Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 84

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Ian Dingman (Disambiguation) and previously at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects where respective disambiguation pages do not exist there have assertions that G14 both is and is not case sensitive. - i.e. is a page entitled Foo (Disambiguation) that would be unambiguously speedily deletable if named Foo (disambiguation) also speedy deletable. There is no disagreement that these pages should be deleted, only whether they can be speedily deleted.

If the answer is that G14 currently is case sensitive, the question arises whether it should be? If it is but shouldn't be, how should the criterion be reworded?

For the avoidance of doubt this would have no impact on pages with "(Disambiguation)" in the title that redirect to targets that are disambiguation pages (which is an entirely separate matter of contention currently).

Pinging the participants of the two linked discussions: @Tavix, Steel1943, Hqb, Certes, Sonic678, Icabobin, BD2412, CX Zoom, Crouch, Swale, Jay, and Shhhnotsoloud: Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong view about whether the criterion currently is case sensitive (although I weakly suspect that it would be explicitly specified as case sensitive if it was meant to be) but do strongly think it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely, if correctly capitalized redirects can be deleted that don't target DAB pages then incorrectly capitalized ones should. I don't see how you could argue that it doesn't qualify because it has an incorrect title which seems not just splitting hairs but ridiculous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• "(disambiguation)" (lower case d) is a special qualifier, akin to a reserved word, which identifies a dab or a redirect to one. Variants such as "(Disambiguation)" and "(disammisspelt)" are not special – but in my opinion, which is not universally shared, should be shot on sight. Certes (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  To answer the actual question: I think G14 as currently worded is case sensitive but it clearly shouldn't be. As Crouch, Swale points out, if a page with a correct title qualifies for speedy deletion then a similar page with an error in its title surely must too. I'd argue that also applies to misspellings, but perhaps that's out of scope here. Certes (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• All capitalisation and spelling variants including "Foo disambiguation", "Foo Disambiguation" and "Foo (disambig)" should be deleted as G14 if the standard version is deleted as G14. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  There isn't always a "standard" version. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Replace "is deleted" by "would be deletable". —Kusma (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think the answer to this question lies in the pending closure of WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages. If it is deemed that "(Disambiguation)" should never exist as a redirect to "(disambiguation)", then G14 is not applicable. The redirect must be assessed independently on the basis of other criteria. In the other case, where "(Disambiguation)" is the logical equivalent of "(disambiguation)", then G14 should be applicable. I had supported the latter view in that RfD, and thus believe that "(Disambiguation)" falls within the scope of G14. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  That discussion is, as noted above, completely irrelevant. That discussion is about redirects to disambiguation pages, this one is about redirects to pages that are not disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nevermind, I'm sorry, I should go to sleep and come back here later. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I support G14 for any sort of attempt at disambiguation in the redirect if the target is not a disambiguation page. I would say the only issue that I could see possibly occurring is an edge case. The edge case is a page at "Foo (bar)" being moved to "Foo" and "Foo" being moved to "Foo (disambiguation)" as "Foo (bar)" is primary topic. In this situation if there were "Foo (Disambiguation)" targeting "Foo" it would not be properly retargeted as "Foo" won't be a retarget to "Foo (disambiguation)", but I don't think that's common enough for this to not be a G14 standard.

TartarTorte 17:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• My understanding is that G14 is case sensitive, but in my opinion it should not be. A good improvement would be to add "or (Disambiguation)". Other misspellings can be dealt with by G6 (unambiguously created in error). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can we agree that misspellings fall under G6? Most but not all editors at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Badami (disambiguiation) [sic] thought so. Certes (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Misspellings sometimes fall under G6 but not always. If the page was unambiguously created in error (or is a redirect created by moving a page created in error) then it will be a G6 but if it is possible the misspelling was deliberate (regardless of why) then it isn't a G6. A recently created misspelling might be an R3 but again not always. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I support deletion if the redirect is misleading-that is, in this case, if the target isn't a disambiguation page, like I've !voted in two previous discussions. I also second Shhhnotsoloud's point about misspellings being dealt with-I'm not sure they are plausible redirects. However, I don't think G14 should be case sensitive, and people would still be helped if the disambiguator was "Disambiguation" rather than "disambiguation," which might result from things like holding the ⇧ Shift key for too long, like I've argued in various prior discussions. While I wouldn't really encourage people intentionally creating capitalized disambiguators, I don't think it'll be likely to open a WP:Pandora's box of similar redirects-there may be some chance of that, but that's pretty small. But if they were left over from page moves or the like, I'd say to keep those, as they're not really in the way of anything, and I'm not sure I'd shoot them on sight. Unless, of course, the target isn't a disambiguation page or whatever is stated in the redirect-that's the case when they need to go or be retargeted. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support having WP:G14 rewritten to accommodate capitalization and spelling errors in the disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I propose to add the following note at the end of the G14 criterion:

The requirements of this criterion are case insensitive.

Spelling errors and the like are best handled with a different criterion, G6 currently but hopefully also R5 in the future (see #Proposed R5: Redirects created when moving pages unambiguously created in error). I'm not sure intentional misspellings are frequent enough to need speedy deletion, but if they are it will need to be carefully worded so as not to overreach. As this seems uncontroversial I don't think a formal consensus is needed and I will add it in a few days if there is no opposition Thryduulf (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I don't think this is even controversial and I'd also include other WP:RDAB errors like missing brackets etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  One missing parentheses is always going to be an error and thus already covered under G6, no parentheses there may be false positives so I'm not keen on including that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Upper case D here is a typo, and it seems ridiculous to delete speedily the correctly capitalised version but not the incorrectly capitalised one. Certes (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose adding extra wordiness, all of these pages are already obviously speedily deletable. —Kusma (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  It seems obvious that they should be deletable, but it's not obvious to everyone that they are deletable: see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24. Certes (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects where respective disambiguation pages do not exist looks pretty unanimous to me. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Kusma see also the discussion immediately above where there is no consensus on whether the current wording is case sensitive or not. It not being obvious is the entire reason this proposal is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is always better to apply all our rules with some common sense than to make them lawyer-proof. On speedy patrol, I would certainly have deleted " (Disambiguation)" versions under the same G14 rules as " (disambiguation)" ones. But if you want to change the wording, at least fix it properly by including all spelling variants. It makes no sense to have " (DISAMBIGUATION)" fall under G14 and send " (DISAMBIG)" to RFD. I would support something like

  • A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" or a similar indication for a disambiguation page but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function.

  —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded, but I know others disagree. Certes (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  "a similar indication for a disambiguation page" is not objective enough for a speedy criterion. I agree "(disambig)" redirecting a non-dab page should be covered but it doesn't seem to be common - I've searched the archives and while there were quite a few relevant discussions in 2007, I've found exactly one discussion in the 15 years since (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25#Yakovlev (disambig)). There are currently about 14 pages in the article namespace with "(disambig)" in the title, all of them redirect to disambiguation pages ("Disambig" redirects to Word-sense disambiguation) and precedent on that type of redirect is mixed (most discussions seem to have ended in keep or no consensus but the redirects have been deleted at some point in the intervening years, I've not looked into why). Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think my proposal is more objective than A7, G11, or R3, and having the rule slightly wider is unlikely to delete any page that is truly needed. —Kusma (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it is objective enough (and I disagree) there is still no evidence of need. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Any more comments? Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

When "extant pages" are referred to in G14, does this mean extant on English Wikipedia or extant on any-language Wikipedia?

A G14 tagging I made at IGEM (disambiguation) was contested with the standard reason "Page is not a disambiguation page, or disambiguates two or more extant pages", though one of those pages is only an interwiki link to Russian Wikipedia without a corresponding page here, so it essentially only disambiguates one extant English article. Is this, in general, enough to render a page ineligible for G14? If so, I think it would be a good idea to explicitly codify it in the criterion. ^Complex/_Rational 00:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I always understood it to be pages on enwiki, too. (And shouldn't that entry have been removed anyway, as a partial title match?) —Cryptic 02:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• A disambiguation page needs a minimum of two blue links to pages on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I would be curious if this kind of misunderstanding arises frequently enough to justify explicitly saying "extant on English Wikipedia" in the criterion, but good to note in any case. ^Complex/_Rational 13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• The wording of G14 is plain and simple, but not very accurate and often leads to confusion. The main point is that the entry is a valid one according to the guidelines (WP:DAB and MOS:DAB). This will almost always involve the requiring a link to an English Wikipedia article, but interwiki links are an edge case: they are, in principle, allowed on dab pages (WP:DABSISTER), arguably even when there's no local article linked. My experience has been that in most cases, instead of seeking to delete the whole page, it's better to find a relevant English article to link to in the description. – Uanfala (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The page Laurel Blatchford has been developed as the subject was a nominee for a (US) government job. It was then tagged for speedy delete, presumably because she recently withdrew the nomination.

For clarity, I've removed the tag as I was wondering if we need to talk about this before the page is deleted. What's the procedure? Should I nominate it for AfD so there is at least the opportunity to discuss whether the person is notable even without the job? Or do we allow that nominees are notable until such time as they withdraw, when the page can be speedy deleted? Interested to hear thoughts and/or where else it could/should be discussed. Or if I should have kept the speedy tag. JMWt (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it's gone to AfD. So I guess we will have the discussion there. JMWt (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is only for pages that obviously meet one or more of the listed criteria, so if there is any doubt about whether one applies it doesn't and it is always better to send a borderline page to XfD than to speedy it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Are IPs allowed to make subpages for their own IP user page? Let's say there is an IP user 123.123.123.123, are they allowed to create something like User:123.123.123.123/some page? RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A more applicable example may be sandboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well let's say that the "some page" was a sandbox. Are IPs allowed to do that? RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

U2 explicitly allows user pages of IP users who have edited, and there is nothing in any policy prohibiting it that I can find. However, I navigated to user:<my ip>/Sandbox while logged out and was shown a message that I needed to log in or create an account before I could create the page. However there was no technical barrier to my creating a page in the user talk namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

So if they can somehow get a page created for them by another person, it's perfectly fine? RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing I can see in any policy that would prohibit it. Any editor would of course be free to nominate it at MfD, but if the content is all of

• Relevant to the encyclopaedia
• Not created by a blocked or banned user
• Not a copyvio, attack page, complete nonsense, etc
• Being actively used (whether by the ip in question or not)

then I don't see any benefit to doing so. By all means take something abandoned for 6 months or more to MfD if there is no benefit in keeping it (if there is benefit, move it somewhere) and pages that are irrelevant to the encyclopaedia should also be taken to MfD if U5 doesn't apply. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Being actively used (whether by the ip in question or not) - probably a stupid question, but what if I found a sandbox that was created a year ago by a registered user, and never touched again? The actively being used part stuck out to me, so I just wanted to be sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:User pages#Old unfinished draft articles, such pages should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone. Donald Albury 13:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm all but certain there was a fairly recent - within the past three or four years - consensus to specifically disallow this. I very clearly remember mentioning to someone (I think, but am uncertain, that it was Hobit?) that we couldn't userfy an article to an IP as he'd suggested because of that then-very-recent decision. I can't for the life of me find it, though, and I've spent the last four hours trying. The closest I've come is #6 at WP:Userfication#What can not be userfied, and that's been there since the page's very beginning in 2006. —Cryptic 02:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, pretty sure it's not me. I don't recall being involved in anything involving subpages, let alone IP user-space subpages. I think I'd remember if I was. And if the discussion was about IPs getting things userfied to them, wow that sounds a bit more possible, but I don't think so. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Still can't find this (and that really bothers me), but I generated this list of all IP subpage deletions and restorations in the process, which might be of some interest. 773 out of 3062 such deletions match /\bU2\b/. —Cryptic 02:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I support banning IPs from making any pages. They should WP:Register. Maybe, registering should be easier, eg the default process providing a username, and making it a one-button process.

IPs should be most welcome to edit, but once you’re making new pages, accountability outweighs the barrier of registration. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't suggest either of those, both are matters for WP:VPR. IPs have always been able to create pages, but the namespaces in which they may do so have been restricted - for example, consider an article with no talk page but the IP wishes to suggest an improvement to the article without editing the article itself. Would you deny them the right to comment? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If the article exists, the talk page must be auto-created to allow IPs to post. Similarly for userpages (users with a redlinked main talk page). IPs should be encouraged to comment in the talk and user_talk namespaces. But at the point that they have a reason to create a page like User:123.123.123.123/some page, they should WP:Register. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe they already cannot create pages "like user:123.123.123.123/some page". I also agree that your proposed changes are out of scope for this page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Following an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee directed an RfC be held regarding mass deletion. Proposals for that RfC are currently being workshopped at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale and at least one (there likely will be more) draft proposal suggests adding new a speedy deletion criteria. Please leave your comments on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this revert: my understanding (per WP:DELTALK) is that user talk pages are generally not deleted. I added a note to that effect into WP:G7 (user talks are already excluded from WP:G8) but this was reverted. Is my understanding incorrect -- are users entitled to deletion of their user talk pages under G7? And if so, say someone else created your user talk page (for example, mine was created by someone else) so G7 won't apply: do we end up with a weird scenario where some editors can have their user talk page deleted under CSD and others cannot? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No, your understanding is correct, but G7 doesn't apply anyway since the talk page usually has more than one author. If a user's talk page somehow has only one author, and that author requests that page be deleted, then I see no reason not to honor the request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I see every comment on a talk page as adding substantial content, thus breaking the requirement the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay, that makes sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Are A7 and A9 intended/used as merely a shortcut regarding implementing the wp:notability requirement for what looks like areas of common non-notable articles? Presumably "pre-screening" by a more lenient version of it? Or is it an additional criteria/requirement created by this policy for existence of an artice? It does have wording that expresses the intent to be a more lenient standard than wp:notability so the former seems more likely. If so, perhaps a clarification should be added that if an article is already determined to be wp:notable then A7 & A9 do not apply. A test example would be an article in one of those areas which meets wp:notability but does not contain any claim of importance. With a note that wp:notability, especially the GNG criteria is based on coverage and not necessarily importance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Claim of importance" has a technical definition here, also linked from the CSD criteria itself. It's impossible for an article subject to be notable but not meet the "claim of importance" standard. ansh.666 22:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So the gist of applying that essay is that if wp:notability is established, that counts having the claim of importance. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not so much the "gist of applying that essay" as the actual fundamentals of the policy - if notability is demonstrated then importance is also demonstrated. This because notability requires the subject to be mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources, but being mentioned in one independent source or one reliable source demonstrates importance. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I like to think of importance as "If what the article claims about itself were provably true and demonstrated in multiple RS'es, might we have an article about it?" It's a quick way of assessing potential inclusion without getting stuck in the minutiae of notability. It's basically a "summary judgment" criteria, where, assuming everything goes in the article's favor... should we keep it? If not, no point in putting it through AfD, because statements like "Bob is a nice guy from my 2nd grade class" would never, even in the best possible light, be reasons to have an article on Bob. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. Basically, we could define notability as the claim of significance being supported by reliable sources. ansh.666 01:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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

In the paragraph: "X1. Redirects created by Neelix Created as a G6 extension in December 2015 shortly after the discovery and arbitration case regarding 50,000+ questionable redirects created by the user Neelix, and later split into its own criterion. Was repealed in April 2018 after cleanup was completed (discussion). Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.", the sentence "Instead, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion." should be removed as it is not necessary anymore since the cleanup is finished. Carpimaps (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I object to this - while any specific effort to clean up Neelix redirects has finished, surely people will still come across Neelix redirects that they think should have been X1-ed but weren't from time to time so the pointer is still helpful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the anchors for criteria later merged (A4, A6, A8, R1, C3, T4) should point to the corresponding bullet point in #Obsolete criteria, rather than the successor criterion per WP:ASTONISH. None of the successor criteria mention the ex-CSDs, leaving people confused as to why a link to WP:A6 brought them to WP:G10. The bullet point list explains that they are obsolete, and links to the current applicable CSD. Courtesy ping Pppery and TartarTorte. HouseBlaster^talk 01:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I have a slight preference towards linking to the obsolete criteria as they do explain the relevant still extant CSD criterion that would apply, but also provide context for historical discussions where obsolete criteria are linked from. I do also wonder if there is a more elegant solution to this that I cannot think of myself. TartarTorte 01:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't care. I reverted that edit because I erroneously thought it was removing the only anchor for A6 (having temporarily forgotten that obsolete criteria were still being listed). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking to the obsolete criteria rather than its successor makes sense to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done here. As long as we aren't edit warring on a policy page, I do not believe we should wait too long to fix duplicated anchors. HouseBlaster^talk 02:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

U5 requires that "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". Is there any guidance on how many "few or no" refers to? Some relevant stats for December 2022 so far:

I came across this when writing a query to report violations of this requirement to Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions, and ended up setting the threshold to 100 there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I'd be tempted to change the criterion's wording to something like "10 or fewer edits outside user pages, excluding edits that are or could be speedily deleted under other criteria." I'm happy to consider a higher threshold, but not one greater than 100. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel that 10 is an appropriate threshold. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The above query already excludes deleted edits. My intuition says the threshold should be higher than 10, but I have no good argument for it other than that most admins doing CSD seem to think it's higher (although I have no means of searching for failed CSD attempts) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd actually go up to 20, but 10 is a reasonable threshold too. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that there was no check for "few or no edits outside of user pages" done in those high number cases. I would be happy to support a number of 10. Anything greater than 10 is not "few". I will complain about nominations for deletion of a user page, where it is clearly an article draft, that is not about the user. Also U5 looks very similar to US, but probably too flimsy a reason to change anything. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't quantify the number of edits, so as not to encourage gaming the criterion, which is incredibly useful to get rid of a bunch of crap without too much fuss. I probably have a different approach, but I actually prefer leaving some room for an admin's use of discretion, after all that's what admins are appointed to do, but, if we have to establish a threshold, then I'd oppose anything lower than 50. Salvio 10:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• I see this more about: If someone is a productive editor, and they have some nonsense in a sandbox, don't whack them with a speedy delete template; their fantasy MILF Island brackets that would normally be speedy-deletable may be serving a purpose such as table/template troubleshooting that you're not aware of. Have we run in to issues with an red-line edit count would have made a difference here, such that this needs to be defined? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
• Quantifying the number misses the point. It’s about whether the person was here to be a good faith contributor to the project. Mainly, it’s about mainspace edits. Were they all reverted? Were they token edits, done to achieve some metric like autoconfirmed or the number that this discussion might produce? If they were ever a good-faith contributor, they deserve the dignity of a discussion, not the knee jerk deletion that is U5. U5 is for quickly getting rid of the time wasting of deliberate or inept misusers of Wikipedia who have no chance of every being a productive contributor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting writing a hard line into the criterion, just wanted some advice about how many "few or no" refers to. It seems like there's widespread disagreement about that, even among watchers of this page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  The “few” edits for disregarding were meant to be for excluding test edits, or edits to their autobiography, with discretion to the deleting admin. Are they WP:NOTHERE bold points #1 and #2?

  Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business

  Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing (see WP:SPA).

  Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site

  A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, social media type pages, etc.). See WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK for more information.

  What I look for is whether all their mainspace edits were reverted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we please take a closer look at the ten cases of >100? SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Likely, there are a few admins who are loose with the criteria, and they need to be reminded of policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe CSD's are rather discretionary by nature, if an admin declines a speedy nomination you make, you can always just MFD it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Or DRV it if you think they are being overly speedy. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

CSDs are supposed to be objective. U5 is quite special is having an extremely broad NOTWEBHOST criterion but coupled to an extreme “few or no edits”.

I don’t recall ever having a CSD tag declined. I think some admins are overly speedy. One of the ten was extraordinarily egregious and did go through DRV. I think the deleting admins should be invited to comment on their interpretation of the text at WP:U5 and how it applies to these ten cases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Deb

User:Bbb23

User:Anthony Bradbury

User:Liz

User:Jimfbleak

Would you please comment on your listing in the linked table?

User:UtherSRG Already had a DRV for the User:AntonioMartin case.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

My two were mistakes. I need to be more vigilant in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bbb23. That was my guess. One should consider their mistake rate, the number of mistakes divided by their number of actions.

I rarely U5 as such, I guess I'm listed because where there is a G11/U5 I haven't always checked the U5 bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If the page would be SNOW deleted at MfD, that’s not a CSD, but as a tagging mistake it’s a non-issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't always re-look at a CSD category to read the exact wording when I go about doing a speedy. I most often just look at the speedy tag itself and judge based on that. I err on both sides of that fence, but the non-deletes don't get seen. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Like User:Jimfbleak, I'm not too troubled as to how many edits have been made overall. For me, making 100 small edits in a short space of time in order to get your pet topic on Wikipedia is no better than making half a dozen major edits for the same reason. I would seldom delete for U5 on its own so it hasn't been a consideration for me. Deb (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially when users like user:20 upper will game their edit counts. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

See this talk section for instance. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

They're listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#U5, as I subtly linked to above. Feel free. There's now only 9, since in one case enough of the user in question's other edits were deleted to knock them below 100 edits. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think U5 is fine as written but we must recognize what it is. It's inherently somewhat subjective rather than objective, and the phrase in question even more so. While speedy is usually about the page, this phrase brings in an "activity elsewhere" criteria to judge the creators motivation and then judges the page by that motivation. Also, I think that wiki decisions are inherently take into \account multiple factors such as the nature of the page and the activity criteria. What does it mean if you set an explicit pass/fail criteria for one criteria in a multi-factor decision? North8000 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If in doubt, use MfD. U5 is only for objective non-contributors. A few random editors don’t make someone a genuine good faith contributor. Anyone who can’t identify objectively whether that account has made good faith edits shouldn’t touch U5. For the vast majority of U5 deletions, it is clear cut. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit, retitling U5 to “A non-contributor’s misuse of Wikipedia as a web host” may be required and sufficient to refocus U5 on the objective criteria that the user is a non-contributor. The above includes clear evidence that admins deleting under U5 are sometimes completely forgetting the non-contributor aspect. At MfD, it is clear that non-admins frequently fail to read past the first clause. If this sticks, next it should filter through to twinkle: U5 is only for non-contributors’ pages.

How many mainspace edits make a user a contributor? Mostly, U5 is used where they have zero. For the one to dozens range, it depends on the edits. Where they junk and reverted? Were they dummy edits?

If a user has any proclivity to productive editing, they should get the respect of an MfD discussion over U5 speedy deletion. Give respect, and you get respect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

On the removal of “Blatant”. I don’t recall this being a feature of the original discussions. It was sufficient that the non-contributors page was a mere NOTWEBHOST violation. Eg a probably CV, which is not blatantly not a draft mainspace biography. Also, “blatant” draws the mind to the degree of the NOTWEBHOST violation, and draws attention away from the non-contributor aspect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to catch you out, but does this mean that, in your opinion, it's okay for a contributor to misuse Wikipedia as a web host and for us to leave that user page in place? Deb (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It means that if a contributor allegedly misuses Wikipedia as a web host, then a discussion is required. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

MfD used to process a large number of NOTWEBHOST violations by complete non-contributors. Over years, I argued that if we bend over backwards to be nice to them, they might become contributors. I looked, and I saw it happen never.

Efficient deletion of the huge number of NOTWEBHOST violations by complete non-contributors was the driving reason for U5. U5 stats provided this month indicate that the vast majority of U5 deletions are for users with zero edits outside userspace. It is working as intended.

MfD is not burdened with nominations of userpages belonging to ever-good-faith contributors.

Nominations to delete the Userpage of a contributor per the NOTWEBHOST reason are frequently contentious. This means that their deletion is not suitable for speedy deletion.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I place a lot of U5 tags, and I've had U5 tags I've placed removed by admins because a user had over a thousand edits and I hadn't realized it. I don't think an edit count should be relevant personally, but take it to MfD is exactly what the edit summary has stated in some cases when I've seen the tag removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

And that feels right. Any good-faith editor can challenge most any tag, with obvious exceptions, and an XfD process is the next step in such a case. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So, I've been meaning to do a proper analysis of this for a while, but since we're on the topic, I'll do an abbreviated version: Almost all U5s are against policy as currently written.

U5 has exceptions for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. Let's look at just the last 10 U5s out of Special:Log/delete that don't also cite other CSD. For apparently autobiographical content, dates of birth, contact info, and third parties' names have been redacted (out of an abundance of caution; all who stated an age were above 18). Templates have been nowiki'd or similar where appropriate.

1. User:Vikashnik07: Y Good deletion.
Hi My name is vikash nik and IAM a creator and photography influencers And My other account pls visit..... instagram... [redacted] Facebook... [redacted] Twitter..... [redacted] Pls pls visit my all accounts 😎😎😎😎😘🥺❤️🙏

2. User:Habibitsolutions: N Plausible draft. Not a good draft, but still an attempt at creating encyclopedic content.

== HABEEBULLA GOKULAPADU alias (HABIB) == Habib Habib(Founder and C.E.O) -Habib IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Habib in 2022 Born Gokulapadu Habeebulla (1996-04-10) April 10, 1996 (age 28) Nannur, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. Education G.Pulla Reddy Engineering College (B.Tech(C.S.E)) Occupations Software developer investor entrepreneur Technical Trainer Years active 2022–present Known for founder of HABIB IT SOLUTIONS and Easyinternship.in Title Chairman and founder of Habib IT Solutions Founder of Easy Internships Board member of Habib IT Solutions Habib IT Solutions Parents Hidayathulla G. (father) Mahabuni (mother) Website www.habibitsolutions.com

3. User:TexasLending-com: N Egregiously bad deletion . Page is 100% compliant with WP:UPYES.

About Me Userboxen Name This user's name is TexasLending.com. This user has been a member of Wikipedia since Feb 12,2015. Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain. H2O This user drinks water regularly. This user believes in the right of every human being to have access to Wikipedia. This user was born and lives in the United States. en This user is a native speaker of the English language. This user has been on Wikipedia for 9 years, 8 months and 29 days. Too many userboxes This user may have too many userboxes ... nah, no way!! This user maintains a blog. This user uses Google as a primary search engine. This user has a channel on YouTube. This user maintains a facebook profile. + This user posts on X.

4. User:Texas-Lending: N Egregiously bad deletion . Page is 100% compliant with WP:UPYES.

About Me Userboxen Name This user's name is Texas Lending. This user has been a member of Wikipedia since Feb 12,2015. Content contributed by this user is released into the public domain. H2O This user drinks water regularly. This user believes in the right of every human being to have access to Wikipedia. This user was born and lives in the United States. en This user is a native speaker of the English language. This user has been on Wikipedia for 9 years, 8 months and 29 days. Too many userboxes This user may have too many userboxes ... nah, no way!! This user maintains a blog. This user uses Google as a primary search engine. This user has a channel on YouTube. This user maintains a facebook profile. + This user posts on X.

5. User:Abrahamjoy: N Page valid either under WP:UPYES or as a plausible draft.
Abraham Joy (Born [redacted],Kottarakkara, District Kollam (Kerala), India File:Abraham Joy.jpg He studied BSc Mathematics at MSM College, Kayamkulam and completed his Master in Computer Application at AMC Engineering College Bangalore.

6. User:Roy Tsang/sandbox: N Egregiously bad deletion of an AfC submission. Apart from being in the wrong language, page is a 100% plausible draft about a possibly-notable beach volleyball player. U5 is not an exception to the general rule that we don't delete things just for not being in English.
{{Short description|王龍 Wong Lung}} {{Draft topics|sports}} {{AfC topic|blp}} {{AfC submission|||ts=20220701140952|u=Roy Tsang|ns=2}} {{User sandbox}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> 王龍 Wong Lung (Sunny Wong) 生於1991年英屬香港，一位香港排球運動員。曾入選香港隊、南華會 等等. 王龍 活躍於室內排球及沙灘排球界。王龍這大名無人不曉，旺角花墟排球場留下不少腳毛。 現為不少中學的排球教練，作育英才。 王龍曾於一次飯局中，聲稱自己希望個名改為「司徒魚龍」，因多年來他的名字比較短，人人以為王龍本人只有150cm。

7. User:Rupinderbhathal/sandbox: Y Draft, but not a plausible one. Arguably falls under G1 or G3 as well as U5.
{{Short description|Rapinder is really a famous person around his village and most of the people of his village know hi }} {{Draft topics|stem}} {{AfC topic|blp}} {{AfC submission|||ts=20220701090701|u=Rupinderbhathal|ns=2}} {{User sandbox}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> Kio pendi a fir dhak champion 😎😂

8. User:Edonmaliqi/sandbox: N Not a valid use of U5, given that a page with no content beyond AfC headers is by definition not using Wikipedia as a webhost. Only 2 days shy of G13 applying though.
{{Draft topics|stem}} {{AfC topic|blp}} {{AfC submission|||ts=20220701104523|u=Edonmaliqi|ns=2}} {{User sandbox}}

9. User:Kamaljit karra: Y Valid use of U5, but G11 would work just as well. (Formatting errors sic.)

baljindersingh(ajaysaab) name boy live in india(punjab) his date of birth [redacted] his working on papper selling in [redacted] 10 year old to near villages distributer and mini carnivall selling a plastic toys his aim for very biggest open a seprate production house his study complete in balachaur public sen sec school and digree elite intstitute and they complete study and trust in goal they going to wedding collect the wire for normal vedio grapher and received money per day 250 indian rupees acoording to network 4$ per day they believe in hardwork and his father name dharampal and they start a new studio tour in 2013 and sucess biggest cinematographer for vedio industry line this time working this time working in dharmamoviespatiala name studio and skill editing in biggest youtuber and influencer to cinematic vedio line and his team acrossed 2 million veiws in youtube jagritikhurana channel his net income 2000$ per month #dharmamoviespatiala #baljindersingh #dharmamovies #baljinersingh [Filename redacted. Caption: "dharma movies owner"] Personal life He live in from patiala a town in the patiala district near Chandigarh, Punjab, India. He is the biggest cinematographer in india See also in social media search dharmamoviespatiala and baljindersingh(ajaysaab) References "Biography of Baljinder Singh" they biggest cinematographer "An introduction to Indian vediographer ". starting work on 2013 sep birthday date External links Baljinder Singh baljindersingh(ajaysaab) dharmamoviespatiala ajaysaab baljinder dharampalson Authority control Edit this at Wikidata General biggest cinematographer

10. User:Richardpstallo: N Another one that is either limited autobiograhical info or could be the start of a draft.
RICHARD PADEN STALLO Richard Paden Stallo was born in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on [redacted] to [redacted] and [redacted].

Admins can investigate further back from here.

Am I going crazy? Usually I'm on the less strict side of interpreting CSD, but this seems to be a criterion that was worded very narrowly and is being applied as almost a catch-all for "any userspace page an admin doesn't like". It's clear to me that the enforcement of U5 has drifted well beyond what its text actually calls for—well beyond what the community has ever shown consensus for. The way I see it, at least one of three things needs to happen:

1. We update U5 to be more in line with current practice (for instance, an exception to "plausible drafts" for drafts that appear to be COI).
2. We add further speedy deletion criteria for some of the cases that U5 is being incorrectly applied to, such as "userspace page of a user without signficant non-userspace edits, who has not edited in more than a year".
3. We double down on the current criteria and make clear to admins that they should not exceed them. (Going just for this option would mean a 50-75% drop in U5 deletions.)

I have further thoughts, but first want to just put this out there and see what others think. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC) ed. 08:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

For #2, it should have been G11d because of the connection between the content and the promotional username. It was tagged with both of them, and it was probably just over the line of being eligible for U5. I don't see any fault with that deletion. For #3 and #4, U5 was also fine. They're both obviously promo socks (read the usernames), so their deletions were the right call. I doubt they actually went out and chose those userboxes (given both accounts have the same, they probably copied someone else's userpage), so while they might meet the black letter of WP:UPYES, keeping them around only legitimises their promotional goals. The rest I agree with you, except #7. I'd have only said it falls under G1. Anarchyte (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In re #s3&4, I would probably support an exception-within-an-exception for UPYES-compliant pages by otherwise vandalism- or spam-only accounts, but I don't see anything like that in U5's language at present. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not just you. I only check the deletion queues infrequently and things that fall under the U5 exceptions (anf WP:UPYES) seem really common among U5-targeted things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I do believe that many eligible pages also may be deleted under another criterion – often G11, sometimes G12 – and agree that U5 should only apply to pages that could never be plausible drafts (WP:TNT notwithstanding) and that don't comply with WP:UPYES at all. A three-sentence attempt at an autobiography is quite harmless; deleting those would set a standard that many established users' userpages would fail to meet. However, it's not immediately clear how to tweak the wording of the criterion to be objective and uncontestable. For instance, is there an unequivocal interpretation of "plausible draft"?

I agree with most points raised about the ten examples above. I feel, though, that #2 could be borderline eligible for G11; I'm unsure why #3/#4 were explored almost eight years later, but in case of verified abuse of multiple accounts, one could be deleted per G5; #7 might qualify for G1 if it's not in any language (auto-translate to English doesn't work for me), though it's a user sandbox and not otherwise harmful content, so I'd actually be inclined to leave it alone; and #9 to me is more G11 than U5. ^Complex/_Rational 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

G5 only applies if the user was blocked on some account/IP prior to the page's creation. And Pppery below is of course right on G1 and G2... What it comes down to is there's a lot of userspace pages that should be deleted but don't fall under any CSD, and the solution to that oughtn't be using existing CSD for things they weren't intended for. More and more I think the solution is broadening U5 in cases where accounts are here just to vandalize or spam, and/or creating a G13-like criterion for abandoned userspace pages by non-contributors (exclude drafts? move drafts to draftspace first and then instantly G13, so it's more obvious to users in the future that there's a REFUNDable content? just thinking out loud here). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to give an example of a page you believe should be CSD eligible that currently isn't? Is it just user drafts in general or something else or more specific? My feeling is that we don't gain anything by deleting most user drafts other than perhaps removing a copyright issue and run the risk of annoying the editor and potentially losing them. All the while we commit significant resources from highly skilled editors to this low reward work. A basically automatic process of removing user drafts from non-contributors after half a year without edits is something I could perhaps stand behind but in general I see little reason to expand the CSD policy to cover more user pages. --Trialpears (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Since at least two admins seem to have missed this point above, G1 and G2 explicitly exclude user namespace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, though in theory as an AfC draft, User:Rupinderbhathal/sandbox should have been at Draft:Kio Pendi, so one extra click of the move button would have made G1 applicable (under category 2 of WP:PN). Anarchyte (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there is a general consensus that moving a page purely so that it will meet a CSD criteria is not okay. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#U5 vs. draft space, for example the fourth of my four-point list and Thryduulf's comment immediately afterward. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac and Redrose64: I completely agree. Moving a page just so it meets CSD is gaming the system. If someone was moving drafts to mainspace just to A7 them they'd be reprimanded. However, I must echo SoWhy's sentiment: "[a page] that clearly was meant to be in a different namespace [should] be treated as being in that namespace". If a page is intended to be an AfC draft, and it just so happens to be in userspace instead of draftspace, then barring the use of draft-related CSD criteria is counterproductive and bureaucratic, especially when userspace AfC drafts are tagged with "Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace." and they all get deleted after six months through G13 regardless of their location. To note, I do not agree that U5 should be extended to draftspace. Anarchyte (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I would not support using G1 on a userpage or sandbox that did not have an AfC tag on it, regardless of whether it was a draft. Userpage drafts that aren't in AfC cannot meet G13, and therefore shouldn't be treated like draftspace at all. Additionally, I'd have left User:Rupinderbhathal/sandbox to be deleted via G13 anyway, as to not risk violating policy despite whether it's possible to interpret the criterion in the more lenient way SoWhy explored above. Perhaps it's worth having a separate discussion about the interconnection of WP:GAME, the criteria, and the intended location relevant pages. Anarchyte (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not (on the whole) disagree with any of your points. Your example, however, was "I want to move a user page into the draft space so I can G1 it". That is not "moving a draft to the draft space, and it just so happens to get G13'd six months later", it is moving a page specifically so that a CSD criteria will be eligible for use. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless a userspace page was unambiguously intended to be a draft, and unambiguously meant to be part of AfC then it should not be moved into draftspace, for any reason, without either the explicit consent of the editor concerned or a community consensus. If AfC tags were added by someone other than the editor (other than following an explicit request) then the above criteria cannot be met. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Anarchyte (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Pppery, I have changed the status of WP:Speedy to a disambiguation page for NPOV reasons. As such, it no longer redirects here. Mind removing the hatnote for WP:Speedy or self revert? Please don't forget to ping me when you reply. Otherwise, I may not see it after a couple edits. Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit to WP:Speedy (a longstanding redirect) since that term standing alone overwhelmingly refers to speedy deletion; feel free to start an WP:RFD discussion if you really think it necessary, Wikiexplorationandhelping. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I recently tagged a draft as a G4 as I felt it was sufficiently identical to an article deleted at AfD last month. The CSD was declined with the reason that G4 doesn't apply to drafts. I believe the implicit reason for the decline was that a page deleted in mainspace is not supposed to be applicable for G4 if recreated in draftspace.

Is this cross-namespace limitation an unwritten but generally understood part of G4? Looking at the archives I see that at   /Archive 64#G4 on Drafts, the cross-namespace concern was discussed, and SmokeyJoe attempted to add the wordings related to it, but was reverted by Cryptic who felt that the problem lies not with the G4 wordings, but will lie with the speedying admin who does not understand the namespace clause.

From a re-reading of G4 in the context of what is excluded, I see the following:

• moved to userspace: my understanding is that the only scenario we're talking about is when the deleted page (in any namespace) is undeleted and moved to a page in userspace.
• converted to a draft: my understanding is that there may be two scenarios: 1. When the deleted page (in any namespace) is undeleted and moved to a page in draftspace. 2. (this is the new knowledge for me, and I'm unsure) When a new draft page is created and the contents of the deleted page (in any namespace, and retrieved without the help of an admin) are added to it.
• but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy: How can an editor circumvent deletion policy when the page is already deleted? Neither of the scenarios #1 and #2 above is a circumvention of deletion policy. What is the relevance of this text in the context of G4?

I would request the following changes to the wordings of G4:

1. If it's indeed the case, for userspace draft and draftspace draft, make it clear that only cross-namespace draft recreation is excluded from G4.
2. Clarify what "convert to draft" means. Does it simply mean recreation of the deleted page as a draftspace draft? Since the word "move" and not "convert" is used for userspace, is creation of a new userspace page with the contents of the deleted page applicable for G4, or do we wish to treat both userspace drafts and draftspace drafts the same?
3. Remove the circumvent statement if there is no justification for it under G4.

Jay 💬 13:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the last is necessary, appropriate, and I will be BOLDLY making it, because that clause is fundamentally incompatible with a speedy deletion criterion: It must be clear and unambiguous, and circumvention is by definition an act that requires a specific motivation. It could probably even be cleaned up further. Thus, while Jay was wrong to try to tag a draft as G4, it's not entirely obvious from the extra verbiage in G4 why that was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thinking on this more, G4 should not be used to sanction a user attempting to circumvent the deletion process, because we don't sanction editors by deleting articles. Even U5 is not a sanction, but a protection of the site's integrity. If we're going to have a discussion along the lines of "User X tried to circumvent deletion of article Y which was being discussed at appropriate venue Z by copying it into userspace without any intent to improve it." then deletion of the content in question should absolutely be a legitimate part of the user conduct discussion, but NOT a speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Just copying the deleted content into a draft (whether in the User: or Draft: namespaces) isn't circumvention of deletion policy, of course; this phrase lets us take action when we see evidence of deliberate bad faith, like deleting a user sandbox with an unedited copy of the deleted content after the third or fourth time the user pastes it back into mainspace. About half of the hits from the top-of-the-page search box for "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy" are relevant (with the rest being pastes of the whole criterion); I mention some more examples in the first one.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the differences between "moved to userspace" and "converted to a draft", and I have no problem with cleaning up the verbiage, particularly now that I've stumbled upon the relevant mention on talk. The basic idea is that the deletion discussion would have had to apply to the recreation, and in particular drafts are deleted by MFD, not AFD. But the edit I reverted didn't clarify anything: it was largely redundant, and where it wasn't redundant it was incorrect. It would have, for example, required a second MFD for a previously-deleted draft that was pasted into a new File: description page or Category. —Cryptic 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

So what did you object to about my edit? Cryptic do you dispute that conflating behavior with a CSD criterion violates multiple aspects of WP:NEWCSD? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Cryptic didn't respond to this, and the revert was his last edit on enwiki, possible because he was fairly ill, per his last edit summary. @Jclemens: would you want to remove the circumvent part again, given the subsequent discussion had here since that time? What Salvio giuliano objected to was the rewording. Jay 💬 05:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no rush on this. I'm OK waiting a while more to make sure Cryptic's objections have been addressed. It's also the holiday season in America, so there's another good reason to not be as active on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Would you want to wait more for Cryptic who is not yet back, and close this conversation before it is archived. Otherwise I can go ahead and remove it. Jay 💬 12:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I moved the statement to a footnote with explanation. I think that makes it read cleaner, and it's clear that avoiding a deletion outcome inappropriately is a user conduct issue... just not one to be administered as a CSD. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

... and was pretty swiftly reverted again. Salvio giuliano, there's still no way the clause is compliant with NEWCSD 1 or 2. I get that it's been there for a while, but if we're deleting older articles now that notability criteria have firmed up, it's time to do the same thing with CSDs. but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is in no way objective or uncontestable, is it? Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jclemens: The user ping will go only after you sign your comment and post it. Since you got it wrong the first time, subsequently modifying the username did not send the ping as you did not sign and post it as a new comment. Anyway, this is my understanding of pings. In any case, pinging Salvio giuliano was only courtesy, as he could have responded here knowing that the discussion was in progress, and the change by Jclemens was made per this discussion, and was followed up here. Jay 💬 05:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I can sympathise with the desire to firm up the criteria for speedy deletion and support removing any which are perceived as no longer useful or appropriate; that said, in my opinion, this criterion can still be useful and don't find it violates NEWCSD 1 or 2. In particular, I do not find it any more subjective than other criteria, where admins are routinely allowed to use their own discretion. In addition to that, I do not see any real consensus in support of that change. There are various editors who have commented here who are in favour of that change, but that's not everyone who has expressed their opinion, and I think that there has been too little participation in this discussion so far to justify discounting the opinions of those who are against the change... Salvio 07:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, we can hold an RfC if you believe it would be helpful in assessing consensus, but I disagree with your counting. There are 3-4 of us who are in favor of some sort of change in emphasis, and only you of those not supporting actively opposes--discounting Cryptic who has been inactive for nearly a month after citing illness. It's also hard to track the flow because the chronological and linear orders of this conversation, so I'm talking myself more towards a specific RfC, I suppose, as we might want to look at things a bit more holisticaly. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no objections to the current wording. To be fair, that's how I have always interpreted it, so that helps to avoid objections from me . Salvio 13:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

On the moved vs converted verbiage, thanks for pointing out the relevant talk which was the source of it. Salvidrim! inserted the "converted to draft" part, but kept it unchanged for userspace as "moved". DGG did suggest consistency by using "moved to user space or draft space", but this suggestion was not actioned by either editor. We can make it consistent now. Jay 💬 13:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Given Salvidrim's intention of using "convert" to encompass both scenarios of (restore+)move and (copy+paste+)recreate, I'm fine with "convert" representing the cross-namespace usage. Apart from the two scenarios I mentioned in my first post, I assume "convert" will also cover a 3rd scenario which I have seen happening. An editor realizes an article at AfD has got consensus for deletion, and just before deletion, he copies the content into a new draft page or an existing draft page. Article is deleted, the draft continues, and the copying author doesn't have to credit the original authors. I'll assume this draft is also exempt from G4. I have also seen that the AfD closing admin redirects the draft to the article, just before deletion, and then deletes the draft as a G8. Jay 💬 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and for digging the 2014 post up -- my update was really so the criteria said somethng about the then-new Draftspace, I invited even back then anyone to improve the wording; it may have taken over 8 years but I'm glad the minutiae is finally being hashed out in the thread! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Propose to change from:

It excludes userspace and draftspace pages where the content was moved to user space or converted to a draft, unless a user conduct discussion ... To:

It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted^[1] to a draft, unless a user conduct discussion ....

Note that piped links to userfication, and at "converted to a draft" are removed, and replaced with a ref note. Jay 💬 08:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No objections from me; I think that would say the same thing more cleanly. Jclemens (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Reworded G4 per above. Jay 💬 02:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I went through all hits of the first page of the search "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", but found specific examples only in "the first one" you linked, and let me repeat them here briefly.
A. Author uses the draft as a backup source, and creates a new mainspace article (with the old or a different title) by copying the exact draft content.
B. Author pipe links it from mainspace articles to give the impression that it's in mainspace too.
C. Author links the draft offwiki in lieu of the deleted article.
D. Author doesn't attempt to improve the draft, but makes cosmetic edits to avert G13.
E. Tries to get the draft indexed by search engines (I don't know how that's possible).
All of these are supposedly bad faith edits, but how do these translate to "circumvention of deletion policy" which (for me) is a vague / unclear statement. Do the taggers and the admin know that these are some of the examples they should be looking for? Or should the 14 reasons for deletion as listed at WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion be their guide to see that the draft is doing the same damage to the project that the article, if not deleted, would have done? The circumvention of deletion I can think of, would be an article moved to draft while the AfD is in progress (a stupid edit which will be immediately reverted). Agree with Jclemens on the difficulty of interpreting this circumvention in a CSD. It might as well be replaced by .. converted to a draft for explicit improvement in good faith., and now we're stuck with the tagger and admin engaged in what good faith means with respect to drafts recreated from deleted pages. The good faith mentioned at G7 is comparatively easier to interpret. Jay 💬 16:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Or should the 14 reasons for deletion as listed at WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion be their guide to see that the draft is doing the same damage to the project that the article, if not deleted, would have done? No, most emphatically, no. CSDs are only for things that no good faith editor disputes. The criteria are objective and not subject to opinions or motivations: We don't care if G10 or G12 was accidental or malicious, that content goes, full stop. Intent is not something we can automagically assess. Actions, such as a user placing DB-U1, are concrete; intent is not. G4 has historically been one of the more misapplied criteria simply because admins have felt free to look at intent, rather than the single reasonably objective criteria, "substantially identical". Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We should just say that G4 doesn't apply to drafts unless the deletion discussion was held at MfD. The fact an AfD decided that some content was unsuitable for mainspace does not mean it's unsuitable for draftspace, so the mere fact the page in draftspace is a significant difference from the original page. It is acceptable and pretty common to move content from mainspace to draftspace for improvement and draftspace is supposed to be a safe place where content can be improved without imminent threat of deletion. The current wording basically asks us to read the mind of the person who created the draft, which is too subjective for a speedy deletion criterion. Hut 8.5 11:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I like this. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I tried again. Does that allow all the "duh" deletions of poor conduct moves/copies we need, while still making the criterion sufficiently objective? If not, please revert again or further modify and discuss. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I find this unnecessarily bureaucratic. If I think an editor is trying to circumvent the deletion policy, I can block him, but I can't delete the article unless I start a discussion at ANI or something like that? I think that the criterion is ok the way it is; if an administrator deletes a draft under G4, anyone can ask him to explain why he feels that the draftification was an attempt to circumvent the deletion policy. If the editor is not satisfied, he can take it to deletion review. Salvio 16:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think someone is trying to circumvent the deletion policy but you don't have enough evidence of that to support a discussion of their conduct then you shouldn't be blocking them (whether there is a discussion or not, you should not be blocking anybody a discussion would not support blocking). >99% of drafts are completely harmless and so can and should be just ignored - G13 will mop up all those in draft space soon enough. For those drafts that are not harmless, but don't meet a CSD criterion (in practice this is almost always going to be G10 or G12) then take it to MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is what I am thinking as well: G10, 11, or 12 will always be appropriate to use against objectively harmful content in whatever namespace. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand my point. It's not that, in my example, I would not have enough evidence to support a discussion, but rather that it's a clear-cut case. In that case, demanding a discussion to delete the drafts is needlessly bureaucratic, especially considering that I could freely block the editor in question. Furthermore, G13 is not necessarily enough, because if there is someone making cosmetic edits to the draft, then it is ineligible for deletion. And I do not see a point in requiring the use of MfD for obvious things, that's just jumping through hoops for the sake of it. Salvio 08:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The point is that you don't need to delete the drafts, with or without discussion - unless they are actively harmful then just ignore them. If someone is blocked then they can't make cosmetic edits to avoid G13. If the page does not meet a speedy deletion criterion then it is not "obvious" and must be discussed before deletion. If you are speedily deleting things that do not meet a speedy deletion criterion then you are abusing your admin powers and should hand in your bits immediately. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The point is that, according to the way I interpret policy, G4 applies to drafts that are recreation of articles deleted at AfD, if the recreation is an attempt to circumvent policy. Salvio 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That is the interpretation that is being challenged here, because as has been pointed out multiple times there is no way that that meets the objectivity required for speedy deletion. I completely agree with @Jay, @Hut 8.5 and @Jclemens that the wording of the policy should be changed to make that unambiguous. Making this change will not prevent the deletion of things that should be deleted, but will prevent the deletion of things that should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Since you re-instated but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy, either as a status quo, or because you follow it, can you describe what it means, in words and/or examples? If it's the examples I listed above, how are they a circumvention of deletion policy? If this text continues to be there at G4, I would like to know how they are interpreted by editors. Jay 💬 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not remember coming across a draft that would qualify, but the way I interpret policy is that you can recreate an article that was deleted at AfD as a draft, as long as you're actively trying to improve it. This does not mean that you need to be constantly working on it, but you need to show that you're trying to resolve the issues that led to the original deletion. If you recreate the draft and then do not make edits to it for a while or you make just enough cosmetic edits to make it ineligible for deletion under G13, then, as far as I'm concerned, you're trying to circumvent the deletion policy. Especially if you're doing it with multiple drafts. I am open to rewording the policy, to make it clearer. I'm personally against requiring what I perceive as nothing but bureaucracy... Salvio 09:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone is making cosmetic edits on many drafts with the apparent sole purpose of avoiding G13 deletion then that's a user conduct issue that needs to be discussed. If the editor is doing that (which is often subjective) and doesn't stop after being told to, and nobody else is improving the drafts, then the editor can be blocked (in which case the G13 timer won't be reset). Alternatively the drafts can be nominated at MfD (there is a strong consensus that this is an appropriate reason to take something to MfD) and if the participants there agree that this is what is happening then it will be deleted. There is nothing here that is suitable for a single administrator acting unilaterally. Additionally, you've stated this is all theoretical and you've never seen it actually happen, which also makes it unsuitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that that this would be a conduct issue that would need to be discussed. Administrators act on their own authority every day multiple times a day, without requiring discussions. This idea that an administrator would need consensus to block someone who the administrator believes is editing disruptively is entirely novel and not supported by any consensus I am familiar with. Salvio 10:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I worded that poorly. If you think someone is making cosmetic edits with the apparent sole purpose of avoiding G13 deletion that is a user conduct issue that needs to be discussed if it isn't both clear enough and serious enough for an immediate block. In neither case though does that mean the draft needs to be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The premise of the discussion here is that the draft is associated with one and one author only. If it is UserX who converted the draft, but UserY who is making the cosmetic edits, then this naturally becomes a user behaviour concern, and not a draft content one. There in lies the problem of G4 equating the draft's sanity with user behaviour. Will the G4 tagger have to prove that UserY could be a sock of UserX? Also, by making cosmetic edits, an editor can claim to be buying more time to make improvements. Why should this be different for converted drafts vs normal drafts? Jay 💬 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The deletion policy circumvention clause was indeed user-centric as it was added in 2008 when we had userspace drafts, not draftspace drafts, so it made sense at the time. Some history on this. In this post (/Archive 29#Rewording to conform to a consensus I have seen), User:ScienceApologist said that .. users have made user subpages to subvert deletion discussions..., but when User:ජපස added it to G4, it was worded as if someone creates a user subpage as a way to subvert Wikipedia's deletion policy. The word subvert was changed to circumvent by Happy-melon the next day. ScienceApologist did not say in his discussion how users subverted deletion discussions by creating subpages. Jay 💬 13:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not seen this kind of gaming for some time, but it used to be that when an obviously problematic page would end up deleted, the page creator would create something like a WP:FAKEARTICLE with the ostensible idea that they would "work on improving" the draft to get it ready for reupload. Sometimes this is a legitimate technique, but sometimes this is gaming. I don't think there is a bright line for when one or the other is happening. These days, I think that WP:FAKEARTICLE works better than this speedy criteria especially as userspace drafts are less prone to accidental Googlejuicing, for example, then they were in certain bad old days. jps (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I seem to recall that back 15 years ago when this was an issue userspace was not NOINDEX'ed; in general, the move to draftspace seems to have dealt with a lot of those issues. Also, we've gotten better at identifying why something should be nuked (copyvio, attack, promotion) vs. just allowed to languish in non-article space (non-notable). Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of fine-tuning that is pointless because the admins performing deletions won't care. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sad but true in some cases, but there are plenty of conscientious admins who don't IAR CSD. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone is deleting things against policy then challenge them on it, taking them to ANI if they don't get why it's wrong. There is never a reason to IAR CSD (because by definition there cannot be). If you let it pass then the encyclopaedia is being harmed and will continue to be harmed in future as more and more things get deleted that shouldn't be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Drafts are in draft space because they are concededly not ready to be in article space. If the sole concern for the draft is that the subject is non-notable, then it should be left alone for potential improvement. If it is not edited for some length of time, it will be deleted as a matter of course. If someone bothers making nitpicking edits to avoid that, so what? It's still just a draft. BD2412 T 03:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There have been a number of times where I have observed a page nominated for G10 which meets every criteria for being a G10 (attack page) except that it is sourced. Sometimes it's improperly sourced (e.g. through an external link rather than reference) and I don't think I've seen one with a high quality reliable source but a source exists. These pages normally end up deleted - and good riddance I say to them even though I'm reluctant to press the button - despite not technically qualifying under the criteria. I'm wondering if we want to soften the wording of that requirement given this practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've always assumed that the unsourced bit only applies to the "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone" part, so it's fine to delete something under G10 if it's sourced if it meets any other part of G10 (e.g. "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person"). It is entirely possible to have a legitimate encyclopedia article about a living person which is entirely negative in tone, e.g. most articles about criminals. Removing the sourcing requirement entirely would allow them to be deleted under G10. Hut 8.5 17:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Hut 8.5. Look at the grammar and punctuation of the sentence.

Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. (emphasis added)

I think this could be clarified thusly:

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. (addition of a colon and an oxford comma.)

Either way though, I think Hut is right that the unsourced part only applies to the last item in the list. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hut8.5 and ONUnicorn and would support adding that punctuation for clarity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This matches my understanding and I support the proposed punctuation change. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If a new article reads "John Snotblot is a fucking asshole", and this sentence ends in 16 footnotes leading to online sources that state unanimously that he's a fucking asshole, I'm going to submit the article for G10 deletion, even though it's clear that he's widely noted for being a fucking asshole, meeting WP:N without question.

However, if it reads "John Snotblot, the president of Marvinia since January 2, 2023, is a fucking asshole", then I'm going to change it to read "John Snotblot has been the president of Marvinia since January 2, 2023", possibly keeping one of the existing sources that corrobate his presidency and the date his term began even if it does also call him a fucking asshole, or else replacing all the original sources with one neutral source. Then I'm going to leave an "only" warning on the creator's talk page and call it a day, leaving it to others to produce a respectable "Criticism" section. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if your example was not libellous and not intended to purely harass or intimidate the subject there is no need for G10 as it meets criteria A1 and A7. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the president of Marvinia bit obviously disqualifies it from both. I think Largoplazo was referring to how they read G10, and I think their assessment is purely right. Nobody is suggesting we scrap G10. casualdejekyll 02:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

My reading is in line with that of ONUnicorn et al: the 'unsourced' only applies to the 'biographical material that is entirely negative in tone' bit. I'd add that this part of the text is listing examples that may qualify - it's not an exhaustive list, and it doesn't define the criterion. Any page, regardless of sourcing, that disparages, threatens, intimidates, or harasses their subject or some other entity, and serves no other purpose, can be deleted under G10. Having said all that, I would have no problem with a tweak in the wording to avoid any possible confusion on this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hut8.5 is correct. If I remember correctly, the "negative unsourced BLP" part of G10 was introduced after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, principle 4 ("summary deletion of BLPs"). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A recent AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Marchand, appears to raise the following issue: the same article was previously deleted and salted under different variations of the subject's name, but may not be close-enough to the deleted version for G4 to apply. G5 could potentially apply, as the previous versions also had sockpuppet issues, but the 2020 creator of the new version is as of now unblocked. Should there be a clause of G4 that applies to creation of the same topic as a deleted and delete-protected article under a different title, even when the content may differ? Or is that too much of a stretch for CSD? (Marchand appears to be headed for sure deletion regardless, but it would be helpful to be able to shortcut such discussions without having to use excuses like WP:SNOW.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have observed, and even noted it once at DRV, that G4 is in practice given wider and stronger applicability when the topic’s earlier title is WP:SALTED. That is, if someone sidesteps the salting by recreating under a variant title, admins do G4 and WP:SALT the variant title, and do not get criticised for it at DRV. I think this is good practice, even if undocumented.

SALTing should be read as a prohibition on the creation of the same topic under any title. Challenges to the SALTing should be made at WP:RfPP or WP:AfC. WP:THREE is very good advice on how to make a good case. Challenging a SALTing at DRV should be reserved for complaints of denial of unsalting at RfPP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

G4 is only for substantially similar pages. If there is a case where content may differ then it is not eligible for G4, regardless of the location of the page, because in theory there could be new information or writing that overcame the original deletion rationale (e.g. GNG is now met). Primefac (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To nitpick, the GNG can become met without any changes to the page, because the GNG refers to sources that exist, not sources used on the page.

For this sort of reason, I think G4s should readily slip into draftifications. If the page looks unimproved, put it in draft for the new source to be added. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

G4 already applies to the page "having any title", so people circumventing SALT by using different titles for the same content is already covered. But, as Primefac notes, like all speedy criteria, there needs to be an objective standard. If the content is no longer fundamentally the same, it shouldn't be a single admin's decision whether the original reasons for deletion still apply (especially when the page contains information that was not available in the first XFD). Regards SoWhy 10:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I support more liberal use of G4 in mainspace in the six months following an AfD consensus to delete. This would include a re-creation using different but similarly failing sources to those that didn’t satisfy the participants in the AfD. New sources, new since the AfD, not merely different sources, would amount to a sufficient difference to make G4 proper. If a proponent for re-creation of a recently deleted article disagrees, the answer is AfC, not a title variation, even if it includes a different bad source.

How long should a consensus at AfD to delete be respected, prohibiting bold re-recreation without overcoming the reasons for deletion? I think the answer is six months.

Some admins err in SALTing for too long. I think a SALTing over six months should be dependent on an AfD consensus to SALT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and I don't think G4 is misapplied if the changes were only made to try and game the system, e.g. by replacing one bad source with another bad source (call it IAR or applying the spirit of the policy). But that requires a blatant attempt to circumvent G4. If the reviewing admin has to start judging the merits of the new article, the applicability for G4 ends. And I would also oppose any kind of recreation ban without going through AFC, considering that AFC is not a requirement for new articles and AFC is completely overwhelmed already anyway. However, that is not a question for CSD but instead would require a change to the deletion policy (after a widely advertised RFC). Regards SoWhy 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a more conservative tack than SoWhy: Substantially altering the article in any way, such as the addition of a reference that had been mentioned in the AfD discussion but not put into the article, makes G4 inapplicable. There is no time limit on G4, so theoretically if such a change were made 15 minutes after the discussion were closed, G4 would remain inapplicable. That's what G4 says.

Now, would the act of doing so be disruptive editing? Possibly, but that's a judgment call requiring a determination of user conduct. Since it's not pure vandalism, one admin acting unilaterally would be inappropriate. In such cases, the user conduct becomes the discussion: the article content, having been sufficiently changed to avoid G4, might well be deleted again later. Of course, if the user can demonstrate that the addition of content solved the problem that led to the deletion, then it's obviously no longer a conduct issue: we don't punish editors who improve the encyclopedia simply for editing with timing that looks bad. Jclemens (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To expound a bit more on why SmokeyJoe's take on G4 is wrong, let us look no farther than the text itself: It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Since the sentence contains two clauses it is clear that there can by copies that are substantially identical to the deleted version but to which the reason for the deletion clearly still applies, as well as pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. that are substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, I think the latter may be a null set (except, perhaps, if policy changed to make previously unacceptable content acceptable), but CSD policy is written to ensure G4'able content must be both substantially identical and the reason for the deletion still applies. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jclemens - both parts of G4 must be met for it to be applicable. I can also think of another example of where the page is substantially identical but the reason for deletion no longer applies - where the deletion reason was based on a premise which has since been shown to be incorrect. In every such case I can think of, and indeed every case I can think of where Jclemens' scenario would apply, going via the deleting admin and/or DRV would be better than just unilaterally recreating the article, but I'm not going to say doing so would never be correct. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe there may be space between policy as written and policy in practice. G4s happen where the admin thinks it would be a SNOW deletion per the recent AfD. The criteria for SALTing is lower than for G4. Also, in NPReview, a re-creation after a recent AfD is likely to be WP:DRAFTIFY-ed (fitting criterion 2a-ii). SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe there may be space between policy as written and policy in practice. When it comes to CSD there isn't - the consensus going back years that

• The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. and
• Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.

combined with the nature of speedy deletion and the deletion policy mean that pages must meet the letter and spirit of the criterion to be eligible. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. Sometimes, stuff happens without “broad consensus”, despite the care that should be taken.

My reading of DRV and WT:CSD over the years is that liberal G4 deletions are negligible compared to liberal G6 deletions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

G6 is indeed by far the most misused speedy deletion criterion (which is why I've been proposing reform of it for years), but misuse is still misuse and should never be endorsed however frequently it does or does not happen. Basically if a page does not meet both the letter and spirit of a CSD criterion then it cannot be correctly speedily deleted. If there are pages you think should be deleted but cannot be then propose a new or modified criterion and get that consensus - c.f. WP:IARUNCOMMON. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• In order for G4 deletions to meets its letter, not just it’s spirit, I propose that it’s wording be modified. There should be mention of thresholds. The soft words are “sufficiently” and “substantially”. These should be connected to sources. Things that affect the threshold of applicability of sufficiently/substantially include: the age of the AfD (six months default threshold); and whether the title has been SALTed. At the risk of bloat, consider advice to use REFUND to draftspace and improve the draft to make the case that the reasons for deletion have been overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)