Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 73

New draft CSD
Renumber G13 to D1 and create the following new Draft CSD:

D2: Any draft that would be subject to speedy deletion as an article

Any draft that would fail any of the active criteria for speedy deletion of articles is valid under this criterion. When deleting or nominating a draft page under this criterion, remember to indicate which article CSD criterion applies to it.

D3: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host

Pages in draftspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of draftspace, with the exception of plausible drafts. It applies regardless of the age of the page in question. ,

Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC) RFC was withdrawn but with this many responses I am reverting and keeping the RFC open Primefac (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

G13 → D1 survey

 * Neutral . If D2 or D3 pass (I don't think they should, but they might) then this makes sense. If if they don't, then there is no benefit but no significant harm either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments below, I'm now moving to an unconditional oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support if D2 or D3 pass. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support iff D2 or D3 pass. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if D2 passes. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * G13 is (particularly recently) about more than just draftspace. This would be limiting, and goes against some very recent consensus. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not just a technical change, it's a huge alteration to the scope of the criterion. G13 applies to draftspace and AfC submissions in userspace. Either D applies only to draftspace or it applies to drafts in all namespaces. Both of those changes have been proposed here in the past and haven't gained consensus.  Hut 8.5  18:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amorymeltzer & Hut 8.5. Cabayi (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this limits G13 over userspace - we should be expanding G13 over more userspace. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As explained below, I oppose the idea of an omnibus criterion like the proposed D2 for the draftspace. I think it is preferable to modify the existing "A" criteria to say that they apply to the draftspace than to create a new "D" criterion (if there is consensus that "A" criteria should apply to draftspace, which I oppose on the merits). Therefore, G13 should remain a "G" criterion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose unnecessary if D2 blows out as D3 has Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - G13 applies to all pages in the draftspace and those in the userspace that bear an afc template. It applies to such pages regardless of whether or not they are "drafts." — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Amory. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  13:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support regardless of D2 and D3. This is about drafts, not about General stuff.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

D2 survey

 * Oppose D2 would defeat the whole point of draft space. Draft space is supposed to be a safe place to work on content without the threat of imminent deletion or a requirement to meet mainspace standards immediately. We do speedily delete active drafts but only if the content is actively harmful (e.g. copyright violations, BLP violations). There is no point in having draft space if it's as easy to delete a draft as an article.  Hut 8.5  17:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but as I've said previously we should just extend the A-series criteria to pages in draft space. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support so we can better focus on the good drafts. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Fundamentally contradictory to the whole point of draft space. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - basically per SoWhy. This expansion would make it easier to delete a draft than it is to delete any other page on Wikipedia.  That is backwards.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Hut, applying A criteria to draftspace entirely defeats the purpose of draftspace. Might as well propose to do away with the whole namespace in that case. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The point of draftspace is to allow editors to work on stuff in peace and give them time to overcome problems that would lead to (speedy) deletion in articlespace. If we allow the same criteria to apply there as we do in other namespaces, we can effectively just close draftspace completely because there would be no tangible difference anymore. Regards So  Why  16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SoWhy. This is too WP:BITEy. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 17:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SoWhy - none of the A series criteria should apply in draftspace. Cabayi (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hut. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * change to support, I see this as something that is too subjective. User-space is normally not messed with unless it is very bad. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Prominent AFC reviewer Legacypac agrees that U5 should be extended to draftspace. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 16:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not basing my opinion on other reviewers. I'm a deletionist by nature and more often then not think we keep amazing amounts of garbage here we don't need. I've authored quite a few articles and work AFC myself but I don't see why we need this when this could easily use WP:IAR in egregious cases. No slight to Legacypac but I'm not seeing the need here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The most active managers of drafts support extending U5 to draft space There are thousands of AFC Drafts plus unsubmitted junk we could clear out without REFUND or MfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftspace and Userspace big difference. I misunderstood and change to support draft space csd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Serious proposals to apply A* criteria to drafts almost always paired them with a timeout, either since the draft was created or since it was last edited. Now that G13 applies to everything in the draft namespace instead of just the AFC ones, this is dead in the water. —Cryptic 19:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There needs to be a space outside of userspace where articles that are at risk for deletion in mainspace can be developed further.Vexations (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Draft space is a wild west of junk. Drafts are quickly mirrored on other sites and we should manage it more carefully. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate how it's our problem if other sites mirror such content? Regards So  Why  19:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of us volunteer here because we believe that building Wikipedia is a service to humanity. Some of us are against allowing Wikipedia to be a tool to spread spam and misinformation. Other editors oppose every effort to make cleaning up junk easier perhaps because they love misinformation and the abuse of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure most of us believe in building Wikipedia to benefit all people but I'm still not seeing how other sites mirroring such content figures into that. Regards So  Why  14:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * How do you propose to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Please explain how this will be possible given the criteria as proposed makes no exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose although I think we are more or less already at this point or past it and that draftspace would be better off abandoned, see WP:Don't use draftspace. But it's worth opposing because plenty of people still do use draftspace, and many pages suggest doing so, although the description of it they give is highly misleading. This proposal would kick problematic draft deletions into overdrive and only make the problem worse. A2soup (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per SoWhy. But additionally, I oppose the idea of an omnibus criterion like this for the draftspace. I think it is preferable to modify the existing "A" criteria to say that they apply to the draftspace than to create a new "D" criterion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, but make it applicable only to drafts submitted to WP:AFC. If the topic is thoroughly non-notable, there's no point in retaining it and implicitly inviting the submitter to work on non-viable drafts. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * General comment: I invite editors interested in draft space or new articles to get some first-hand experience with them. Being part of NPP / AfC gives one a different perspective. NPP is severely backlogged, at ~4000 articles: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. The AfC backlog is ~1300 drafts / 3 weeks: Category:AfC pending submissions by age/3 weeks ago. I would invite editors here to join either of these projects and help out with the backlogs. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose draft space should be a respite from rapid deletions such as no context, A7, G4, A11. Other criteria such as G11, G12, hoax, attack pages are commonly used on drafts already so there is no need for this as it would be to the detriment of partly written articles that may turn out fine after a pause, there is no time limit except 6 months and that should remain, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should A11 pages exist anywhere? CoolSkittle  (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A11 can be addressed through editing. For example A11 doesn't apply to articles which indicate that the subject is important or significant. That could be done by adding additional prose or references. Draft space is intended to be a safe space to allow article development like this without the "FIX IT NOW OR IT GETS DELETED!" attitude of mainspace.  Hut 8.5  19:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - e.g. A10 should not apply to draftspace as it can be used to draft things that are better than or may appear to duplicate something that exists (but actually does not), while A7 and A9 should not apply because contributors should be given time to establish indications of importance. Even A3 should not apply as contributors should be given time to add content to drafts. Draftspace is for potentially encyclopedic works of progress of most kinds, while the mainspace is for encyclopedic content that meets minimum established standards; spaces which have purposes that are at odds should not share the same set of speedy deletion criteria. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The draft space is a place to create articles which can subsequently be moved into the mainspace. More specifically, it's designed to allow a user time to create the article, source it an ensure that it would survive in the mainspace. This proposed CSD would defeat this purpose. A draft should only be deleted if either it has been abandoned for long enough that it will probably never be improved, or if it's so bad that it's blatantly obvious no article could possibly come from it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose this defeats the purpose of the Draft space. If we make the A Speedy deletion criterion applicable there it is no different than the mainspace.  ~ GB fan 13:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but would support extending A2, A5 and A10 (duplicate articles) to draftspace, or even generally --Danski454 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – this undermines the purpose of draftspace, especially criteria such as A7 and G4. Brad  v  🍁 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Legacypac. PrussianOwl (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As Legacypac has not answered the questions asked by SoWhy and myself above regarding their rationale, please could you do so instead as you are using the same rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No amount of discussion, evidence or logic will ever convince SoWhy to support any change to policy or practice that makes deletion of junk even slightly easier. They have next to zero experience at MfD or in Draft space so I just dismiss their useless comments on how these areas work. You asked a "question" about throwing babies out. The question is too unclear to answer very easily but in general any criteria or process could be misused in any possible way so we don't avoid making life reasonably easy because someone might do something wrong or stupid some day. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see SoWhy's comments as useless at all - rather the exact opposite. Unless and until you can objectively define "junk" in such a way that it doesn't allow the speedy deletion of content that should not be deleted (speedily or otherwise) then your ideas belong nowhere near the deletion process, regardless of how much easier it would make your life. There is a very good reason why the four requirements for new and expanded criteria at the top of this page are not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Junk = pages that would he deleted at MfD, and a little more broadly, abandoned stuff not suitable for article space which generally would also be deleted at MfD if we did not have G13. Opinion about process based on no experience with the process is not helpful, it is noise. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a definition, but it clearly fails requirements 1, 2 and 4 of the requirements for new criteria: It's not objective in the slightest, it's not uncontestable (much of what is deleted at MfD is not done unanimously and many nominations result in something other than deletion) and it's not non-redundant (G1, G2, G3, G10, G11, G12 and G13 exist). Given those failures I've not bothered to evaluate it regarding requirement 3. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This seems to be the idea of a few of the regulars at MFD who like to go through draft space and tag stupid drafts for deletion. We don't need to delete stupid drafts, just to let them time out.  The Reject option for reviewers is now available to get rid of stupid drafts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

D3 survey

 * Oppose We had this discussion extremely recently in an RfC closed less than a week ago and consensus was against the idea, there is no need to have the same discussion every week.  Hut 8.5  17:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally supported the idea but I have to agree with the most recent release of Hut here, it doesn't accomplish anything to re-test consensus so frequently. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing has changed since the last discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Any U5 page that isn't already speedily deleted is deleted at MfD, where virtually none of these drafts survive. Makes sense for it to have its own csd criterion for draftspace. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When I looked at the actual stats for the previous discussion, I found that around a quarter of Draft: pages nominated at MfD for being a NOTWEBHOST violation did not have unanimous consensus to delete. For a CSD to be appropriate it needs to be 100% or very close to that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - basically per SoWhy. This expansion would make it easier to delete a draft than it is to delete any other page on Wikipedia.  That is backwards.Tazerdadog (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Editors should be given some reasonable amount of leeway to craft and improve their article. This is solving a problem that doesn't exist and makes worse some problems that do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We literally just had this discussion, so oppose per that. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 17:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Note I've rearranged the discussion to make it more obvious that there are two proposals. you should move your comments to the appropriate section. I think they all belong in D2, but I would rather you move them yourselves. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added another header as there are actually three proposals here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: (the initiator of this RfC) is now under a site ban. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language Drafts
Is there any speedy rationale that apples to Draft:Elisión de la /d/ intervocálica and similar before the 6-month abandonment period passes? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Also, why should there? Either it's abandoned, then G13 will take care of it or the user will still translate it, then it's useful to keep. Also, I think such drafts are so rare that there is no reason to suspect that MFD could not handle those few cases where deletion needs to happen before six months have passed. Regards So  Why  14:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why we should speedily delete foreign language drafts just for being in a foreign language. A translator might decide to copy the text they're translating into a draft as a starting point. There's no reason to speedily delete such a thing unless they stop working on it.  Hut 8.5  18:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the thoughtful responses. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

G7
If an editor creates an article, and shortly afterwards nominates it for deletion, isn't that tantamount to a G7 request, even if said creation is pointy? Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For G7, the only question is whether the author requests deletion, not why the article was authored in the first place. That said, as with most speedy requests, an admin can decline the request if they think the article should exist. After all, once you created something, you have made it available under a CC-BY-SA license for everyone else to use. Regards So  Why  16:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the case in question, the author created the article, then nominated it for deletion 7 minutes later. Nobody else edited the article apart from one editor (not the creator) who tagged it for G7 before I deleted it and closed the AfD discussion. Said article has been recreated by original author. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be the case. G7 and an AfD nomination generally mean different things: "Please delete this" vs. "I don't think this is notable. What does everybody else think?". – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or "Here's a poor nomination, so I can immunize this article from AFD" vs. "Here's a poor article, so I can show precedent that this subject gets deleted at AFD"? From Mjroots' mention of WP:POINT, I rather suspect this falls closer to one of my two alternatives than to one of yours. —Cryptic 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What matters is whether the deletion request was made in good faith, not whether the article was. If the request was pointy, too, I'd decline. —Cryptic 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, for clarity. The article in question is Sonasan railway station. It was created by with this edit at 20:44 on 2 February. At 20:51, Rhadow nominated (not sure if non admins can see these) the article for deletion. It was tagged for G7 by at 10:58 on 3 February. I deleted the article and closed the AfD. Rhadow recreated the article at 12:24 on 3 February. There is currently a discussion at WT:TWP re the notability of railway stations. Some editors are under the illusion that an essay overrides a policy and content guideline. The creation of the article was pointy to say the least. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I tagged it as G7 as the way I see it, the creation [of the article and subsequent AFD nomination (original comment expanded ) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)] was a WP:POINTy one. And in my mind, if the author created the article and then AFDs it, it would be similar to a G7. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyw7&oldid=881576415#Notability and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rhadow&oldid=881573450#Railway_stations where it's evident that its creation and nomination was to prove a WP:POINT.  The author describes the article as "bait" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * An opinion I totally agree with. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , this edit, which was sneakily removed (diff), kinda confirms the WP:POINT. Rhadow commented "it's bait" after I asked him why I should be cautious (diff)


 * And I think comments of this incident is too spread out and fragmented. Shall we combine the case here (or somewhere more appropriate)? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello all, if you want to discuss me and my articles, you may do so in public, without using the noping feature. Yes, I have an RfC and an AfD in play on the topic of notability of railway stations. That's obvious. I have also been editing Indian railway station articles actively. You can check.  What I have seen has been disturbing to me. References in batches that do not support article text. Full length original research articles without a reference in sight. When there is no remedy for an article -- no deletion, no redirect, essentially a free pass at AfD -- there isn't a hope that things will improve in this sector.  Some have brought out the big stick, the threat of a block, to quiet the dissenting voice.  That's tyranny of the majority and not a good sign. The experience of the reader (reliable articles) needs to take precedence over comity in the editor ranks. That's what this is all about, isn't it? Rhadow (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

, well a WP:POINT article creation is certainly not a way forward. There are ways to argue for something without resorting to disruptive edits. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems the article was created for WP:POINT reasons, especially after the creator/AfD nom Rhadow admitted its creation and immediate AfD were "bait" as Rhadow was canvassing. (diff). While I admit I took the "bait," I don't mind this being deleted as long as the official reason is for either a WP:POINT article creation or G7, but the former is more accurate. Oakshade (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * - I used noping because I wanted to give others the opportunity to comment without you muddying the waters, so to speak. I was unsure of your motives in creating the Sonasan railway station article, but I think I understand now. Part of the reason behind this post was that I was trying to determine what, if any, administrative action needed to be taken. Luckily for you, this was not a situation where immediate action was needed and I could take a bit of time to investigate. At this point in time, I am of the opinion that no action is required.
 * I'll discuss this further with Rhadow on his talk page, but I'd like a definite answer to the original question. "If an article's creator nominates an article for deletion, is it tantamount to a G7 request?" Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mjroots, I take it your intent was to discuss me and my article in camera. What for you is "muddying the waters," I see as an affirmative defense. In the last twenty-four hours, I have been threatened with a block. That remedy is a strong message -- that the community is better off without an editor. To come to that conclusion without the participation of the accused is a medieval method.
 * As to the difference between WP:G7 and WP:AfD, I think Uanfala had it right: "Please delete this" vs. "I don't think this is notable. What does everybody else think?" My request was specific, to redirect the new work. That's not a WP:G7 action.
 * Frankly, I was expecting a New Page Patroller to flag the article for insufficient references or for them being connected to the subject. The article would then have been reverted to draft status. Only a new article gets those eyes, impartial eyes, I hope. Any existing article gets the response that Hapa Road railway station did.
 * In answer to your question on my talk page, yes, it is my belief that all railway stations are eligible for mention in Wikipedia. Those stations for which there is sufficient material to support an article should get an article, according to WP:GNG. Others get a redirect to the parent line or municipality with a mention. The WP reader should not go away empty-handed.  Conversely, the reader should not be served a full article of original research.  The speedy deletion forum is not the right place to discuss all this.  It will come in time as a better-prepared RfC in the appropriate venue.  In the mean time, you are free to see how the argument is shaping up in my sandbox. Please feel free to comment there at the bottom. There are also some minor ramblings at [] Rhadow (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - No, it was not my intention to discuss this in camera - to me that means discussing an issue off-wiki, where there is no public record. This is not something that I do unless it is in exceptional circumstances. I can assure you that this is not an exceptional circumstance and I have not discussed the issue outside of Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - Great. No harm no foul. Did I answer your other question sufficiently? Rhadow (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , well in this case you, the author of the newly created article had requested AFD. So that would be similar to a G7.  I and User:Mjroots would like clarification from others whether in this case, where the author of a newly created article requested AFD, G7 could be applied.


 * User:Uanfala's remark is not on the right track as, in this case, the creator of the AFD and the creator of the article is the same person.


 * It's pointless to create an article you yourself think is not notable as a "bait" (your words, not mine), to sway consensus. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I was pinged several times, I guess I ought to reply: I took this discussion to be also about the general case, so my comment was trying to point out why an AfD nomination by an article creator does not necessarily equate to a G7 request. And if we're going to discuss only the specific incident that brought this about: well, yes, the AfD nomination was clearly pointy. But then, the nomination was arguing for redirecting, not deletion, so G7 should have been squarely out of the picture. And also, regardless of the intent of the nominator, there had already been one well-argued keep !vote, so a speedy close seems a bit difficult to justify. And on a more general note again, while it's often a good idea to stop editors acting in bad faith, sometimes if a discussion is started by someone trying to prove a point, it might be better to simply let it run its course and see the nominator's point defeated, as would have likely happened in this instance. – Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

We see user and draft pages brought by the creator to MfD occasionally and they always get G7 deleted when tagged by some more experienced editor. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Expand R2 slightly?
When content is userfied out of the Book: namespace, that seems to be identical to content Userfied out of the Mainspace, and so any resulting Book-to-User cross namespace redirects should also be subject to speedy deletion under R2. Comments? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the activity levels of the Book namespace, I would prefer not to change the definition of R2 for such an unfrequent occurrence. G6 "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace." can be stretched if necessary. —Kusma (t·c) 17:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion criteria should never be stretched as that defeats the entire point of them. However if the content really was created in the wrong namespace then it would apply without being stretched. How often is content userfied from the book namespace? It it's frequent then yes expanding R2 would make sense, if it's rare then just send them to RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Modules
To my surprise, modules aren't mentioned anywhere at WP:CSD. I would have expected them to be covered by the T series, since other template-related processes, e.g. XFD, handle them like the templates that they power. Would it be appropriate to put a note at the top of that section, These criteria also apply to modules? T2 isn't particularly likely (why would you write a Lua page to write a disclaimer or something else of the sort?), but T3 is quite plausible. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to add modules to T2/T3 or in the Templates section. TFD did just add modules to its explicit scope as well. --Izno (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:T3 requires the template to have been tagged for a week before deletion. How is that going to work with modules? You can't place a tag on a module, and if you put it in the documentation then any editors using (vs. reading) the module will not notice. In practice, I don't imagine there to be much of a need for module speedy deletions; most modules go along with a wrapper template, and if that template is speedied then the module should presumably be able to go per G8. – Uanfala (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We routinely tag pages in their corresponding talk space when we can't tag the page directly (for whatever reason). --Izno (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True but I think Uanfala is correct as well: Modules can be G8'd if all templates that relied on them were deleted which should be the most obvious usage. That said, I don't see the harm of making the change Nyttend proposes but with a slight modification to accommodate Uanfala's concerns, e.g. changing T3's description to read:
 * Templates that are substantial duplications of another template, or hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, may be deleted after being tagged for seven days. Modules that fit these requirements are also eligible if no template has made use of the module for seven days. If the module is no longer in use because the template that relied on it was (speedy) deleted, use G8 instead.
 * Regards So  Why  10:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Curious about this, as I'm planning on allowing Twinkle to tag modules: is it better to tag the doc or the talk page? The former will show when viewing the module, the latter will appear on module watchers' watchlists. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * But is there really a need to speedy delete modules? How many modules are there that will fit T3? And more generally, I'm not seeing a mass of TfD nominations for quick fail modules, and in fact you'd be lucky to see any module nominations at all. It's understandable why there should be speedy criteria for templates: templates are easy to create, accessible to almost any user and there are large classes of templates (think navboxes and the like) whose usefulness (or uselessness) can be quickly judged by any admin. Modules, on the other hand, have normally tended to be more complex, and so have generally required more work to create, and more tech saviness to evaluate. – Uanfala (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to think of any reason to speedily delete a module that isn't one of the G criteria - and they already apply. T3 already has a 7-day waiting period so there is little to be gained over TfD in terms of speed and the volume is not going to cause any issues. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How many times do we need to speedy delete things in the Module: namespace? (Or the TimedText namespace)? If they aren't mentioned, maybe deletions there aren't common enough to necessitate speedy criteria? The Portal criteria (I think I have deleted one page under P2 in more than a decade of CSD patrol) should serve as a reminder that we shouldn't create criteria if deletions under it aren't common or urgent. —Kusma (t·c) 09:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Modules are basically fancier templates written in another programming language, so making a distinction between Template: and Module: namespaces makes no sense. That is, I think, the whole point of Nyttend's proposal. PS: According to my deletion analyzer script, you have never made a P2 deletion but three P1 deletions (out of 16k+ deletions). Which kinda proves your point. Regards So  Why  10:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

G13 on sight?
To what an extent is it acceptable for an admin to be performing G13 deletions (particularly a large number of them) on sight, that is, without anyone having tagged them beforehand and without the creator getting notified? – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Creators should definitely be notified whether or not it is on sight, as they may not even be able to find their old drafts if they aren't notified.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * G13 is based on bright-line criteria (untouched for > 6 months - yes/no) unlike some of the other CSDs which require an opinion. As such a second-pair-of-eyes won't make any difference and on sight deletion seems fair enough. Notification, with the offer of WP:REFUND, are a basic courtesy... perhaps even a basic decency. Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea is to get at least two sets of eyes on a draft to see whether it's salvageable and should be deferred. (Besides which, anyone who watches WP:REFUND will be able to tell you how often creators can't figure out the names of their drafts even when they are notified.) —Cryptic 12:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * G13 deletions should be done only by bot. The bot gives the author a prior notification, and then the deletion notification that includes the instructions to get it WP:REFUNDed on request. Is the bot, once hasteurbot, taken over by someone else, not functioning? Ad hoc G13 deletions serve no useful purpose and increase the chance of bad G13s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (You're conflating taggings and deletions here. I know what you meant, but it's not helpful.)FWIW, it's been some time since I saw a G13 tag that was bot-applied.  But then, the G13 category's mostly been tending to instantly empty by the time I finish reading through the first draft in it, so. —Cryptic 13:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot is User:Bot0612. As far as I remember, its G13-tagging task didn't end up getting approved because there were minor issues that the bot operator, User:Firefly, didn't address as they had stopped editing by that time. This bot has another task for notifying creators, and that one seems to be working alright, but it only affects AfC submissions. Drafts that aren't done via AfC, as well as dratfified articles, don't seem to result in bot notifications, but the drafts get G13'ed anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Twinkle nominations and clicking the AFC script G13 nomination notify the creator just fine. Legacypac (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I object to bot-deletions of G13 because, disdainful of draftspace junk as I am, a bot deletion would lead to indiscriminate deletion of even good drafts that happened to not be edited for six months. G13, although it almost invariably is treated as such, is not mandatory. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it's up to an administrator whether they want to CSD tag an article for someone else to delete or to delete it when they come across an article that qualifies for deletion. Should G13 be different from this? Natureium (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When I asked the question that started this thread, the focus was intended to be on the without notifying the creator bit, not so much on the without anyone else having tagged it beforehand. There's always an element of courtesy in notifying people if any of their stuff is about to get deleted, but if G13 is different from other speedy criteria, it's the fact that the creator of the page can remove the speedy tag. You know, a G13 deletion depends entirely on the creator doing, or not doing, anything about it: the only thing making a given page eligible for deletion is the presumption that its creator has abandoned it. There's no way to find out if this is indeed the case unless you nudge them; How is a newbie supposed to know that anything they don't touch in six months will disappear? – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This should not be done. The notification issue is address above already. Another issue is that the page does not receive a tag. And then when it has a WP:REFUND it looks as if it has nt been edited for 6 months and then others delete or attempt to delete it again. In the history of the page, the log is not attached and others cannot see what happened to it with ease. I think there will be people willing to tag these pages for g13, we just don't need admins jumping in and deleting before there is a tag. So a page should be be tagged for g13 before deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is general policy against bot deletions, or automatic unthinking administrative actions of any sort. The idea that G13 is different because it is readily reversible is absurd--it is rare that the original editor is still around to see it ,and quite unlikely that anyone else ever will. But sometimes the editor will be here, or will have thought to be notified by email of edits to his talk page.  Warnings serve as a backup in such cases. (my experience is that about 1/3 of the time, the editor does follow up, and in 2/3, lets it get deleted) The very idea of deletion without warning (except in the case of vandalism) is antithetical to the principles of an open project, and even more basically,  repugnant to the general concept of fairness (which it seems even non-human primates have, and is sometimes thought to be the basis of morality in general.)
 * What we instead need to do, is to resume the practice of one-month warnings, and then notification, and then discourage anyone or two admins who may watch to remove them immediately without looking at them. We've been mindlessly deleting drafts by G13 on subjects notable in the de and fr WP -- which have higher notability standards than we do in almost all areas. We've been deleting G13 for articles on famous people that the single editor who looks does not recognize.--and in at least one or two admins, would think it right to delete regardless of possible usefulness to the extent they make a point of never looking  We've been deleting by G13 sourced drafts on subjects that are always considered notable, such as named geographic places. For the last month, now that I am free from arb com, I have been doing  what I originally asked to become an admin to do, which is " to search for pages need rescuing," systematically in the deletion log.  In every 100 G13 deletions, I find about 5 worth rescuing; in 100 speedies, I find 1 or 2. I would probably find twice as many of each if  I also  checked sports or popular music, where I am too ignorant to judge.  DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, I only manage to get to it about half the time, so the true numbers per day must be about 20 – 30  G13s, and 5 - 10 speedies.   DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Echoing DGG's findings I find a topic or two that can simply be accepted to mainspace out of every hundred or so on Database reports/Stale drafts. Someone should glace at the pages before sending for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What is recent?
There are two criterion, A10 and R3, that only apply to recently created pages. I have always used a month or so as the cut off. If it is older than that I don't think it is recent. Any other thoughts on the definition of recently created? ~ GB fan 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is too strict: within the last year certainly seems to qualify as recent to me. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's somewhat purposefully vague but that sounds about right to me, especially for R3. I try to be somewhat context-aware, though; I'd consider even longer to be recent in the context of an A10, probably even (somewhat) progressively more so as it appears more and more egregious and intentional. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 21:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Think about the purpose: To enable legal attribution, particularly for copies outside Wikipedia. After a month these copies very likely exist with a link back to the name that is being considered for speedy deletion. The copier made a good faith attempt to attribute, but then a nominator and delete come along and trample on the legal rights of the people that wrote the page (at the wrong name) by deleting the assistance to find where it moved to. This is even more serious with images as they get moved to commons as well as renamed and can be very hard to trace using search. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also consider periods longer than a month to be recent for this purpose; for A10 if it's clearly inferior and has no content worth merging and is useless for a redirect and does not appear to be an attempt at a draft or revision for an improved article. Most of these are people not seeing we already have an article, or writing on a vague topic already well covered; for R3 it depends on the degree of implausibility and not apparently a good faith effort we might want to make use of.  For this purpose, I interpret "recent" to be the opposite of "well-established". It's there to make sure that anything that has actually been around for a while gets a discussion, to make surethe impression of duplication or uselessness isn't a misunderstanding.  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * At RfD, at the Redirect project the "recent" R3 is always interpreted very conservatively - anything over about a month is definitely too old, with around 2-3 weeks being cited on some occasions (and not only by extremists). The issue is that there a great many redirects that don't mean anything if you aren't familiar with the subject area but which are but which those who are regard as (all-but) essential and a hugely significantly greater number of redirects that are not clear-cut in either direction. RfD is not overloaded and having a possibly implausible redirect around for a week or so is rarely going to harm anything (and many of the ones that would are caught by another speedy criterion anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand A11 to the draftspace (A11 -> G15)
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Any page whom's subject is made up by the author is not notable at all, and as such, it should be deleted as hopeless, like we delete adverts, tests, vandalism, hoaxes, attacks and nonsense. Deleting drafts that are made up and have no credible claim of significance would reduce the AfC backlog (especially high at the moment) and discourage further recreation. I propose the new criteria be G15, since there is no D criteria. Thoughts? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a fan. (A) If it only applies to drafts, it should be among the D criteria. (B) Articles about neologisms that would probably be speedied under A11 in article space can be more tolerable in draft space. If G1/G2/G3/G10/G11 don't apply, maybe wait a while. (C) If we start speedily deleting AfC drafts for typical A criteria, draft space kind of loses its point. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick note on your first point: Proposals for a new D criteria a few weeks ago were unsuccessful (including moving G13 to D1). Not sure there is consensus for D criteria. CoolSkittle  (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposal D2 above was clearly a non-starter, and moving something that applies to draft and user space to D1 wasn't clearly a good idea either. I am not convinced the discussion shows a general consensus against D criteria. Compared to the completely useless P criteria, there could actually be some point in having them. —Kusma (t·c) 20:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of current drafts that would be eligible for this new criterion? Regards So  Why  18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a current draft but I can recall Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kingdom of Matthew City - ping . I have to say I can't recall that when I used to review more AfC drafts that there were that many A11 candidates, but then again I mostly reviewed older submissions and A11 submissions would be rejected quickly before they made it that far. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support SoWhy has near zero experiance in Draftspace or MfD so of course has not seen these. I have seen plenty of examples. Most get shoehorned into Hoax or Spam but would be much better classified as "made up one day" I don't believe this change would result in may additional deletions but would much better classify the G11 and G3 applications into an easier to understand criteria. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of commenting on my (perceived lack of) experience, could you maybe just present those examples for us to make up our own mind? Regards So  Why  20:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not "perceived", it is an easily demonstrable lack of experience. 500 examples will never convince you to support anything that might expand a CSD so, why entertain the question? Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an ad hominem fallacy and is clearly commenting on contributor rather than content. Knock it off. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've experienced quite a lot of it from the same editor in two recent disputes (one CSD related, on "the portals question", the other MfD-related, on an essay).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Combine with G3 per that MfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The whole point of draft space is so that users have time to find reliable sources to prove that their article is about something that wasn't made up that day. Is there really that large of an issue that MFD or G13 can't handle? Iffy★Chat -- 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A11 doesn't apply if you can assert that the subject is significant. That means an A11 candidate is not necessarily "hopeless", because the author could add claims of significance or additional sources. In mainspace that's a problem but draftspace is supposed to be a safe space to allow article improvement without the immediate threat of deletion.  Hut 8.5  20:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to combining A11 with G3. They are fundamentally different in that one relates to good faith contributions and one to bad faith contributions. We shouldn't ever label good faith contributions as vandalism.  Hut 8.5  18:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Combine with G3. I agree with TonyBallioni. A11 is really just a lowering of the standard for G3. A11 and G3 should be combined, and thus would be applicable to drafts. --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Combine with G3 by wordsmithing G3 a little. I actually came back to the discussion because I had the same idea. A game/term/club/stupid idea someone made up last week is pretty much on par with a fake topic someone made up. An A11 is just a G3 where the writer told us they made the thing up. We even have "Note: This is not intended for hoaxes" bolded in A11 because the concepts are so close. We just need to add a little text about "obviously invented" to G3. I can't imagine why any Draft that fits A11 would be or become acceptable. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume this supersedes your previous support !vote? Appable (talk | contribs) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, either option is good. I believe inserting junk you WP:MADEUP in an encyclopedia is vandalism and everyone knows this who does it. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Combine with G3. I have definitely closed multiple MfDs within the past couple years that have been dumb things some kid made up, stats for fan-created seasons of America's First Top Drag Survivor, or flat-out hoaxes, but because they're in draftspace, we have to either MfD it or wait for G13 to kick in. Why? We're not a webhost for inane bullshit, and hosting unverifiable made-up garbage is not the point of draftspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose combining with G3, currently neutral on expanding A11 to drafts unless someone actually shows that this is a real problem. With all due respect to Tony, G3 and A11 are not similar. G3 implies bad faith editing by the creating user with the sole intent to disrupt Wikipedia by deliberately adding content that purports to be correct but obviously is not. A11 on the other hand applies to things that actually exist but were madeup by the creator or someone they know. To quote the policy as currently written: "Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.". To put it another way: An article that reads "Floppersgust is a game John Doeson and his friend created on a snowy winter evening in 2019" is clearly not a hoax because the subject is real, just not significant. Adding these kinds of articles to G3 (without a real need to make such a change to begin with!) would just make G3 hopelessly confusing because it would then apply to madeup stuff and real stuff at the same time. Regards So  Why  21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Hut and Iffy mentioned, A11 candidates are not hopeless. It's needed in mainspace because general readers actively read mainspace articles. Draftspace is not critical; the only issues with A11-eligible drafts is that they fill AfC and MfD queues. Though I don't doubt that there are some number of drafts that would qualify under expanded A11, I don't see evidence that there are enough that it would significantly reduce AfC/MfD burden. Appable (talk | contribs) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm somewhat in agreement with SoWhy and Hut, and per usual don't see the dire need for expansion to draftspace, but my stronger opposition is regarding merging with G3. G3 is for pure vandalism.  Okay, we've stretched that to encompass blatant hoaxes, which is fair because a hoax is really vandalistic when you get down to it, but incorporating A11 really just takes it too far astray from "pure vandalism."  G3 is one of our most clear-cut criteria, and I don't think muddying it up helps at all.  A11 works precisely because it's limited to mainspace, so I think keeping things clear (aka as is) is to our benefit. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support  expanding CSD#A11 to all namespaces. This includes userspace, which I support weakly but can not articulate a good reason not to. Do not merge with G3.  A bad faith hoax is not the same thing as a kid’s inept exposition of their imaginary friends adventures. Different auto-messages and log records are needed.  Possibly add a U5 style restriction, that the author has never made any real contributions.  Personally, I’d prefer it if the reviewers would just quietly and simply blank these pages, but I get it that passing them over irks their sensibilities. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose combining with G3 per SoWhy. I'm flabbergasted by the support for merging A11 with G3. It seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of madeup (as well as the difference between madeup and hoax); madeup is something that is real, but hasn't been noticed by anyone outside of a small group of people. One could call it a most extreme case of non-notability. A hoax, on the other hand, is pure, deliberate disinformation. It matters not whether or not the creator admits it. There's a reason A11 and G3 are separate criteria; madeup does not equal hoax. Madeup cases are usually the result of a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. There's a big difference between that and vandalism. Those that are bad faith are G3 as well as A11. There really is no need to merge two completely different criteria together. That would just muddy the waters and even potentially drive away new contributors (they may think their edits are being seen as vandalism). Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Draft:The Ashmole Wars has just been IAR speedied as WP:MADEUP. Not sure if this occurs often enough to justify expanding A11 to draftspace though. I just thought I'd point this out as it appears to be relevant to this discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose combining G3 and A11per SoWhy, Adam9007 and others. They are fundamentally very different criteria and lumping tangientially related things together makes everything more opaque to end users and more open to admins and taggers getting it wrong or abusing the criteria to speedy delete things that should not be speedily deleted. Lumping too much into one is what resulted in the problems we have with G6 which we're slowly unpicking. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose expanding A11 into draftspace per Iffy and Hut8.5, this would be contrary to the purpose of draftspace as a place where articles can be written and developed without needing to immediately satisfy all the rules so as to allow time for sources to be found and added to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A11-eligible topics are not plausibly considered draft articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. A draft of a notable topic may start out without making any credible claims of significance but have one or more added subsequently - e.g. it may contain a claim that does not seem credible at first but is once a source has been added in a subsequent edit, or the drafter may be writing a biography of a person who did not become notable until adulthood chronologically starting with their early life. These are examples of the correct use of draftspace to create articles about notable topics that would be speedily deleted under this proposal. The proposal would therefore harm the encyclopaedia without bringing any benefit - if the draft is not finished G13 will pick it up, if it's egregiously bad then one of the other G criteria will apply, the few remaining examples that really don't belong and need to be deleted sooner than 6 months should be nominated at MfD where the reason for the hurry can be explained. Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a pedantic line to argue. All A11 articles might become FA quality with the next edit.  Also, it is clear that we are not clear about the drafts needing deletion - these are fleshed out personal stories of blatantly non-notable things, like the child's imaginary adventure, or the school bathroom.  The only fail to be G11-eligible die to a lack of promotion, as they are actually worse, lacking any purpose at all.  Perhaps we need to say that page contains material that would never be suitable, not just that there is no material that is suitable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Combine they are very closely related, and can best be considered together. There are a good number of drafts each day that would fall into this category, and there is no sense in not removing them asquickly aas posible. --they are likely being used to game WP as much as because of vanity.  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Combine with G3. New Page Reviewers already have to consign 22 CSD criteria to memory, any merging or reducing their number would help alleviate the thankless task of NPP.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Since there is no rush to delete drafts (as opposed to articles) for being made up and note that A11 didn't even exist in the article space until 2013, that said I don't object to obvious ones being deleted to reduce the workload on MFD.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The rationales are different. G3 is bad-faith activity to spread misinformation. A11 is about (often promotionally) writing about something real but obviously non-notable. Much of draft-spaced material isn't "obviously" anything, and much of the point is to provide time to do the work to establishing something's notability. If we were to make drafts speedily deletable simply because they haven't established it for that topic, then we have no use for draftspace and should just eliminate it.  (Personally, I think that's an okay idea, since half the point of userspace is also drafting.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support expanding A11: Things that are obviously made up and/or clearly invented by the author do not need time to incubate, that's not going to help them not be obviously made up and/or invented by the author. Things that are not obviously  made up (based on a credible claim of significance) are already excluded from A11.
 * Oppose combining with G3''': A11 is for improper good-faith contributions, G3 is for vandalism. Don't mix the two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages of nonexistent articles that are written as articles and would be speedy deletable as articles
On occasion, I stumble upon newly created pages in the talk namespace (recently, for example, Talk:Antonios torbey) that look like attempts at creating articles when the corresponding article page is nonexistent, but do not use talk pages for discussion, and could be deleted under a specific criterion such as A7 if they were articles. It seems that G8 would apply (talk page of a nonexistent page); however, G8 seems too broad in this case as it does not address the content of the page. Interestingly, Twinkle gives the option to tag such a page for A7, but from what I understand, criteria for content namespaces do not necessarily apply to their corresponding discussion namespaces, and no other criterion clearly outlines what to do in these cases.

Thus, I ask, what should be done to avoid treating G8 as an umbrella term or misusing another criterion? Some ideas:


 * 1) Apply G8 using its broad definiton,
 * 2) Expand the article criteria to cover talk pages that would be eligible for speedy deletion as articles,
 * 3) Draftify and R2 the resulting redirect,
 * 4) Create a new criterion or sub-criterion of G8 along the lines of:
 * New article-like page created on a talk page that makes neither a credible claim of significance nor an attempt at discussion to promote the article to mainspace. This criterion would not apply if:
 * The content clearly outlines a proposal to create an article (e.g. rationale, possible sources)
 * There is a signature by the user or another indication that it is an attempt at communication.
 * The page could be made into an article that would not be eligible for speedy deletion (for users who only created the page in the wrong namespace).

Thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Does this happen often? MfD would always be an option. One could move the page to Draft or Article space depending on how it looks, deleting the redirect if needed. It seems like a weird gray area that a one size fits all solution does not apply. The example could be tagged as G3 which fits all spaces. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I delete such pages under WP:CSD criteria. Similarly, sometimes I will see other misplaced (template space, etc.) attempts to start an article with content that would be speediable in article space and I will deleted them with an edit summary such as "misplaced CSD candidate".  No one has ever objected and I can't image anyone so rules-bound that they would. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, G8 already takes care of those. I'm with Ed about other such pages as well: If a page was created in another namespace that is clearly meant to be an article (such as in Wikipedia-space), A-criteria apply to it as well because one could just move it to article space, delete it under an A-criterion and delete the redirect per G8. Of course, if the page is not clearly not ready or if there is possibly something to salvage, moving it to Draft is usually the better idea (similarly, misplaced user pages should just be moved to user-space). Regards  So  Why  20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I very, very strongly disagree that moving any page to a different namespace just so it can be speedily deleted can ever anything other than a gross abuse administrative privileges. If we wanted the A criteria to apply to anything outside the article namespace they would be G criteria (which is why A8 was replaced by G12) or there would be an equivalent criterion (e.g. A10, F1 and T3 all cover duplicates). If the page was intentionally created in the wrong namespace to deliberately circumvent a speedy deletion criterion (with the exception of creating pages in draft or userspace for testing or development) then G3 (vandalism) would apply. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand my comment: If someone created John Doemerman when they obviously were trying to create John Doemerman, then it would be completely correct to move the page to the right namespace, wouldn't it? And if after moving, someone nominated John Doemerman for deletion, it could be deleted via AFD, couldn't it? If so, then logically A-criteria also apply. There is no abuse in such cases, merely combining multiple allowed steps into one. Of course, if the page was not created somewhere else by mistake, then you would be correct. Regards So  Why  09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be moving talk page "articles" to mainspace if they're created there to circumvent WP:ACPERM. They should be draftified if created in good faith, otherwise use whichever G criteria applies best (only using G8 if there's no better option). Iffy★Chat -- 20:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of why it was created in the wrong space you should always be moving pages obviously created in the wrong namespace to the correct location - if it's good enough to stand as a non-duplicate article already then move it to article space, if it isn't move it to draft space. If it would be a duplicate article then move it to article space then redirect it. In other situations MfD is the place to go. We should not be using G8 in this situation - it should either be moved to article or draft space or deleted using G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G10, G11, G12 or G14 if they apply; if none of them do and you still think it should be deleted then send it to MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's all very good as a general statement of principle, but a lot of the time it doesn't work in practice. If it's not in Draft:, User:, or mainspace, would be a speedy candidate in mainspace, and it wouldn't be a viable draft, there's no more reason to move it into draft than there would have been to draftify it if had been created in mainspace.  To make this a bit more concrete, I've deleted 27 non-mainspace pages with summaries mentioning an A-series criterion but not G1 or G10-G14, listed at query/33689; and, while I haven't reviewed all of them today, of those that I did, the only ones I'm having any second thoughts whatsoever about speedying are the ones labeled A10.  You'd seriously have draftified or mfd'd Template:Lillye (band) or WT:AB or WP:Kaifgames inc? —Cryptic 11:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'd have draftified the first and last of those three, and either draftified or MfD'ed WT:AB. Chances are they would sit there until deleted under G13 without harming anybody or anything, but there is small chance they'd have been improved. If a page does not meet the letter and spirit of a CSD criterion then it is not speedy deletable, no matter how bad it is or anything else. If you think these should be speedy deletable then get consensus for a new criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose any wording changes. G8 permits the deletion of talk pages that don't have corresponding non-talk pages, so your suggestion #1 is appropriate.  The only time G8 isn't appropriate is if the content's actually good, in which case the page can simply be moved to a different namespace, and then the redirect can be deleted as housekeeping.  Also, note that many such pages are tests, which are already G2-deletable.  Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for new temporary criterion X3
A proposal to create a new temporary criterion X3, for Portal-related speedy deletions, has been opened at Administrators' noticeboard. PLease contribute to the discussion over there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Template editor or Admin request
Hi. Can a TE tag (or an admin delete) Template:Editnotices/Group/List of countries by Yazidi population and Template:Editnotices/Page/List of countries by Yazidi population for speedy deletion under WP:G6? I can't because its on the title blacklist. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

R3 and recent
At Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4 the definition of "recent" has been mentioned. While there probably doesn't need to be a strict limit, it would be worth adding a footnote to a general time. Per the comments at the RFD maybe "generally less than 1 month old" and noting that generally a shorter time can be given for redirects that were just created as redirects than redirects created from page moves.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC) The RfD concerns a redirect one year old, which basically everyone agrees doesn't qualify as R3. I made my thoughts known in the recent discussion, but as has been said there and here, a level of discretion is valuable. More to the point, if you think there's a chance something might not qualify or there may be some concerns, it's probably better to go the XfD route rather than speedy. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the criterion "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created." (emphasis in the original) and in the context of page moves "recently" needs to be understood far more strictly than for redirects created as redirects as articles are more likely to gain incoming links from outside en.wp than redirects are. Something like "Generally less than about a month old" for redirects created as redirects, and something like "In most cases, around 2 weeks old or newer" for those created from page moves would get my support though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This was just discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I think 3-6 months sounds right to me, personally. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with Thryduulf's reccomendations, obviously common sense should be a factor to, a clearly implausible redirect that's 2 months old might stand a better change of being deleted under R3 than a less implausible redirect created 2 hours ago.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also be fine with Tavix's suggestion of 3-6 months. Anything longer than 6 months does almost always not qualify.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Common sense is precisely why there isn't a firm number, and why I would be wary to define one now because it would take away some discretion on the edge cases. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That RFD does indicate the problem with not specifying though. In that case I was tempted to (and wasn't far of doing so) tag it with R3. If Thryduulf thinks its 1-4 weeks and I thought anything up to around a year, that's quite a difference. IMO a vague pointer to not more than 3-6 months may be beneficial (again just as a footnote rather than in text).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely not fine with 3-6 months as that's way too long in all but extreme edge cases (if something has been around that long it needs to be evaluated to see if it has links and/or uses - not something that is suitable for speedy deletion). A hard number is not appropriate, I agree, which is why I phrased my suggestions using "generally" and "about". Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Something I remember reading years ago which I found again is User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion in which #10 says "If a redirect exists since 2004 and you think it's implausible, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, if you have any doubt that something meets a speedy deletion criterion then it doesn't - and this applies to every criteria. The goal here is not to remove discretion, but to give guidance (not strict rules) for what "recent" means in context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Expand G13 to outline drafts
Should CSD G13 be expanded to include subpages of WP:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts? — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. These draft outlines have by and large not been updated in a few years. The only thing keeping them alive is that they were not created in the proper namespace. Were they in draftspace, they would have pretty much all been deleted. Wikipedia is not a web host. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support there are around 700 according to some info I found. Most are mindless mass fill in the blank mass creations while others are a sea of redlinks. Every one of these Drafts duplicates an existing title in mainspace. No change to Twinkle is required, all the Gx CSDs work in Wikipedia space. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose expanding G13 just for this narrow one-off issue. The solution is to move these pages to the Draftspace and then apply g13 as usual (IMHO a pagemove does not "reset the clock" on the 6-mo waiting period). Would not oppose expansion of G13 to cover all drafts housed in any WikiProject, however.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and the list of pages is here: it's 183 non-redirected pages; achievable in a single nom. by a dedicated MfD-er. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the problem is smaller than I understood it to be I now think this group of interested users can move and G13 or MfD as applicable. Faster than trying to get consensus for an expanded CSD. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I also agree that a WikiProject's drafts shouldn't be treated like userspace. They should be moved to draftspace and / or deleted if they dead. Support both this and UnitedStatesian's extended proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support expanding G13 to include all drafts in Wikipedia space. I also agree that fixing the namespace does not reset the clock on G13. Draft space and G13 were created to get drafts out of the AFC Wikiproject space so this is just tweaking the wording to match the original intent. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We should not be expanding any CSD criteria for such a small reason (note the frequency requirement for new criteria applies equally to modifications). IF they are actually causing problems then they can be dealt with at MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems to be covered in the X3 proposal above. If that passes then this is unnecessary, and if not then there is also no consensus for this back-door. Also, perennial oppose to expanding G13. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, X3 as drafted would only cover pages in the Portal: namespace, not these, which are in the Wikipedia: namespace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There isn't even a good reason to delete them.  They are an appropriate as the WikiProject subpages.  What is the issue?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who opposed the existance of these same pages several years ago because they would become mainspace pages. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t remember exactly what you are talking about. I oppose portals in mainspace, but they never were.  I oppose creative content forking, but I encouraged auto-creation of Portals that would auto-update with editing of articles, eg Portals transcending ledes from articles depending on their position in category trees.  I haven’t been following the activity, but it sounds like TTH has gone too big too fast.  This reaction however is an over reaction. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Too different stupid projects SmokeyJoe. This is about hos Outlines of Everything project. Today I found a discussion where you did not want these outlines in mainspace ever. It was an interesting read. You argued they duplicated portals and that they were content forks. I agree with you. He later abandoned Outlines and moved to Portals, with the same rational and agendas. The two projects are like siblings. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a fair memory of this. Yes, outlines in mainspace were content forking.  Yes, outlines and portals were and are two manifestations of the same thing, attempts at readable summaries of broad areas mainly for navigation purposes.  I advised TTH to merge the two concepts, to abandon mainspace outlines, and to look to real time auto-generation of portal contents to avoid the problem of content forking.  New portals, continuing portals, all portals except for the very few actually active portals, should contain no creative editing.  They should be created by coding.  TTH has followed my advice, so I should be pleased, and can hardly be quick to support deletion.  However, he has failed WP:MEATBOT.  He should have demonstrated working prototypes, maybe ten working auto-portals that update themselves based on changing article content.  He should not have created thousands of new portals.  The rancour generated is understandable, and completely to have been expected.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose if they are causing harm, propose a mass deletion at MfD; no policy changes required. If they are not causing harm, WP:NOTCLEANUP. VQuakr (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Too much of a niche; miscellany for deletion is well equipped to handle such pages if necessary. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 04:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Modified Proposal: Add Wikipedia Namespace Drafts to G13
Per the previous discussion we should add point "4. Article drafts in Wikipedia namespace" to cover misplaced drafts or drafts hosted under wikiprojects. Draft namespace was designed to host Wikiproject drafts for collabertive editing and was initially populated with drafts from a wikiproject. The same reasons for G13 apply to other versions of draftspace under a wikiproject now. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if an article draft is misplaced in the Wikipedia namespace, or other namespaces, the accepted treatment is to move it to Draft: space. Then G13 applies as normal. This extra proposal is unnecessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Misplaced drafts can easily be moved to Main or Draft space for further use as appropriate. Multiple pages such as the one mentioned above can be handled by a one-time consensus at MFD. I don't see a real need to expand the scope of G13. Regards So  Why  20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for lack of need per SoWhy and Ivanvector. This also does not address most of the reasons for opposition to the original proposal and actually might make some worse. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per New Criteria criterion #3, no frequent need. Also, I can very easily imagine this broad scope criterion being misused to delete things that should not be deleted.  Legacypac is wrong to state "Draft namespace was designed to host Wikiproject drafts for collabertive editing and was initially populated with drafts from a wikiproject".  That was true ONLY for one specific WikiProject, being WP:AfC, which was inviting hoards of newcomers to create WikiProject subpages.  These newcomers were not WikiProject members.  This is a big distinction.  Pages properly organised in WikiProjects, by their WikiProject members, should not be subject to unwanted cleanup by deletion by non-members.  WP:PERFORMANCE issues excepted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

New F Crtiera - Unused/unusable explicit image.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a porn host. Therefore I am asking if there should be a CSD that allows users and admins to 'speedy' delete explicit image that are unused, or which cannot be used within the context of encyclopaedia. This would in effect make the NOPENIS policy used on Commons a grounds for speedy deletion of the same kind of media on English Wikipedia.

The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It'll need some refinement on what is considered unusable and for why, but it's a sensible proposal. Nick (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unusable explicit images (or those uploaded and then used for shock value) are covered by WP:CSD vandalism already. How common are cases not covered by G3? —Kusma (t·c) 17:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny. See item #3 in the banner above about proposing new criteria. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Unusable" is subjective so can be dropped if that would make the proposal more acceptable....

To me unusable images would be (non-exclusive criteria) :
 * Images that lack full sourcing, authorship or attribution as to where the media was obtained from, and who the creators were.
 * Those that are of low technical quality, (out of focus, JPEG artifacts, badly lit) such that whats displayed isn't clear in relation to any provided context.
 * Images that cannot legally be displayed or shared with respect to US law (with consideration being given to the equivalent laws in other jurisdictions, such as those of the uploader)

The following would not be "unusable" grounds within the context of the proposed CSD, but would be grounds for requesting FFD or PROD on an image:-
 * Images where model or participant consent is not explicitly stated.
 * Images lacking a detailed contextual explanation of what the media contains, the articles in which it is intended to be used, and what points or content in those articles it is intended to support (essentially amounting to an "explicit image use rationale").

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also WP:NOTCENSORED, so "explicit" is not a workable definition for a new criterion. Lack of authorship, attribution and source leads, in most cases, to lack of licensing information and is thus covered by F4 or F11. Files that are so corrupt that the subject is not identifiable should probably be covered by F2 already. "Illegal" is not something an admin can really determine and is thus not objective enough for speedy deletion. Regards So  Why  18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can always just PROD the files ... &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How often do images like this come up at FFD? Do they always close as "delete"? Are we being swamped by them to the point that the FFD regulars are not finding enough time to handle the non-explicit images that are sent there? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As an FFD volunteer, we get hardly any. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As mentioned, I see where you're going, but most of your edge cases can be covered by perhaps amending G3 with an "images uploaded solely for shock value with no possible encyclopedic use". ViperSnake151   Talk  17:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * G3 already covers that, see Vandalism: Uploading shock images [...] Regards So  Why  20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Out of the roughly 2000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. The speedy deletion policy is designed to reduce the volume at xFD.  In the absence of a significant volume of problematic material, I can't see why we would adopt such a subjective policy with so many clear possibilities for disagreement.   Uninvited Company 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Out of the roughly 13,000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. Since what constitutes "explicit" is always going to be subjective—what's porn to you might be a noteworthy artwork or a useful medical illustration to me—such things are never going to be appropriate for speedy deletion unless they already fall into one of the existing criteria, in which case we don't need another. &#8209; Iridescent 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the criterion is too complex and subjective. In my deleting I have not come across such images either, so they must be rare. Removal from articles can be done, and the pic left for FFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Query: Which current criteria would cover images that if assesed by a competent legal professional as potentially "obscene" (with respect to US Federal law, and those of the State of Virginia) would have to be removed for legal reasons? (Also such images should presumably be reported to a contact off wiki.) ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That would likely be WP:G9, since its up to User:WMF Legal to decide that content would have to be removed for legal reasons --DannyS712 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:G9 - the WMF has a legal team, and it is ultimately their job to assess if something is illegal and so to remove it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If an image is unused & unusable, does it matter if it's explicit or not? "I oppose" is explicit, and I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. On the other hand, "I fucking oppose", is veering into obscenity. Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

X3
Can someone add Permalinks to the AN discussion, the recently closed MfDs where various users expressed a need for X3, and the VPP where various users requested some version of X3? The discussion is so fagmented but the conclusion in favor of X3 is very clear. Also we are going to call it X3 not P3 even though it is for Portals. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed the X3 Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as mass created Portals now exists and pages get added when Template:Db-x3 is added. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of pages there may be a better way to list them. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is - that doesn't list pages created before June 27 or pages created outside of Portal: and then moved there, and includes redirects and already-deleted pages. query/34239 (all pages) or query/34240 (omits subpages). —Cryptic 03:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Useful Query for quantifying the issue, not so useful for tagging as the page names are not clickable and don't turn red as they are deleted. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this query what you're looking for? (Note that if someone else created the page at a different title and TTH moved it to the portal namespace, this query will show TTH as the creator, so double-check the history before tagging unless it has an obvious edit summary like "created new portal".) &#8209; Iridescent 09:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quarry queries can be downloaded as a wikitable - see User:Galobtter/Portals by TTH. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Iridescent's and Galobtter's queries are perfect. Look at the creation rate - I spotted 5 a minute in some cases.
 * I'm not aware of any Portals created elsewhere and they don't work elsewhere (like draft) so page moves from outside spaces are not likely to be a big problem. He did rename a few Portal though so watch for that.
 * X3 does not address the equally problematic "rebooted" portals or the approx 1000 built by other editors in exactly the same way using his instructions. I started building a list here User:Legacypac/not x3 portals but it is painstaking to check each one. Better to wait till X3 pages are deleted first as so many Portals one checks will go X3. Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

G14
As far as I was aware DAB pages that have a primary topic and there is only 1 other (WP:2DABS) can be deleted as unnecessary DAB pages. This was quite clear in the past but it looks like since G6 was split, the inclusion of situation where there are only 2 topics and there is a primary topic has been lost for some reason. See User talk:Patar knight and User talk:Sir Sputnik. I would note though that DAB entries that are red links and part title matches do still count as "entries" for this purpose.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the plain wording of G14 as it is now, if there is a primary topic and a non-primary topic on a 2DAB, then it is still disambiguating two extant articles and ineligible for G14. My experience has been that they are then typically PRODed, so they show up at WikiProject_Disambiguation for a week and gives room for editors who work with DABs to review them. This interpretation fits with the framework of CSD as getting rid of unambiguous cases and letting other deletion processes deal with less clear cases.
 * For DABs, those "disambiguating" one or zero DAB entries absolutely fail as DAB pages and are arguably actively unhelpful in navigation, while those with two entries do not. Those with two entries are more easily converted into valid DABs with the addition of only one additional entry or might be converted into a 2DAB page with no primary topic if the article at the base name doesn't have a solid claim to be the primary topic. Having a 2DAB page is at worst neutral, and an additional week to potentially save it isn't a big deal.
 * Looking through the history of G14/G6 I don't think that it ever explicitly allowed deletion of 2DABs with a primary topic:
 * August 2009: Added to G6 as "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages
 * January 2013: G6 is broken out into bullet points
 * January 2013: "unnecessary is clarified as "those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles."
 * March 2017: "links" to zero/one extant article is changed to "disambiguates" zero/one extant articles.
 * December 2018: G14 is split off from G6 with minimal changes.
 * My interpretation of Tavix's change in March 2017 is that linking the previous wording technically allowed DAB pages with zero valid dab entries but some links to existing articles, either in invalid DAB entries or a "See also" section, to escape speedy deletion. The new wording shows that the linked articles must be part of a valid dab entry, not just any link whatsoever. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support a speedy deletion option for disambiguation topics where there is one clear primary topic, only one other topic, and for which the primary topic page already contains a hatnote to the other topic, with no link to the disambiguation page. In that case, any reader looking up the term is already going to be taken to a page with an existing hatnote leading to the other topic, so there is no point in the disambiguation page existing. bd2412  T 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Patar knight. Dab pages with a primary topic and only one other link are pretty useless most of the time, but the emphasis here is on "most of the time". Such pages are normally dealt with using PROD, and often enough it would happen that somebody might come along and expand the page with additional entries. Or it might turn out that the page is a result of a bad move. Or it could disambiguate between two articles only because of a previous overzealous attempt at cleanup that had removed valid links. Etc, etc. There are too many possible scenarios and too many nuances for CSD to be appropriate, and there are too few pages of this kind getting deleted for there to be a need for an extension of the existing criteria. – Uanfala (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Uanfala that extending CSD to cover primary+1 disambiguation pages is not appropriate. In addition to the scenarios they list, in some cases there will be people navigating directly to the disambiguation page where they know or suspect the topic they are looking for is not primary but do not know what its title is. Whether this is likely will depend on factors that cannot be judged by a single admin reviewing CSD nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Extend R2 to portals
Two days ago WP:R2 was boldly extended to apply to redirects from the portal namespace. There appears to be some disagreement at least on what exceptions there should be. Could we decide on all that here first? Pinging involved editors:, ,. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mainspace and Portal space are both reader facing content spaces. Draft space is for stuff that is not intended for readers. Links between Mainspace and Portal space and vice versa are fine but if a portal is draftified it is exactly like draftifying an article so the redirect should be immediately deleted. When there were 1700 mostly dead portals this was not frequent problem but now we have 4500 new automated portals that are being examined and I expect a bunch will be placed in some Draft holding pen out of view while consideration of their future is done. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is not clear that this is a very common occurrence that would require it to be covered by CSD. Also, draft portals can just be left in portal space. If they are not linked to from any articles or other portals, there is no fundamental problem with keeping unfinished portals around in portal space. The mass-produced automatic portals should be deleted, not draftified. Classic portals with many subpages simply can't be moved around in any meaningful way, so instead of being draftified, they should just be tagged with some template that tells any accidental readers that it is unfinished and that they should go read something else. —Kusma (t·c) 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait until Administrators' noticeboard is resolved. I don't see the point in draftifying portals if they are going to be deleted anyway. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Main → Portal and Portal → Main redirects should not be speedily deleted under R2 as they are both reader-facing namespaces with encyclopaedic content. Such redirects will not always be optimal but that is a matter that should be discussed at RfD as deletion is not going to be the best action for all of them. This means that, if R2 applies to portals at all (which I have no strong opinions about) then the main namespace needs to be listed as an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed 100% with Thryduulf's refinement. I disagree with waiting because the nuclear option is not going to delete all portals, only many portals. There are a bunch of legacy portals that may well be draftified and dealt with seperately. I actually tagged a portal=>Draft redirect R2 but it did not display properly, then I tagged it housekeeping with a not it was R2 and that was accepted. I don't see this change as an expansion, more a refinement of wording based on the principle of the CSD. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then how about a separate bullet point for R2 that includes any other namespace to draft, so we don't get a bunch of potentially-confusing exceptions and includes anything that has been draftified (eg: templates, books). -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Add the words "Also any redirect to Draft namespace, except from user namespace." This way anything draftified from any random spot (like I saw someone post a draft as a category recently) can be moved and the redirect nuked. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , redirects created because a page was obviously created in the wrong namespace are already covered under G6. —Kusma (t·c) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the question is why we would want to move pages from non-mainspace to draft anyway. I am unconvinced that this is a good idea, as many namespaces have their own special features. Draft books should be in Book space, just as draft TimedTexts should be in TimedText namespace. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The "special features" argument just convinced me no Portal should be in Draftspace. It breaks them anyway. Can you make that point at AN against the idea of sending Portals to Draftfor more work? Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , done. One problem with the current portals discussion is that it is so fragmented... but the AN discussion should fix the main issue soon. —Kusma (t·c) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Point of order - I'm not following the discussion this was forked from so I don't really get what's happening, but the redirect criteria apply to redirects in any namespace, including portal redirects. If the proposal is to apply the R criteria to portals themselves, then oppose, R criteria are for redirects. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning the requirements for new criteria in an edit notice?
There are plenty of examples of people on this page proposing new criteria or commenting on proposals for new criteria who seem unfamiliar with the requirements (Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, Non-redundant) detailed in the page header. To help reduce this (especially for those who arrive via a link to a section), how about adding a slimmed down version of the header in an edit notice, linking to the header for full details? Perhaps something like:

Although it might be possible to condense it still further - the point is to alert not overwhelm, and other improvements are almost certainly possible as well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC) It's worth mentioning here that I've just created a new shortcut to the header listing the the requirements: WP:NEWCSD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Given the comments above I have added an edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion). Please tweak it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest Speedy closing proposals that clearly fail the new criterion criteria, and Speedy close CSD proposals that are not even accepted reasons for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that in general, although in some cases they only need a slight tweak and in others speedy closing will be a lot of drama (especially I think anything related to UPE). I don't think that's incompatible with my suggestion though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fails #4, redundant to the header.I don't think it's a matter of not noticing the new-criteria criteria. (And if it is, the first step is to remove the irrelevancies distracting from it - we absolutely don't need a "don't delete WP:CSD, we copied some text out of it four years ago" box; we don't need the "be polite and sign your posts" box; and the archive lists doesn't need to be full-width.)  What we've been seeing lately is A) legitimate disagreement over whether criteria meet NEWCSD, and B) a suicidal headlong rush to vote on everything.  B exacerbates A, because there isn't time to hammer out the obvious amendments that make a proposal meet NEWCSD before some dolt's plastered it all over CENT and started a formal RFC, and then we suddenly have four competing proposals for people to vote against without even fully reading. —Cryptic 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should hope I'm not a dolt because you're making that statement as a general comment. ;) --Izno (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose is very much to complement the header, for people who don't see it and/or read it, that's why it explicitly summarises it and links to it for full details. It's very much not redundant to it. The excessive number of proposals being made (sometimes on the wrong page - e.g. the X3 proposal at AN) without understanding the requirements is why we need to make it more in-your-face. And just like when evaluating a page against the criteria, if there is good faith disagreement about whether a proposal meets the requirements for a new criterion it doesn't. If people disagree whether something is objective it clearly isn't. If people disagree whether everything that covered by the criterion should be deleted then it is not uncontestable. The "we copied text" box is needed for proper attribution - see WP:CWW. The archives box though could be made less prominent, but I'm not sure it would make that much difference. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support making such an editnotice. The vast majority of proposals at this page fail at least one of these obvious criteria, and it's a drain on editorial time.  One of those "RtFM" things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly an improvement. If rule #4 prevents us from implementing this obviously helpful advice, ignore the rule. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle now logs user-inputted options and should better handle noms in module space
This is about CSD tagging and not the criteria themselves, but just FYI if attempting a CSD of a Module, Twinkle should now place the tag on the documentation subpage, like is supposed to be done at WP:TfD. Also, the CSD log will now include the user-inputted options, like user for G5 or xfd for G6. Other recent changes here; please let me know if there are any issues! ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of modules
Hi. There have been a number of times when I've tried to tag modules for deletion. The tag goes on the doc page, and doc page gets deleted, but the actual module isn't. Can an admin please delete Module:User:Xinbenlv bot/msg/inconsistent birthday per WP:CSD. Separately, is there a better way to communicate to admins that, despite the tag being on the documentation page, the module itself is the target of the deletion request? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use a custom rationale on most tags. --Izno (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ask a friendly admin directly - preferably one who works in module space, so they know how to verify it's not being used. Failing that, to make it clear you're not talking about the doc page itself, you can either enclose the speedy deletion template in &lt;includeonly&gt; tags, or manually categorize it into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with some explanatory text. —Cryptic 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

G6 for post-merge delete?
The Twinkle CSD menu includes G6 for An admin has closed a deletion discussion ... as "delete" but they didn't actually delete the page, but this isn't listed as a use case under WP:G6. I propose adding another bullet point: Any objections? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting a page per an XfD close which specified deletion but didn't perform it.
 * PS, see this discussion for background. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's already in there; fourth bullet point in the "templates" section of G6:


 * It's also in the main section, though I do suppose it says ... as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD. I suppose this could be modified to just read "XfD". Primefac (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that's because non-admins can close TfDs as delete, but not other XfDs. ansh 666 22:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The particular case here (as described in the discussion on my talk page), was I closed an AfD as (essentially), Merge, then delete. As is common in merge closes, I left the actual merge for somebody else to execute.  In this case, the merge was done by, who is an admin and was able to delete the page after they were done merging.  They used WP:G6 as the reason.  But, in theory, the merge could have been done by a non-admin, and then tagging the page for G6 deletion would have made sense.
 * "Merge and delete" is almost never a valid outcome, since attribution is needed for a merge. ansh 666 17:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with you. It almost always makes sense to "Merge and redirect".  In fact, I think it made sense to do that in this case too, but as the closing admin, my job is to summarize the discussion, not cast a supervote.  So, let's for the moment, assume we have a valid "Merge and delete" outcome.  What's the best way to implement that?  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Move the history to another existing redirect that doesn't have history that needs preserving. There's some alternatives at WP:Merge and delete. —Cryptic 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Lazy catchall.  If the deletion is authorised by an XfD, use “deleted per [the XfD]”, not per G6.  G6 should never be used for pages with a nontrivial history, and G6 post merge sounds like a terrible violation of that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fix twinkle. Twinkle documentation errors should be fixed, not policy altered to suit twinkle documentation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Two things. First, the list under G6 isn't exclusive, i.e. those are not the only reasons that G6 may be used. Tagging a page under G6 where the XfD for that page was closed as delete is fairly obviously "uncontroversial maintenance", so there isn't a need to add a bullet point. Second, tagging a page as G6 for an AfD result of merge - even if the nominator recommends deletion post-merge, which should frankly never be done for attribution reasons - would no longer be uncontroversial by default, and therefore shouldn't be done. ansh 666 22:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with SmokeyJoe. If you're deleting something because of a deletion discussion, that deletion discussion is tautologically the reason for deletion.  It's not a speedy deletion, and shouldn't be labelled as one.  It especially shouldn't be labelled as a G6, which is intended for cases where there's both no non-temporary loss of content, and no controversy whatsoever.  (Before someone brings it up, for G4, you're speedying it because of similarity to previously-deleted content, not directly because of the previous deletion discussion.) —Cryptic 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with SmokeyJoe and Cryptic. In addition G6 is already the most convoluted and most misused speedy deletion criterion, we should not be adding more things to it, especially something that will encourage inappropriate merge and deletes. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clear this isn't going anywhere, so I withdraw my proposal. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Should a 4th CSD for unused templates be added?
Should a new CSD criteria ( T4 T5 ) be added for unused templates that meet the following criteria: Please discuss. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Template is not used anywhere, I.E. has zero transclusions excluding templates own documentation of course.
 * Template is NOT a substitute only template. Should go without saying but templates that are substitute only by definition should never have transclusions, doesn't mean the template can been speedily deleted.
 * Template is older than 6 months. No speedily deleting a new template that hasn't been used just yet.
 * Template is NOT a sometimes unused/temporary template. An example of this would be help me which may have 0 transclusions at any given moment.
 * Support Practice shows that such templates are routinely deleted at TfD without much discussion, CSDing them would save effort. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the same reason it was unanimously rejected barely a month ago. Please read the "Please read this before proposing new criteria" box at the top of this page and do the due diligence of at least a minimal search before squandering the community's time with a formal rfc. —Cryptic 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * that was not a formal RFC, this is. Additionally, I added some clarifying criteria in this proposal, such as the note about substitute only templates being exempt. Would be nice to have the proposal discussed on its merits rather than based on a cursory previous discussion. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The reason this gets suggested repeatedly is because it's a good idea. So much time is wasted taking unused templates to TfD when there is virtually no opposition to their deletion. Number   5  7  20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - just look at the logs for the past few months, most (or even all?) of the unused templates were deleted without any objection. Regular nomination just clogs the list with pointless discussions full of "per nom" as there is virtually nothing to say. As these templates weren't in use, there is nothing to lose by deleting them. If someone later on wants the template back, they can ask an admin to WP:UNDELETE it and move it to their sandbox. --Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – templates aren't articles, so the CSD criteria for removing unused ones should be low. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – it's too difficult, because too bureaucratic, to have unused templates deleted, so many editors, including me, have given up. Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, for example, is full of unused templates, almost all blanked. The suggested criterion would help to get them deleted instead of leaving them just sitting there. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support much like we delete unused pages with just the article wizard text. Clear the clutter and focus management on the useful. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment should this CSD apply to unused Lua modules too? &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It cannot be T4, because T4 has been used before and we do not re-use old codes. unless it can be demonstrated that each template to be deleted under the proposed criterion has never been used, either directly or as a substitution. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * so you are opposing the entire proposal because it cannot be T4? That is a pretty simple correction... If it was T5 would you then support it? -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Assuming this accounts for transclusions that have been removed as part of vandalism before the template is deleted, is not just used to bypass TfD in some way, and say around 7 days has passed after being nominated before deletion. Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * great point. You can't just remove the transclusions and then CSD the template to game the system. If a template has a number of transclusions and you think it should be removed, that is a case for XfD. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Such activity is a possible behavioural issue rather than a reason to not have a CSD for non-controversal cases. Anyway if someone changes a handful of templates A to template B and the gets rid of template B where is the problem? Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The fact that a template is unused is never by itself a reason to delete it, it's only relevant as a criterion by which to select a potentially unneeded template for further inspection at TfD (see also this brief essay). An evaluation of use, or the potential for use, of a template requires knowledge of its context, the function that it serves and the existence of related or similar templates. All this calls for judgement that is above and beyond what goes into dealing with the obvious, clear-cut scenarios that the CSD criteria are there for. A template can be "unused" for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe it's a useful template that nobody happens to know about, in which case it needs not to be deleted, but popularised and integrated into the project documentation. Maybe it's a template that is meant to be used only temporarily, for example until certain issues on a given page have been addressed (niche maintenance templates). It may be a currently unused element of a wider system that somebody might soon need (happens sometimes within the lang-xx family of templates). It may be unused because it was removed in error from the one page where it's meant to be used and nobody has noticed yet. It may be unused because the editor who tagged it for deletion has just removed all of its transclusions. It may be unused at the moment, but its existence may be assumed or required by some other piece of machinery (like a module) in a way that doesn't show up in its list of transclusions. A template may be unused, but it could hold the history of a fragment of article text that has at some point been merged into the article, and hence the template is there to preserve attribution. A template may appear as unused because it's meant to be substed; yes, such a template should be exempt from the proposed CSD, but how do you determine if a template's meant to be substed? (It doesn't always say so in the documentation; I remember there have been TfD discussions where several editors had voted to delete such an "unused" template until someone noticed it was a user warning template and so is always substed.) I don't think any one editor is attuned to all these possibilities, and that's why such things are better decided by discussion involving several participants. However, TfD does indeed occasionally feel like it's getting flooded with similar nominations, so something probably ought to be done about that. If new speedy deletion criteria are going to be part of the solution, then they should be about easy, clearly-defined subsets of templates; there could, for example, be a CSD criterion for unused navboxes that fail WP:NAVBOX. – Uanfala (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This helps make editing an easier experience by simplifying the set of available templates. The amount of verbiage and time wasted on discussing (but rarely if ever actually using) potential uses of these templates is vast. A template exists to serve the encyclopedia in some way (helping editing or reading) and if it's not used, in the caveats above, it should be deleted.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unused templates can hold interesting history that needs preserving. Also, deleting templates that have been widely used destroys old revisions of articles. And per Uanfala. —Kusma (t·c) 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "this destroys old revisions" is not an argument that TfD seems to be accepting: Template:Persondata was deleted. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that argument is a flawed argument from its root, as the whole deletion process of TfD destroys old revisions all the time. --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is sometimes relevant. For Persondata, old revisions just have a redlinked template at the bottom. That is not a problem. Deleting templates used within the text (convert-like ones) is a much more serious problem. —Kusma (t·c) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Uanfala and Kusma. I'm generally not opposed to cleanup but the above-mentioned risks are clearly higher than the potential benefits. Regards So  Why  08:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've supported and even proposed the ability to PROD unused templates, since it takes a step out of the deletion process but allows users seven days to oppose and potentially discuss its deletion and use. Speedy deletion offers none of that. Nihlus  09:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some unused templates, such as Roads legend and Trillium Line route diagram detailed, are nevertheless permanently stored in template space, and they may be linked to Wikidata items which are structurally useful. I would support if there were a provision for certain templates – such as templates explicitly marked as historical, templates with incoming links from articles, template sandboxes, templates for which T5 has previously been declined, and templates which have been otherwise marked as ineligible for T5 – to be ineligible for T5 deletion. Jc86035 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I think the basic idea is good, there are too many nuances and exceptions to the point where I believe a CSD to be untenable. I think the proper solution is to expand PROD to templates so the distinction becomes potentially controversial vs. uncontroversial, and I would support such a proposal. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking I'd like to see template prod as well, but that's a discussion for a different page. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that was not a template PROD but another CSD proposal disguised as a "PROD". A template PROD would be simply expanding WP:PROD to include (unused) templates. If you read that discussion, I had opposed that proposal for that very reason. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, this isn't the page for it, was the point I was making. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above opposers and the many previous discussions where a CSD criterion for unused templates has been rejected. Not all templates need to be used at all times (e.g. may be unused at any given moment), not all subst-only templates are marked as such, some templates should be kept so as not to break old revisions, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * C1 exists despite the fact that Category:Wikipedians looking for help may be empty at any given moment. Why can't T5 be implemented in the same way? &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per those above who have already highlighted many situations in which a template with zero transclusions should be kept anyway, i.e. there are good reasons why zero transclusion templates should not be deleted without prior discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and a few others have made a very valid point that there are some templates that at any given moment may have no transclusions (help me for example).  raised a good counter argument about C1 accounting for sometimes empty categories. This is why we have Empty category. With that in mind, I 100% agree that something would be needed to document that some templates may have zero transclusions at any given moment. I'm curious those who have objected based on this point alone, if we were able to account for this case would you be more supportive of this? I have added a new criteria to the top of this RFC to account for that case. It would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to add some documentation to the new CSD criteria that exempts templates that may at any given moment have no transclusions.
 * Additionally, I'm curious if there are additional conditions that would cause some of you to be more supportive of the idea? For example, if we said that the template must be at least 1 year old instead of just 6 months? thank you for raising that point, it wasn't something I had considered and definitely needs to be accounted for. A reminder, the goal of this CSD criteria is to expedite the process of deleting old unused templates that have been sitting around for a long time and are unused. It is not my intention to facilitate a method for gaming the system and quickly nuking templates someone just doesn't like. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * please see above comment. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My opposition to this criteria is based on far more than just on that one point, and still stands. For example the older a template is the higher the chance of breaking old revisions. If a template has been around for a year without causing problems then I'm not seeing any reason why deletion of it needs expediting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your question about an Empty category equivalent for templates, Subst only will account for most of the templates that have no transclusions, with the caveat that some templates use Substitution, which allows a custom message, and thus requires examination to determine whether the jist is that it's a template that must be substituted. --Bsherr (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still a no for me, the temporarily-unused template (like help me) is just one of the issues raised. I'm actually more concerned about borked page histories that rely on templates that are later deprecated. I'm not against deleting unused templates, I'm only opposed to doing it without having a discussion to consider all the angles first. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Alas, this has been proposed, many, many, many, many times. The iterations sometimes vary, such as just for user namespace templates, or just for those 'not encyclopedic', with varying waiting periods or age requirements. Just some of these discussions are: /Archive 72#Proposed tweak to T3, /Archive 10#Orphaned templates, /Archive 67#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD, /Archive 44#New CSD - T4 Unused userbox that is more than 30 days old, /Archive 42#T4: Unused template, /Archive_52#Deprecated_templates, /Archive 22#Speedy deletion of unused templates?, /Archive 59#Gauging opinion on a possible new criterion for templates. There have also been several proposals at WT:PROD for this (reportedly four in 2007 alone). There seem to be three reasons this has never been adopted. Firstly, as pointed out by Tazerdadog, templates that are intended to be substituted have no transclusions by design, and a summary process like CSD is not efficient to distinguish those not transcluded by design from those by circumstance. Secondly, CSD is generally for urgent deletions and, although TfD is busy, it is not backlogged enough (with deserved thanks to Galobtter (above), Primefac and others) to warrant the use of a summary process like this, particularly since an unused template is not an urgent cause for deletion. Thirdly, that a template is unused is not, in any guideline, a dispositive reason to delete it; rather, it is just a relevant consideration; therefore, it would be egregious to make it a dispositive reason to speedily delete it before there is consensus on whether this should be decisive for a deletion discussion."
 * Oppose. Again? We just discussed this in December. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72. I'll just quote my comment from then:
 * --Bsherr (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to echo what said, because he hit it on the head.  CSD should be quick and straightforward — the least amount of judgment or gray area required, the better.  This proposal would require users to:
 * Ensure the template isn't substituted
 * Ensure it's older than 180 days
 * Check that it has no transclusions
 * Check if any redirects have transclusions or history that might have been merged there
 * Somehow know whether this template may have been used occasionally but not right now even though it's not substituted(???)
 * Know whether any of its redirects may have also been used occasionally but not right now
 * That's nowhere near tenable for a SD criterion. A TPROD process might work, but this is too complicated for speedy deletion. ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual, I'm with Amory. Too many criteria for a CSD, any questionable template should be sent to Tfd. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: How many templates fit the proposed criteria today? Are we talking about 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, or more? An order of magnitude (backed up by a reasonable method of arriving at that number) would be helpful in this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a first approximation, there's 90684 non-redirect pages in the template namespace that currently aren't transcluded from any other page that were created before 2018-06-27 (query/33701). So something less than that - the count includes subst-only templates, and template sandboxes, and template documentation pages, and so on. —Cryptic 23:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Excluding pages with names ending in "/sandbox", "/testcases", or "/doc" brings the total down to 83752. Further excluding templates that themselves transclude require subst and/or subst only brings it down to 82204.  Even supposing that many subst-only templates aren't documented as subst-only, there's only 518284 total non-redirect pages in the Template namespace. —Cryptic 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wonder why Database reports/Unused templates shows only about 13,446 templates before it starts to list redirects (and why would it list redirects, which are cheap?). It seems that a better set of queries is needed, perhaps one or two that implement some of the criteria listed at the top of this section. That might allow people who want to take templates to TFD (or label them as subst-only) to have an easier time of it, allowing all of us (or most of us, at least) to achieve our goals. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I find the deletion of templates very annoying when reviewing old page revisions where they were used. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the criteria under discussion would prevent that from happening. CSD would apply only to templates that are unused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is for templates that are currently unused, not for ones that were never used. —Cryptic 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll give a current real example to illustrate why I disagree with this proposal. At Template talk:URL, there was a request for code that "accepts all input forms, then reformats it as needed into good URL". Eventually we've arrived at updated functionality in Module:URL and a new template called Template:URL2 that's much more user-friendly in infoboxes than Template:URL. Take a look at the comparison between the outputs and judge for yourselves whether URL2 has potential, especially as it doesn't throw an error in an infobox that uses Wikidata (which may provide blank input to the template). But URL2 is not used in article space at present, so unless somebody uses it in the next x days, it would be deleted under this criterion. What value does that add to the encyclopedia? What happened to WP:TIND? Why would I spend time creating potentially useful code if I knew there was a deadline imposed for somebody to use it? If potentially useful code keeps being deleted, what will you do when editors asks for new functionality but all the coders are too fed up with having their work deleted to bother with it? --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no matter how many ways these proposals are dressed, I will ; unused will never be a synonym for unusable (a criterion I would support) and it will never mean its condition is final, and so absolute that every potential for use in the future is also precluded (only its deletion can accomplish that). And, so too is it fact that a template's deletion, after discussion at TfD, does not remotely suggest that discussion itself is not beneficial, or even necessary. In closing, I'd like to say: I find the proximal nearness of this discussion to its most recent counterpart more than a little disturbing. I hope when it closes, its proponents will accept the consensus achieved (or lack thereof) respect the mandate in its remit, and stifle the inclination to be heard again. These matters are settled, their questions have been thoroughly answered, and enough has been vested already. Moving on is the only course to follow from here, please follow that course!--John Cline (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mere disuse is a bad reason to delete a template, if for no other reason than per SmokeyJoe and Cryptic.  If they're not problematic, keep them, since otherwise you're damaging old revisions for no good reason.  Also, per Cryptic's stats, this would involve a very large number of pages, even after you skip the ones that are always supposed to be substituted, the new creations, and the temporary ones.  We shouldn't declare such a large number of pages currently speedy-deletable, except after a big community discussion on whether such deletions are appropriate.  Look at the way G13 was originally handled; it was much bigger than merely a conversation here.  Unless they come out of a big discussion, the only way we should create new speedy criteria is if they cover a class of pages that is rare at the moment because the pages are constantly getting deleted at XFD already.  Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (additional to oppose above). Zackmann08 has recently TFD'd hundreds of unused templates. The results seem to indicate to me that, while many are deleted unopposed, clearly not all are deleted, and the deletions are clearly not uncontroversial. So CSD for them is clearly wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for similar reasons as in this recent MfD of unused templates: Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There are enough corner cases that this could be dangerous. What about templates that are uses as preloads only (which aren't subst only, yet have zero transclusions)? What about templates that aren't technically subst only, but which don't have any hidden comment for tracking and have so far only been substed? How would criteria 4 be objectively judged, as any template could be defined as "sometimes unused"? As we've seen at TfD recently, figuring out whether or not a template is actually used is often not srtaightforward enough to be considered as a CSD. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Oppose: The old discussion already showed problems, it shouldn't have been simply reproposed after that short a time without addressing the issues raised before. ChristianKl  ❪✉❫ 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose especially per Kusma and others. Deleting templates makes older revisions extremely difficult to read. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Comment note that Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template (and MfD for 250 unusued userbox templates) was closed as "keep", Template:Pollachi–Dindigul branch line, Template:Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough and Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire were both brought to TfD as unused but rather than being deleted the templates were used. Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 2 is still open but is likely heading for a keep or no consensus close after being relisted - debate is about whether a template that is linked from article space is "unused". These show that "unused templates" fail the "uncontestable" and "objective" requirements for new criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Uanfala covered what I was going to. I also agree this is basically forum-shopping since we just went over this in December.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not archive this until it has been formally closed (I've requested this at WP:ANRFC) so that there is a clear record of consensus about this going forward. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A dated comment to delay automated archiving while we await formal closure. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The criteria are too complex to be determined in a speedy manner. Many taggers will make mistakes, and for deleters it takes too long to check, and may not even be possible to tell, so they are sure to be deleted in error if this gets up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)