Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Difference between revisions

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria Shortcut WP:NEWCSD 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 Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. 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. Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia: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. 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

Just a note: I added a further comment relating to db-G6 diff] at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. More than one editor avoiding WP:RM by gaming these loopholes so have avoided specifics and concentrated on the loophole itself. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, this involves admins here (on this Talk page) unknowingly and in good faith being played by loopholes in the db-G6 process into undoing each others' work and inadvertently enabling moves counter RMs and RfCs. It's not a major issue, but it does undermine WP:RM which is one of the few "democratic" balances en.wp has. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, the G6 rationale is for when an admin is actively doing something, and needs to make a deletion en route. It doesn't make much sense to me for a non-admin to tag an article for deletion under G6; instead the non-admin should request the overall task that requires the deletion, and if there is consensus for the task an admin will carry it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need here for more bureaucracy. If someone tags an article G6 to subvert an RM or other discussion outcome, and an admin unknowingly carries it out, the solution is to contact the involved admin. Bad faith use of G6 tags for controversial moves is a user conduct issue that can also be addressed. We don't need a rule for every eventuality, and in this case, I think the harm caused by not closing the loophole is small and easily dealt with. Monty₈₄₅ 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monty845 makes a good point. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monty845, thanks, but in your memory has anyone ever been disciplined or even warned for misuse of db-G6? Even if so, that assumes that (1) anyone is watching the Deletion Log, (2) anyone can spot such a move after the event. Since the process involves deleting page histories sometimes (more than once in recent observation) means which admin made the move isn't even visible to contact. Even if the page is on someone's watchlist a db-G6 move may not show up (I'm not 100% clear on the technicalities as different information seems to be deleted in different cases). Couldn't there at least be some safety checks? e.g.:

* "Check to see you are not reverting a previous admin refusal"

* "Check to see there hasn't been a contested RM"

* "Check to see that User isn't on the db-G6 observation list for previously requesting controversial RMs as db-G6s or carrying out/rerequesting reverted/refused db-G6s"... etc.

The reality is that is someone is bent on what they know to be unpopular moves at WP:RM it's a lot easier and more efficient to game db-G6 to get good faith admins to do it than to argue a case at WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should see multiple deletion log entries on your watchlist. I'm not aware of anyone having been sanctioned for doing it, but I'm also not aware of anyone having done it and gotten away with it. While speculation, I would imagine that if it was at all common the editors doing it would be noticed, and promptly dragged to AN/I. Monty₈₄₅ 15:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monty, well I can only say that observation indicates that someone playing the db-G6 system is more likely to be regarded as naughty but clever at ANI. I don't really know how common it is, but having seen it before, and seen more than 1 User make moves gaming the db-G6 system in different ways in the last week, and at least one move in the Deletion Log counter a previous db-G6, I still believe that a slight upgrade of safety checks rather than relying entirely on it being spotted would help. Or even simply a warning, "users who knowingly revert admin decisions on db-G6, or apply for multiple db-G6 until they get the required result, may be placed on an observation list in regard to access to the db-G6 template" - which would put more onus on those misusing db-G6. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has declined a handful of G6/move requests myself, all I have to say is that admins who perform speedy deletes should be vigilant. Any time I see a G6/move proposal, I look at it carefully. If it seems like the move might be the least bit controversial, I look to see if there's an RM discussion, or any discussion on a the source or target talk pages. If not, I'll decline the G6. Most of the time it's a reasonable proposal. Once or twice someone challenged my declining it.

One thing I haven't done, and probably should, is keep track of who made the G6/move proposal each time I decline it, to see if there's a pattern of behavior that emerges from a particular editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulic, I have to say I have noticed your care in the past, and you have my respect as one of the most diligent and observant of the db-G6 admins (in fact I noted that you caught one on Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Blocking a second move after admin db-g6 self-revert, before moving the Talk subject here), but even you were blindsided 07:01, 24 November 2012�� moving a page which had previously been db-G6 once contrary to a class RM, and reversed once already by Edgar181 with summary "reverting my Oct 2011 G6/move because it wasn't uncontroversial". But the second bite of the cherry still worked. There are just too many loopholes and some users who see the the db-G6 as way to avoid an RM. Even the very best admins will be tripped up. Rather than go after the users who will just laugh at it (so please don't) the system needs tightening. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what can I say? I agree some tightening up is needed, but until then, diligence is the key here. I have to admit my own has not been up to a high standard now and then, much as I try. I find it interesting that the editor trying to circumvent RM in the case of Starlet you mentioned above, actually challenged me on my talk page, ignored my response, and tried the same thing again, and I didn't notice. Someone did, though, and reverted everything back the way it was. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and ashamed to say had a smirk. That's not untypical actually, this is by no means a scientific sample but I'd estimate in a third of cases where a db-G6 has been requested in not-very-good faith then reverted by a db-G6 admin because it "wasn't uncontroversial as claimed" the user, or one-in-three of these users, will be back within hours days or weeks to move it him/herself when the admin has safely gone away, because there's now no lump in the redirect history to leave a "lock" (unless, which I haven't seen, the admin has the foresight to him/herself add a little gratuitous history-saves to recreate a history-lump an non-admin can't move past). All kinds of creativity goes into shuffling things from A to B and back again rather than actually contributing to article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned to be rather careful on g6 where a merge or a move is involved., and to check carefully the full context of the suggestion.. These requests can be more complicated than they seems, . Ideally the requests will be either for situations where the matter is blindingly obvious, or where there has already been achieved consensus,and it just has to be implemented. Unfortunately , many requests seem pre-ementive measures for things that really need more discussions and we w= should be s just as willing to send these back as we would be send back a speedy that really needs a afd or prod DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One place I have been caught out is renaming based on absence or presence of diacritics. It ends up tat this is controversial with RFCs for the various languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme, and Greek/Turkish issues, USPlace, nobility, etc. Diacritics overall isn't controversial, just controversial in some pockets, for example there was a large and unanimous RM to put an end to the Czech Hockeynames disruption, and there's been no disruption in that area following (of course it helped that the instigator had been banned).

What I would say however is that the existing software set-up of db-G6 tends to undermine the work of db-G6 admins. For example one case you recall where I notified you that you had in good faith actioned a db-G6 on a page where Talk-page evidence of a contrary RM result had been deleted, you quickly restored per the RM, but your restore didn't create the history 'bump' at the redirect to prevent the article being moved back again, so the db-G6 circumvention of the RM result worked even though you had restored it. Admins can't place on their watchlist every single problematic db-G6, so perhaps there needs to be some tweaking of the software so that when an admin moves a page back a 'bump' is created to superglue in place your self-revert, or Amatulić's Starlet self-revert above, or several others I've seen where db-G6 were carried out despite admins reverting them. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one reason that some editors try to abuse G6 to get around the WP:RM procedure is because Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog is perpetually rather large. Editors notice this, and rightfully conclude that any attempt at RM discussion will be pointless because it takes forever for an admin to come along and act on it. The resulting frustration, I believe, encourages more expedient work-arounds.

I've taken a stab at reducing the backlog now and then, when I have a block of idle time to spare and don't want to attend to more urgent admin tasks related to preventing disruption of the project. When I do it, it feels like Wiki-gnome work. And I think other admins feel the same way, given the apparent low-priority of closing WP:RMs among the admin population at large.

This situation suggests that G6 isn't broken, but rather the RM process is broken. Perhaps a new user right is needed, similar to File Mover, but allowing trusted users to move articles when the destination page already exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amatulić, this sounds like a possible suggestion for reducing WP:RM's backlog, but I don't see how it would solve the db-G6 misuse? The fact that some users go back for a second bite of the db-G6 cherry suggests that their objection isn't the 7 days of an RM, but that they know the RM will fail. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing RM may not solve G6 misuse, but may reduce it. My point was that the endless backlog may be a factor in discouraging use of RM and encouraging G6 misuse. It isn't 7 days. The backlog consistently goes back a month or longer. As of today it's about six weeks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, it can be a factor with the more good faith db-G6s, your point is taken it may reduce it, fully agreed, but again ironically the backlog has until very recently included several (ultimately successful) RMs to revert "uncontroversial" db-G6, so bad faith db-G6 themselves lengthen the very backlog.... (Thanks for your discussion btw, very helpful) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with In ictu oculi and Carl. CSD#G6 is easily used to circumvent going through the RM process, and the need for a non-admin to be requesting G6 deletions is not usual. I do think that the WP:RM process is in bad shape, but it should be improved, not circumvented by tricks. Admins should be advised to be hesitant to fulfil G6 requests, and all should be advised that if a deletion is required to enable a move, then it should be sent to WP:RM#Technical requests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that admins should exercise due diligence when fulfilling G6 requests. But why should all moves that require deletion be sent to WP:RM#Technical requests? That's effectively identical to {{db-move}} anyway, which is a special case of G6. A vigilant admin can exercise the judgment needed to fulfill or decline such a request; indeed, most of these G6 moves aren't controversial. Abuse of G6 isn't that commonplace an occurrence. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Because a listing at Wikipedia:Rm#Technical_requests will attract the attention of admins up to speed with the idiosyncracy of WP:RM and not-really-uncontested moves.
• Because there are unexpected controversies with inocuous appearing page moves. Because it is so easy for an editor acting in good faith to request a controversial move unaware of potential controversy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Amatulić, yes "most" is true, but even so, scrolling down even the implemented G6, after refusals, of "make way for move" a significant number of them could be controversial, at least enough to justify an appearance on WP:RM#Technical requests. And WP:RM#Technical requests is different from {{db-move}} in two respects I believe, (1) visibility, visibility in being on a more "public page" where editors with an interest in WP:AT regularly check, wheras the db-move doesn't have a visible list (such as a link to WP:LSD) and isn't even acknowledged as existing on WP:RM. Even if WP:LSD was linked on WP:RM it doesn't actually show what are db-G6 and what are just normal vanilla CSD. (2) I believe, perhaps wrongly I find out now, that WP:RM#Technical requests get given 24hr before someone implements. But I'm not clear on why I believe that, I can't see the "24 hr" mentioned anywhere (did I imagine it? possible). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an equivalent of WP:LSD which narrowed it down to just the db-G6 (is there?) visibility would be better. I just tried using what links here to template db-move then CTRL F in Firefox to find "transclusion" and the first one I find is this, an evidently controversial diacritic move by a Korean editor, Sawol whose Talk page looks as if admin CactusWriter already caught misuse of db-G1. Then a few more Korean db-G6 down a db-G6 on a hyphen move Beau-Bassin Rose-Hill, I don't follow hyphens :) but I know some consider them controversial. I can't see any transclusions which are guaranteed "uncontroversial" (isn't there an easier way of looking at the db-G6 proposals?) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at WP:LSD again to see if I could work out how to distinguish the db-G6 and other CSD (I can't) and note all the "transclusions" have been actioned.

@DGG, please don't take this the wrong way - this just happens to be an example that stuck out - you say above "I have learned to be rather careful on g6 where a merge or a move is involved., and to check carefully the full context of the suggestion." and I truly 100% believe that you do and are, I have no reason to believe any of the small pressed team of CSD admins are any less than careful, but immediately after saying this you just got snared by a "second bite of the cherry" db-G6, and reversed an action by fellow admin Graeme Bartlett who had already reversed a first db-G6 diacritic move as not uncontroversial (Graeme reversed his db-G6 it when it was pointed out that Talk page RM tags had been deleted and the contrary RM bumped into Archive by IP-puppeting). To me this illustrates that the db-G6 system is broken, even if only broken by lack of checklist of danger zone topics or central record of previous db-G6 mischief (such as Amatulic suggested above). If it was incompetent or lazy admins it'd be a different issue, but it isn't it's evidently everyone trying very very hard (as above) and yet still getting tripped up by creative Users. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but: WP will always attract users who wish to outwit the system, it's a perpetual arms race, just like vandalism and the abuse filter. Calling something "merely technical" is an obvious ploy seen in very many places, most frequently edit summaries, where "cpyed" or the like is used to try to disguise contentious edits. Yet we still need quick ways of handling the really technical ones. It's not G6 that's the problem; it's the entire move function-- like redirect or merge, it can be used wrongly or evasively. The best approach is human cares--sending everything to RM is like sending everything to AfD--I would be very reluctant to mandate additional material going into WP:RM. What I think is needed is attention to the move log, and perhaps a real-time display of it, just like New Pages. perhaps there is one?) And, though that's not the problem here, all moves from AfC and user space to main space should go to NPP. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, sure, what you say makes sense, understood, which is why I'm not suggesting go after the various clever users. However a real-time display of it, similar to New Pages sounds possible, particularly if it could include ; DATE ; USER REQUESTING DB-G6 ; ADMIN RESPONDING ; MOVED/REFUSED ; such a record would markedly increase transparency, and transparency cuts down on clever users. It might also help unclog things at WP:RM if this could be cross referenced from the Technical Moves there so that consistency between what is "controversial"/"non-controversial" at WP:RM and at db-G6 should improve. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, when you say "the move log" can you link? I'm not sure what you mean, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO, in most cases changing a primary topic should also be considered "controversial" and require some discussion. That seems to happen occasionally when a user moves disambig page X to X (disambiguation), then tags the resulting redirect as db-G6 so he can move X (Y) to X. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...interestingly there doesn't appear to have been a controversial db-G6 on WP:LSD to move a page counter an RM or counter a previous db-G6 admin revert for 72 hours. Maybe it's coincidence, or maybe this discussion page is on some users' watchlists? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... for I have just committed a G6 about which I'm unrepentant but not altogether comfortable.

Scenario: RM in which I have already "voted" and in which there was IMO a rough consensus but also a long discussion with the one dissenting voice was non-admin closed as moved and the target page flagged db-move.

I've done the speedy deletion under WP:SNOW and WP:IAR and think it was arguably a valid G6 but that it was neither a valid non-admin close nor a valid db-move candidate. The problem is, again, our documentation (guidelines, template use instructions, drop-down menus) isn't consistent on this.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, at least if you're still talking about this RM. How was this not a valid NAC? --BDD (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. IMO it was a controversial move, that's why I cast a vote rather than simply performing the move. But that's incidental to this talk page. The important thing for this discussion is, the G6 seems to meet the criteria according to some parts of the documentation but not others.

No criticism of your using the template is intended, and thanks for completing the move so promptly. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you're saying, and I think I agree to some extent. {{db-move}} can indeed be used in cases like this where a move can't really be called "non-controversial," but I think the template is still appropriate as it's "consensual." And as you probably know, the instructions for RM NACs prescribe this template for just those cases. So I agree that it's a bit odd that this throws resolved RMs in the same boat with obstacles to technical requests (cf. WP:RM/TR). It might eliminate some confusion to create separate templates for non-controversial and consensual moves, but I don't really think the process as it stands is broken. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the move consensus was closed saying to move it, and you need to delete a redirect to make it happen, do it. It counts under G6-move, and it also meets the spirit, if not the letter, of G6-xfd (the consensus to move is also a consensus to delete the redirect that's in the way). Ego White Tray (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I done it. The whole question here is to improve the letter of the law. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other editors, but I know that when it comes to referencing speedy deletions, I often prefer to cite a criterion by its number and link to the description, instead of writing out a full explanation. The code I generally use for that is (using A1 as an example) [[WP:CSD#A1|A1]] - as in "I don't know, if it were me, I would've just speedied it under A1."

As far as I can tell, there isn't yet a template for this, and I was wondering if other editors would see a use for one: That, is, a template where typing in a criterion would generate a link of this sort. The basic code for it would be very simple - [[WP:CSD#{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. I've made a mockup in my userspace here (transcluding from here) showing how it works, and a few examples of where it'd be useful. Clearly a name would have to be picked (I'd suggest appropriating {{Csd}}, which currently redirects to the fairly infrequently used {{Db}}), and there are all sorts of other things that would have to be decided, but for now I'm just wondering who else would find such a template useful. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly just occurred to me that I could just write [[WP:A1|]] or the like. Well then. I suppose I won't retract my idea just yet, though, in case someone thinks of a reason that a template might be useful nonetheless. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the sake of everybody except us, I would insist that any such template include both the letter/number and a short description - so, {{sd-a1}} would say A1 (no context). In fact, I had to got back to the project page and look up which one A1 was (I thought it was gibberish), and everyone else probably would have to as well without this short description. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the WP: shortcuts make the original idea somewhat redundant, with EWT's amendment such a template would actually be quite handy, especially when explaining (as I so often have to) the reason I deleted some new editor's page. I'd prefer multiple templates with the format {{A1}} etc., for ease of typing, but that's just me being lazy. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh a very good idea indeed, EWT. I'll get on it. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New version, using this proto-template. (Good luck reading the source - you can't do reading-convenience linebreaks within a wikilink... anyone know a fix for that?) This is for a common-template model; setting up individual templates for each criterion, based on this, would be very easy, if that were the consensus in the naming discussion. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fix is not to make a single ultra-complicated template but instead to make a simple little template for each criteria. This makes editing and correcting issues within the realm of the ordinary Wikipedian. I could never dream of even fixing a spelling error in a complex template that you seem to be making and I'm not even sure how to use it. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I said, this version is just to demonstrate how such a template would function. The actual implementation could be drastically different. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mean something like {{Db-a1}} and the like? Or what else do you intend by "referencing speedy deletions", linking form talk?--Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Forgot that I deleted my examples when I re-wrote the template. Please stand by. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I put the examples back in to User:Francophonie&Androphilie/Transclusions. Hope that clears up what I'm talking about here. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I get it now but as you reminded me that WP:A7 is even shorter than the WP:CSD#A7 I would probably still either say A7 or pipe it with something specific.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would say A7 (no significance). A7 by itself is never sufficient. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to add a definition is the point here - as an exercise in concise typing, writing {{A7}} is considerable shorter than writing [[WP:A7|A7 (no indication of significance)]]. As an example of useage, the sentence "I deleted your article under CSD criterion A7 (no indication of significance)" requires 43% fewer keystrokes if done with such a template. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't implying that a mere A7 is sufficient communication but mostly trying to understand what you have in mind. As in the examples that I didn't initially see, context is key here. Most creators get a notice of the type {{Db-band-notice}} (and I usually check that). If they then come to the admins talk page they get an explanation and probably I'd link underneath to the guideline. But I would not just tell them that their band has been deleted per A7 (no indication of significance). If on the other hand I have to explain the tagger why I declined to delete a band's article I might link directly to A7 since they chose it and focus on why it doesn't apply. As in "Publishing two albums asserts sufficient significance to pass A7" These are the two options I had in mind. You seem to be thinking there is a need for another template to link to the criterion combing the code and a short standardized qualifier. Personally I don't seem to have that need. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Even the unnecessarily long (and overly vague) syntax I was stupidly using previously ([[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]) isn't that time-consuming, but since speedy deletions are, as the name implies, one of the areas of Wikipedia most requiring quick responses to questions and the like, it really all comes down to keystrokes. So, if the direction we're going here is to use the letter-number code templates, there are two issues:

• One, this could probably only be done for the G-, A-, and C-series and maybe the U-, R-, and T-series. {{P1}} and {{P2}} are already in use (transclusion counts: [1] [2]), {{F1}} sees enough use that it'd be confusing to have {{F2}}, {{F3}}, etc. go elsewhere. U-, R-, and T- are all up in the air since the in-use {{U2}} has only 148 transclusions, {{R1}}, {{R2}}, and {{R3}} have only 32 transclusions combined, and, while {{T2}} has only 5 transclusions, {{T1}} redirects to the critically important {{tl}}. Anyways, for whichever templates we can't get consensus to change, seeing as they're all the lesser-used criteria, we could just operate them through my horrendously complicated, but quite functional one-size-fits-all, under the name {{Csd}}, perhaps.
• For titles, I suggest {{CSDA1}}, {{CSDG4}}, etc. Unique titles in all cases, consistent (no guesswork needed), and still short and sweet. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Two, most of the templates that aren't associated with anything else currently redirect to the appropriate {{db}} templates. I have no idea how often they're used, but it probably wouldn't be a good idea to go changing templates that redirect to CSD templates without a strong consensus and a lot of courtesy notifications. I see that this page has 45.2 centijimbos, but as I imagine the bulk of those watchers are only here to revert vandalism on the project page, should I open an RFC?

Oh, I'll also go create some samples of the single-use (i.e. not one-size-fits-all) templates. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC) The "watcher" tool experienced a glitch almost immediately after I checked how many people had this page watchlisted. 45.2cJ is about 1,250 watchers.[reply]

I've found several IP user pages tagged for CSD under G7, but that doesn't sound like a valid criterion to me. The authors can't be verified even if a request is made, for one thing. What's the general rule? MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can verify that the IP placed the tag. Isn't that enough? Of course, we wouldn't speedy a user talk page, and I wouldn't expect there to be many IP user pages anyway. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a valid G7, I don't see why you wouldn't delete it. Anytime the only creator/user of a page thinks it shouldn't be around, they're probably right. (And if not, let someone else create it who wants it). WilyD 07:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why there might be a concern here. If the IP is dynamic, or a significant amount of time has passed between the creation of the page and the tagging, then the person who tagged the page may not be the same person as the person who created the article, even if they are editing from the same IP. Hut 8.5 11:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite about speedy deletes, but what about putting an edit notice that appears when anyone tries to edit an IP user page warning the user that their IP is likely to change and a future owner of the IP address may delete the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be a discretionary judgement. If the content has some value, then reject on the grounds there is no evidence they are the same editor. If the content is devoid of value, use the G7 as an excuse. Not really the way Speedy Deletion is meant to be treated, but given the peculiarity of this circumstance, it seems the most reasonable result. Monty₈₄₅ 06:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At User_talk:Sionk#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FMichael_Pollack and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation there was a discussion. A user believes that if a topic is deleted, but then a user finds sources and writes a new article with new sources, then the new article should be speedy re-deleted anyway under G4 (see the comment on my talk page) and the user should instead use DRV to re-create the article. I had the impression that if one finds substantial new sources, one can re-start the article without any prior discussion, and that if a party thinks, considering new sources, it should still be deleted, one will have to start a new AFD all over again. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is currently being discussed on User talk:WhisperToMe. This article was re-created 10 days after the AfD closure and I'm unsure which new sources suddenly appeared in that short period. I've been involved in a large number of AfD's and, very occasionally, the subject is involved in a new story or notable activity several months later, which tips them towards being notable. This clearly isn't the case here. There were a couple of experienced editors who erred toward 'delete' at the AfD. I fully expect they'd take a dim view if the article reappeared so soon! DRV seems the safest route to restoring the article. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old article was mainly sourced to Pollack's website. The old AFD discussed a small number of sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack - Compare to the large number of sources at User:WhisperToMe/Michael_Pollack#References - I argue that G4 cannot be used when the new article has a radically different amount of sources from the old one and/or has radically more sources than considered in the old AFD.

DRV specifically says that it takes "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article, to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article (called a history-only undeletion)," - so that suggests to me if significant new information (and I define that as anything the old AFD didn't discuss or consider, or find) is found then I should write a new article (especially considering the old one was mainly sourced to Pollack's website) and expect noone to speedy it on the basis it is a "recreation" of a deleted article.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be a discretionary call, if the sources may really change the determination of notability, and were not in the original AfD, then yeah, decline the G4 and start a new AfD. But it shouldn't be a case of find a random new source and avoid G4, the source(s) need to be high quality, independent and reliable sources, preferably more then one. Monty₈₄₅ 13:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I found multiple sources - The "new" sources include the articles on EBSCOHost from The Business Journal and copious Arizona articles (Arizona Republic, Phoenix Business Journal, East Valley Tribune) as well as a few in the Houston Chronicle - While some Arizona and Chronicle sources were found for the first AFD, I found multiple new sources for the draft in the userspace. - The original article was mainly sourced to Pollack's website WhisperToMe (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#G4 reads in part This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,... [3] so it seems to me that the impression if one finds substantial new sources, one can re-start the article without any prior discussion, and that if a party thinks, considering new sources, it should still be deleted, one will have to start a new AFD all over again is spot on.

It also seems rather silly for either speedy deletion or PROD to be allowed in these circumstances. PROD should not be allowed as, presumably, the recreator objects. And surely, if it's not a candidate for PROD, then even more so it's not a speedy candidate either?

Appreciate that not everyone agrees that the new sources were substantial, but I think we need to first clarify that this is indeed the issue. If that's agreed, then we can ask the specific questions about this case. (And if not then the details are irrelevant anyway.) Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion venues:

• Wikipedia:Notability_noticeboard#Notability_of_Michael_Pollack
• User_talk:Karanacs#Michael_Pollack (on the AFD)
• User_talk:SwisterTwister#Michael_Pollack (on the AFD)
• User_talk:WhisperToMe#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation (related to articles for creation)
• User_talk:Sionk#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FMichael_Pollack (related to articles for creation)

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhisperToMe, I commend you for putting in all that work you did to develop the article as an AFC, wait for it to get reviewed, see it get shot down on what's really a process/red tape point, and then patiently bring it here for further discussion. Kudos, seriously. I think Sionk has a good point about DELREV. I occasionally comment on AFDs but don't 'live' there. Now that the AFC door has been pretty much closed, your options are be BOLD and just move to mainspace, or DELREV. I think Sionk is giving good advice to take it DELREV and bring your article. Nothing succeeds on Wikipedia better than good content. If you take it to DELREV please drop me a note. I'm Watchlisting Michael Pollack. Zad68 03:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I started Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_9 WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we may need to consider revision criteria G10, attack pages. Slick Willie, a redirect to Bill Clinton, was redirected as a G10. This is a well-known and heavily reported nickname and unquestionably deserves a redirect, even if it is negative. So, does G10 need a slight revision warning to be careful about redirects from negative names to neutral ones? Ego White Tray (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just need to point out to the deleting administrator that there are reliable sources for the nickname. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this could be far better prevented by creating a talk page for the redirect, and by redirecting to the section Bill Clinton#Public image rather than to the top of the article. The section redirect is more helpful both to the reader, who is taken to the section that specifically mentions this nickname, and to the admin, who is taken to the reference that supports it.

The more help you give the admins, the better we can help you. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes that would help the admins, but the admins got to do due diligence. A simple Google search would reveal this obvious connection in five seconds - or search the Bill Clinton page where the name appears. Also, I haven't heard from the deleting admin, but it's possible that the admin knew that Slick Willie is a name for Bill Clinton and thought it should be deleted as a personal attack. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible, but WP:AGF applies to admins too, so this speculation is quite uncalled for. Agree admins got to do due diligence, and there is no evidence that it was not done. See below. Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Due diligence" is required everywhere. There's no need to single out "G10 redirects" for extra due diligence. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it is unsourced and negative then you are not obliged to look for sources, only to check that there isn't a sourced version to revert to. That's because we err on the side of caution when dealing with unsourced negative articles, especially if they are about living people. Yes that means that some articles deleted G10 will have to be recreated with acceptable sources, but when it comes to attack pages speedy should mean speedy. We can't be ultra cautious about negative BLP material and also expect admins and patrollers to try and source G10 articles. ϢereSpielChequers 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this wasn't an article, it was a redirect. And the name in the redirect is in the target article and sourced. The name is well-sourced and there is no BLP violation and it definitely wasn't an attack page. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the admin did everything they should have. I've now fixed the redirect [4] [5] [6] and its target.

You have made your point that you think the admin should have done more. I'm afraid I think this is unreasonable, as do some others. It was fine to raise the question, but as is said below you really should have given the admin the chance to reply before coming here. And in any case I think you now have the answer, and the redirect is restored. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to change the criterion in any way, but rather a difference of opinion about a particular application of the current criterion. If you wish to query Peridon's action then the thing to do is to ask on his talk page (as you have done) and wait a reasonable time for a reply, allowing for the fact that he may be in a time zone where it was just after midnight when you posted, before raising the issue on a public board. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to several comments above, speedy deletion is supposed to be for pages where there is no possibility that it could be disputed. This is far from the case here. If the admin applied due diligence and his actions were reasonable and this redirect was still deleted, then the criteria needs fixing, simple as that. If a reasonable admin applying proper due diligence could delete this redirect then this criteria either needs revision or should not apply to redirects. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point is well taken: the admin did not do due diligence, because appropriate due diligence, or even vague familiarity with 1990's US politics, would have precluded unilateral action. We are supposed to take assertive action to prevent real attack pages from lingering, but derogatory nicknames for public figures are hardly G10able when reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a stretch to call this redirect reliably sourced when it pointed to a lead that did not mention this particular nickname. The reference was a long way down in a long article. Going to the References section would not help as it wasn't obvious which reference supported this particular nickname. So, the claim in the article was adequately sourced, but the redirect was not. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exempting redirects from G10 speedy deletion is an awful idea. Suppose someone were to create something like This guy is a pedophile, redirecting to an article about a living person. Something like that should be deleted as soon as possible. Hut 8.5 17:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was to exempt redirects from G10 and make a more tightly worded standard called "R4" to use for redirects. One that would delete "this guys a rapist" but retain "Slick Willie". At the very least, we should require that any nickname listed on the redirect's target can not be deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looked like one of the silly and/or derogatory redirects that often come up at CSD, aimed at both individuals and companies. I've no objection to the redirect leading to a relevantly sourced section of the Clinton article. The message on my talk page appeared after I was in bed, and I was out of the house throughout the daytime following, and the re-creation and redirection of the re-creation were already in place by the time I was again online and found out about it. I am always willing to restore or userfy things when I get a reasonable explanation, and don't object to anyone who has a reasonable explanation doing the same. Out of my 20,000 or so deletions, I've had about four or so that I know of going to DRV, and one on to AfD. All were redeleted or remained deleted. I don't claim to be perfect - I would distrust anyone who did. Perhaps I should have read the Clinton page more thoroughly. Something like a redirect is easily replaced if justified - but an attack is an potential invitation to legal action. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No change to the CSD criterion is necessary. Of all the types of errors that can be made in deleting pages, an administrator's incorrectly deleting a redirect out of concern it is an attack is exceptionally easy to fix. On the other hand, I have seen far more attack redirects deleted for valid than invalid reasons. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Changing the rules about attack pages so that admins should hold back and do some Google searches before deleting unsourced negative information about very notable individuals would be a big change to our speedy deletion criteria. I'd expect at least a well publicised RFC first, and I for one would not easily be persuaded to support such a change. My bet would be that the community would be unlikely to make such a change, having extra attack pages sitting around for longer is a high price to pay, and to get consensus you'd need some pretty strong benefits to the pedia. Remember we are a very diverse global community, I doubt that we have many admins who couldn't name all the US Presidents in their lifetimes, but that doesn't mean they are going to be aware of details that don't even get a whole section in their articles. Also if you did make such a change you'd have endless arguments as to where to draw the boundary between people so famous that one couldn't delete unsourced negative stuff about them without first googling it, and people who are sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, but not so notable that you had to google before removing unsourced negative information about them. We have arguments enough about the General Notability Guideline and the lesser criteria of a "credible assertion of importance or significance" do you really think the community would benefit from also introducing a Hyper Notability Guideline, and if so how would you codify it? ϢereSpielChequers 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See second level bullet below. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to err on the side of caution to protect named individuals attack pages should be deleted as quickly as possible, which precludes doing any research. That said, nothing is irreversible here on Wikipedia. One of the problems is that inexperienced NPPers often do not recognise subtle attack pages as such and frequently just tag them for A7 which means they can sit around for several hours before being deleted. I see no need or compelling arguments to change the existing criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as far as this goes, but I would go further. The possible damage from performing the speedy delete was slight and almost entirely reversible, but the possible damage from delay was far greater and almost entirely irreversible. To say that the admin did not exercise due diligence is completely uncalled for IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution is not greater diligence from admins, on the evidence. This request was processed in an entirely proper manner. The solution is greater diligence from the creators of such redirects. Even after I posted the solution, nobody bothered to do anything about it. So I've done it myself, see above for the diffs. So I'll say it again in slightly different terms: If you want the admins to have more time to deal with each request, one way to achieve this is to spend a little time doing things like fixing this redirect which don't need admin powers. Then we will have more time to do the things that do need admin powers. It's not rocket science. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday the db-G6 template was back being used to attempt moves contrary to RM results again. Can I ask what actual action/conclusion was drawn above? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RM-result argument would be a lot more convincing if you moved Édouard Hambye back where he belongs. Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, your name hasn't been mentioned here. And I have no idea what the above means, I didn't approve that move (see Talk) and have no intention of moving Édouard Hambye anywhere. Nor can I see the relevance of Mdann52's close or KarlB's move there per FRMOS to using db-G6 counter RM results. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can we perhaps at least tighten the text on WP:RM?

If the only obstacle to a technical move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
db-move

— page to be moved here, reason for move
This will list the page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Can we add "this should never be used for example for (a) .... (b) .... (c) .... and list the 2 or 3 most problematic repeated misuse areas that have repeated with db-G6? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see regular tagging of things that are obviously true, but also obviously non-notable, recently made up things as G3, and often explicitly as G3-hoax (rather than the highly nebulous "vandalism"). My instinct is to decline and PROD (e.g., Aug-o-well-o-ween, or occasionally speedy under another criterion; this discussion was prompted by one such case I deleted as G10 - it was an almost certainly true term of disparagement made up to disparage a single person), but the tagging occurs to often to be ignored, and I occasionally track back and find that another admin has deleted it as G3 (e.g., Romantiqueo, Cosomi, The Dyon Skull, Yuerrazikk-opa-gi "comb" lake monster). Am I crazy? Should an article that reads:

A Huge Erection is a cocktail made with Tequila cream liqueur and Coconut rum without mixing, which is served with a banana with a straw inserted into the banana lengthwise. It is often garnished with two lychee.

Be speedily deleted as a "hoax" even though it's almost certainly true? (Indeed, it is true. Try it. ;) ) WilyD 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prod. I usually do in cases like that. It's not an easy one to Google, either, if one is of a delicate disposition... I must say I find more misuse of G1 than G3, and A7 on attacking or obviously ridiculous articles. (Personally, I'd prefer two strawberries in it instead of lychees. Sounds good, though...) Peridon (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have quite happily deleted the lake monster and Cosomi on sight, by the way. Romantiqueo, I'd have passed by on the other side. I know nothing of reggaeton, and don't think I really want to. Having created many a fairy tale myself (and listened to excuses made by assorted children), I might recognise them easier than others who haven't had those opportunities. Even fairy tales have to have a coherence that that monster didn't. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an argument for deleting Huge Erection as a vandalism G3, but the problem for a hoax deletion is that there is no claim that could be false. Now if they claimed it was popular, or widely known, and you find it isn't, fine, shoe horn it into a Hoax deletion to avoid a pointless delay, but we shouldn't be speedy deleting things that clearly don't meet the criteria. Monty₈₄₅ 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps time to raise Fuhghettaboutit's proposal again? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in such situations, the admin should go ahead with the deletion, but state in the deletion log that it was an WP:IAR hasty prod. I usually prod these things, but when they get speedied I never object.

As to drafting a speedy deletion criterion specifically for these things, the wording should be carefully studied as to not encompass stuff that does have a chance of surviving. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other choice besides an IAR vandalism delete, is an IAR Test page delete. That's what I do when it seems necessary, because if I have made a mistake, the deletion summary is much less condemnatory. On the whole, even though I do not really like to have to use IAR on speedy, I think we'll make many fewer mistakes using it, than we will if we try to draft a new criterion for this sort of stuff--its too nebulous to define. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So no {{db-snow}}? Too bad. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lychee" should be plural. It shouldn't be speedied. It could well be real. I don't dare try google searching. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in other words, turds are being flushed, but the handle is being pushed in slightly the wrong way. What a tragedy. This is exactly why we have Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We shouldn't criticize the right thing happening because Form 113491194-A rather than 113491194-B was filled out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the four examples, Romantiqueo was not a turd - I suspect a spanish speaker might've been able to bring it up to snuff. I wasn't able to find adequate sources, but my reading of the not-individually-reliable-but-I-tend-to-believe-them-in-the-aggregate sources lead me to believe it's probably true. Similarly, I've more than once declined this kind of request on worthwhile articles, or at least plausibly worthwhile articles. WilyD 09:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many displeasing subject titles do not get deleted. Generally, project building is not run as a bureaucracy, but when it comes to privileged users and unilateral deletion, the first substantive line of WP:CSD is quite explicit. Five days of PROD don't hurt, and like I said, it could be real. CSD, PROD and AfD are not pointless forms of tricial difference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have not yet seen Brazil (film), you really ought to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While I am not sure I agree with the implied analogy, it is a great film. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did my comment get moved? This was in direct response to Seraphim's "incorrect forms" statement. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand the desire to get those deleted when Google was indexing them, but if we are now No-indexing new articles then I don't see a problem in them sitting unindexed for a few days with a deletion template on them. Afterall for all I know that could be a trendy cocktail that people who are more au fait with popular culture regard as more notable and even better selling than a pan Galactic Gargle blaster. Obviously we need to get rid of attack pages pdq, but for some things prod is the best process. ϢereSpielChequers 21:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we not entitled to presume that something is a hoax if it never been reported in any reliable sources? Unlike SmokeyJoe, I dared Google searching (specifically for "huge erection" AND rum AND banana AND lychee), and got zero remotely relevant hits on Google, Google Books, or Google News. Same for "Aug-o-well-o-ween". bd2412 T 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we shouldn't assume that things which could well be unimportant are hoaxes just because they are not reported in reliable sources. We can and do assume that they are not notable, but it would require a complete reversal of AGF to assume that every non notable cocktail, card game or Masai boma is a hoax. Remember when we delete something as non-notable we generally assume that the editor is of good faith when we reject their work, if we start deleting such stuff as hoaxes then we are being very bitey to the editors involved. Before we brand someone's work as fraudulent we need to check that someone else won the award or number one slot in question. ϢereSpielChequers 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is then obvious - despite finding no Google hits, it's not a hoax (I have, in fact, drunk a Huge Erection - I don't recommend it). If we mean something else, we should say something else, but to presume it's a hoax is daft. WilyD 09:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The obvious solution to this is to create an entirely new CSD criteria for things that were obviously made-up. I know that's been suggested many, many time before and rejected, but since almost all of these articles have no chance at either PROD or AfD, it would probably be best to just speedy them. The only problem is that it needs to be strict, something with the likes of of

  This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a neologism, sport, activity etc. that was clearly made-up one day, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and where a source is not given.

  Such a criterion would not apply to such articles if they have any link as a source, even if unreliable (like Facebook). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the difficulty of defining "clearly made up one day", this extends the BLPprod principle of requiring a source but without targeting the extension on high risk articles. If we were to extend the source it or it gets deleted principle from BLPs to more articles we should do so to an area where there is a risk of abuse. One obvious anomaly lies with articles about the recently dead, my suspicion is that we are more likely to get another incident about someone allegedly in the news in the last sixty years ago than someone whose article stops in the 1930s with their retirement from sport. It has long seemed an anomaly to me that the bio of someone who died in the last few years is deemed lower risk than that of a pre WWII sportsperson. ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never liked the "made up one day" thing, as it's somewhat insulting to new editors, and we definitely shouldn't include it in a speedy delete criteria (we deleted your page because we think you made it all up is quite bitey) Ego White Tray (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks to me like it fails three of the four criteria for new CSD rules, namely it is not sufficiently objective, certainly not uncontestable, and there is no evidence that there is a frequent problem with such articles. PROD and AFD are able to handle such things well enough. I also find myself very much in agreement with WSC above point, if we are going to expand the use of a BLPPROD type of procedure, it should be targeted at articles that are a serious problem, not just junk pages that are foolish but harmless. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Then why don't we just extend A7 to the most common categories of things that lack encyclopedic importance, such as unsourced games, holidays, and recipes (drinks or otherwise). bd2412 T 12:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was what I originally had in mind, but since that appears to have been rejected several times, I tried something else. Didn't somebody propose a similar criterion a few months back? (that was actually the inspiration for my current proposal). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following proposals originated at the Village Pump:

Having participated in a few MfD discussions recently, I've noticed that many deletion nominations sit ignored for a time. Perhaps a more efficient process would be beneficial, along the lines of CSD but regarding MfD? It would take the drafting of some criteria to determine what could be addressed through this process (userspace fake articles and other uncontroversial deletions), but I think this would be an easier and simpler way than the current method. A user would mark it, and an admin would check it; gone would be the long periods of articles waiting at MfD. dci | TALK 05:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've been thinking that WP:CSD needs a G13. Non-admin close and uncontested deletions. for a non-admin who closes a successful XfD, or for a participant in an XfD that has gone through a full deletion discussion without being contested, but has not yet been closed. Such a proposal should probably be at CSD, though. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help with efficiency. To increase the chance of input on these ideas, I'll make a note at CSD's talk page. dci | TALK 21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is presented as a CSD criteria this proposal is actually about changing wp:AFD in two very significant ways:

1. Giving non-admins full power to close XFD discussions (compared to the very limited non-admin closures we have now)
2. Making "uncontested" nominations default to delete (This varies per pagetype, but article nominations without comments are relisted or treated as expired wp:PRODs).

I am not seeing how either of them improves "efficiency". (for example, I assume the deleting admin should check whether the XFD was correctly closed? If yes, then how is this more efficient than the admin closing the discussion himself?). There also seems to be a misunderstanding that letting nominations run for several days/weeks is somehow "inefficient". Those waiting periods are intended to give people time to respond, as many editors edit infrequently. Yoenit (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]