criteria for deletion... so what would people think of:
:''Dictionary definitions that do not assert a word has ever been used outside of the limited social group that coined it''
That would cover a lot of ground, really... but preclude anything that might meet ] or be something Wiktionary would want (by the way, they speedy delete stuff like I'm talking about). Of course this is a very rough idea and I'm just looking for comments at this point. --] 04:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:It seems like a good idea, but I oppose on the general principle that I don't think there are enough of these articles around that AfD would significantly benefit. It's important to minimize CSD to avoid having to remember a bunch of rarely useful conditions. ] 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::As you can see from this my example (I had no idea this would happen when I posted it), when they do get to AfD they get sometimes as speedies even if they don't break ]. Anyone, just from patrolling newpages, it seems like a whole lot of these are created... perhaps so many are speedied already that they don't shop up all that much on AfD. This isn't really a formal proposal though... just trying to see if my idea is totally stupid or not. --] 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::*This seems quite reasonable. But looking over the past 3000 entries in the deletion log, I see only three articles deleted for being a neologism, two of which came from AFD. So I'd like to see a little more evidence that this actually problematic, and not already covered by existing speedies (e.g. lack of context). ]]] 09:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Point taken, I'll try to create a list the next time I'm working on newpages during peak hours. Maybe I'm overestimating the trend. --] 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong support for speedying protologisms. I have seen so many of them on AFD that I have a ton of macros just for voting to delete neologisms/protologisms. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;] <sup>(])</sup> <small>]&nbsp;13:06]</small></i></span>

== Best use of scan time? ==

I'm trying to figure out how to maximize the usefulness of my RC patrol time. I've been watching recentchanges and newpages trying to catch the most egregious vandalism (blanking or insertion of obscenities at major topics) and obvious newpage speedies ("Zobbo215 is the ultimate in coolness!"). It occurred to me that I might be wasting my time, because the most obvious vandalism and almost empty newpages are probably flagged by bots. My question is: are the bots so effective at catching these types of problems that I'm just wasting human resources to do a job a robot can do better? If so, how could I modify my RC patrolling to be more useful to the encyclopedia? ] 09:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not aware of any bots that tag pages for deletion or revert pages. Sometimes humans use bots to assist them in these tasks, but it seems like figuring out whether an edit was made in good faith is a very difficult problem to solve automatically. ] 09:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

== A4 ==

When I was creating {{tl|template messages}}, I found that there is no A4, what happend to that? <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 02:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
: A4 was merged into A3 (A4 was about attempts to contact the subject of the article) &ndash; ]'']''']]'''''] 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== companies ==
A number of people have been arguing that the expanded A7 allows the speedying of companies. (There's a snooty note from one such person on ] now, but that's okay because my answering note was no less snooty). Now, this was clearly not the intent of the change, and even people who've played fast and loose with the CSD criteria in the past accept that; for example, ] is above arguing that it ''should'' be expanded to include companies. Now, "groups" ''is'' kinda vague, so I propose that, if we ''don't'' want articles on corporations to be speedied for failure to even assert notability, that we make it explicit that companies aren't included. Alternatively, add corporations to the list of subjects which require an assertion of notability to avoid being shot on sight. ] (]) 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:See here: ]. A guideline at present. ] 12:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::But ] is related to AfDs, not CSD. See also: ]. ] (]) 12:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, of course, and what doesn't get Speedied often winds up on AfD instead. So you work backwards from criteria re the latter to arrive at explicit statements here. ] 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Before discussing this further I would like to see some links to articles on companies that (1) were AFD'ed but didn't stand a chance, or (2) were speedily deleted but arguably shouldn't have been. ]]] 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*The one that prompted this was , but it's certainly not the only one I've seen lately. Arguably should have been deleted and wouldn't have survived AfD, but was ''also'' definitely not covered under A7. I'd like to see either A7 expanded to cover corporations, or modified to explicitly note that a corporation doesn't count as "a group of people" for A7. ] (]) 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::**Actually I would have speedied that one myself on grounds of lack of content and context. ]]] 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::***I do appreciate that. But you see the ''point'', surely? ] (]) 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*Well, yes. Okay, A7 applies to a ''"real person, group of people, band or club"''; not a corporation, city, school or piece of fruit. On the one hand it should be obvious that anything not mentioned in CSD is therefore not a CSD. On the other hand, if a legal entity named as a corporation actually consists of a single person, it is possible to delete on that ground (not because I'm wikilawyering, but because it's common sense). In general, if one or two people are abusing a rule, it is better to get those people to stop (e.g. on ] or ]) than to make the rule more complex. ]]] 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**Awww, don't speedy them. AfD on companies gives them a chance to be ''snarked'' (article on marginally-notable company transformed to article on notable company, after research indicates notability for corporate ''misdeed''), see ] and ]. It's my favorite sport... ] 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Lost Images link? ==

Are there any plans to create the ] article, or should it be removed from this project page? (] 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
*No such plans. See ] for details. ] 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
** We used to forward requests there, but it sort of became ], nothing would come out, as no one was watching the page. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== These Two Images- ==

These Two Images, Pwsafarijacket.jpg and Trenchcoatinuse.jpg have been identified for source information properly now, so they should be <span style="color:red">'''kept'''</span>.
] 15:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:If you have not already done so just add this info to the image page and remove the speedy tag then, people rarely check this page before speedy deleting stuff, so better to use the talk page for the page/file in question. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Proposal for new critreria for images ==

;CSD§I6:Image with sole purpouse of vandalism. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

::IMHO ] already covers that nicely. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
*Indeed. Did you have any examples in mind? Or is some idiotic vandal spamming pictures of genitalia again? ] 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
**The standard genitalia thingis. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
***Ok. Well, the thing is, Misplaced Pages already contains plenty images usable for vandalizing it. So there's no particular rush to delete newly uploaded images used for vandalism (except if they're copyvio etc). As long as the vandal in question is reverted and blocked (and trust me, we're fast), the images can be dropped on IFD. ] 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
***IMHO G3 and some "common sense" should be enough. If someone takes an existing used image and spam it over a lot of pages it should naturaly not be deleted (such as putting an image of a chimpansee in the Bush article, or a picture of Emeror palpatine in the Pope's article and such), but if a vandal upload a new image and use it to vandalise then shoot it on sight as "G3 pure vandalism". If the image is potentialy usefull for legitemate purposes send it to IFD instead though. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== Orphan "Fair Use" ==

I want to expand/clarify I#5 to state:
:'''Unused copyrighted images'''. Images that are not under a ] or in the ], which are not used in any article, and which have been tagged with a template which places them in ] for more than seven days. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. The templates {{tl|or-cr}}, {{tl|or-cr-nr}}, and {{tl|or-cr-re}} place an image in this category.
instead of the existing
:'''Unused copyrighted images'''. Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not used in any '''article''', and which have been tagged with a template which places them in ] for more than seven days (so-called "orphaned fair use images"). Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. The templates {{tl|or-fu-nr}} and {{tl|or-fu-re}} place an image in this category.
Obviously, the necessary templates and category would be created. The criterion already seems to imply the expanded version by saying simply "uploaded without permission of the copyright holder" but this is contradicted by referring to "orphaned fair use" later. Thus, I'd like to state outright the broader meaning; I can't see any reason orphan non-free images should be around, and this would make the gargantuan task of ] faster. I am aware this template originated from one of Jimbo's mysterious IRC/mailing list proclamations. However, I still think this change is legitimate. What do people think? ] - ] 01:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
: I think you need to discuss this with Jimbo and/or the Wikimedia Board, because it's an important legal issue. It seems wrong to change "not under a free license or PD" to "under a license which doesn't permit commercial use". ] 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:: That's the reverse of the change I'm proposing! However, I'll notify Jimbo on his talk. ] - ] 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding the new Template CsD ==

At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist.

A thoughtful process of change is important.

And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--] 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== New criterion proposal: User page ==

I would like to expand the CSD for User pages to include the following. Occassionally a user will have a red-linked user page (i.e., no edits to it) and sometimes incautious or ignorant users (no offense intended) will leave messages there instead of on the talk page. I propose that the message should be moved to the talk page and then the user page deleted speedily. There's no point in submitting it to AfD and it's nice to know at a glance if someone doesn't have a userpage (based on color of the link). Also, blank pages are useless. This strikes me as non-controversial. I hope I'm right. :) --] | ] 08:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
*I've already done this. Do we really need a speedy criterion to cover this? I think that if something clearly misplaced, there's no problem in moving it and speedying the remainder (provided the history was moved along with the message). - ]|] 09:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
*Actually doing a move and leaving a redirect on the user page isn't such a bad idea. Some users intentionally make their user pages redirect to their talk page, and in this case the person who left the comment might return to the user page looking for an answer. So no, an ordinary move is really better I think. ] 10:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
*I've been doing that as well. I've cut-and-pasted text from the user page to the user talk page, then deleted the user page to restore the red link. I've also deleted some user pages of a couple of users who I've noticed had blank user pages because of this. --]]]] 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== Web forums et al ==

I have seen a lot of AFDs for web forums, IRC channels, mailing lists, and other "online groups" which are clearly non-notable. Thoughts on expanding CSD to include things like web forums with only 100 members and no assertion of importance? (If A7 applies to "unremarkable online groups", it should say so explicitly, because it has been a contentious point in the past.) <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;] <sup>(])</sup> <small>]&nbsp;13:00]</small></i></span>
:I'm against it. Because of the nature of such things, they should be discussed by a wider range of people as opposed to one person tagging them CSD. --] <small>(])</small> 13:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion criteria for userboxes ==

What is this? There is no consensus that divisive templates can be speedily deleted. You can't just add stuff to official policy without discussing it first.--''']]''' 18:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
:Jimbo just did...''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
::<strike>Could you point to where, please?</strike> Nevermind. --]]] 18:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
*Jimbo != consensus--''']]''' 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
:It bothers me that Jimbo can create policy without a concensus. I don't know if that's written in WP bylaws or what. Furthermore, the community will never agree on what constitutes "divisive" (m-w definition: "creating disunity or dissension"), because most things could be constrewed as such. This new point of policy will fan the flames of disagreement. --]]] 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
:::. He also said that:
:::"18:42, February 5, 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Template:User paedophile" (I'm sorry but just, no. I'm sure there's a CSD rule or three which covers this, but I honestly don't care. Just, no.)"
:::So auhh...sheesh...I wish I could get away with that.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
::Jimbo = big guy that you don't mess with unless you want to be desysopped.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
:Policy on wikipedia is supposed to come from consenus. One person changing policy like this is antithetical to a wiki.--''']]''' 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
::We're an encyclopedia too, not just a wiki. —]]] 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) Not to mention Jimbo is the guy in charge. He doesn't exercise it often, but he has the power to hand down the law on Misplaced Pages. Like it or not, Misplaced Pages is not public property. Sometimes, Jimbo just offers his suggestions and makes edits like a "normal" editor without caring if his edits get reverted. However, if he chooses to unilaterally lay down any policies or laws, he has that power. That's what we all agreed to when we started to use Misplaced Pages's servers. --]]]] 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

:Per Jimbo's comments above, it is best if we have thoughtful discussion about T1 before it starts being used without hesitation. So it was mentioned on ], and we're here now. However, completely removing it is apparently not an option. Personally, I think it's largely a good thing. It would be better if there were a way to make it more clear what should be deleted under T1 (even if it's informal discussion and not written policy), since well-intentioned people will probably disagree over what it covers, and because it would be best to avoid anything approaching wheel warring. --] 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
::It is largerly for the better anyway. We can discuss the exact wording...but removing it would result in likely get demoted or blocked...''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
**(edit conflict) Not to mention Jimbo is the guy in charge. He doesn't exercise it often, but he has the power to hand down the law on Misplaced Pages. Like it or not, Misplaced Pages is not public property. Sometimes, Jimbo just offers his suggestions and makes edits like a "normal" editor without caring if his edits get reverted. However, if he chooses to unilaterally lay down any policies or laws, he has that power. That's what we all agreed to when we started to use Misplaced Pages's servers. --]]]] 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:34, 7 January 2025

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut

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

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

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

this header: view • edit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page.
Shortcut
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
See also Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy deletions for discussions which took place in 2006-7 before it was redirected here.

Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not?

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

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

Adding the "possible salt evasion" template

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

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

RFC on interpretation of G11

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

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

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § NPPHOUR, A1, and A3

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § NPPHOUR, A1, and A3. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:G5 and people who have gamed the extended-confirmed restriction

If someone games the extended-confirmed restriction (and is found to have done so at WP:AE or WP:ANI), are pages they created during the window after they reached 30/500 edits but before they were determined to have gamed the restriction G5-able? This specific case seems to have come up here; the editor created the now-draftified Draft:Hamas–UNRWA_relations. My opinion is that it obviously should be G5able (otherwise we're rewarding gaming the restrictions); if someone is found to have gamed the restrictions then, by definition, all their edits in that topic area were in violation of the relevant general sanction, even if we didn't know it at the time. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not. WP:ARBECR has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned). Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Subpages of talk pages

I am looking to nominate the unused discussion page Talk:Wiki/lede for deletion, but I can't find a suitable speedy reason, and {{prod}} warns me I should only use the template on articles.

What's the right course here? Tule-hog (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It's a redirect - should go to WP:RFD. Not sure why it needs to be deleted, though... Primefac (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Primefac it wasn't a redirect at the time they asked this question. See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Wiki/lede. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)