Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2016/February

Request to restore went to archive - not visible
Just created Deletion review/Log/2016 February 11 for Amharic Wikipedia, but it does not appear on the main Deletion review page. Please advise.--A12n (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It shows up just fine. Try a reload. —Cryptic 02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a technical issue here. When you create (or edit), a DRV entry, you're actually editing a date-specific page.  The unified view of all dates you see at Deletion review is created on the fly from the individual date-specific pages via a process called transclusion.  Since transclusion puts a lot of load on the servers, it's not done every time you view the page; it's done once in a while, and then the result is cached.  What that means is the top-level page may not be showing the most up to date contents of each of the individual date-specific pages.  Normally, that's not a big deal, but if it is (as in the case described above), there's a way to override that.  Look for the "(purge cache)" link near the top of the page (in the box that starts with Skip To:).  Click that link.  That will force the transclusion process to get run again, and you'll get an up to date version of the page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2016_February_15
, regarding your comment, The question of whether a particular source is adequate to establish notability is exactly what AfD is there to answer., I think you've entirely missed the point. If somebody presented a source and claimed it was good enough, I would go with that, for exactly the reason you state. It's not the closer's job to evaluate whether a source establishes notability. But, that's not why I closed it the way I did. I discounted all the keep arguments which were essentially, I know there's no sources, and that's OK because I'm guessing sources could be found if somebody went and looked for them. Sorry, that doesn't fly as an argument. Discounting those non-arguments isn't a supervote. If we're to accept arguments like that, then we might as well just write a bot to count up the bolded words and see which side gets the bigger number. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Supervote often means the closing admin didn't count snouts as opposed to evaluating arguments against policy. But them I'm often accused of supervoting when I do that. Perhapsits just my judgement is off....Spartaz Humbug! 14:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You found a consensus to delete in a well-attended discussion which had no delete !votes other than the nominator, in which a new source and several potential sources were identified, and in which multiple experienced editors expressed their opinion that the article meets the threshold of notability. I'm not quick to yell "supervote", but that's what this was. Given that you have multiple people telling you that, I suggest taking the feedback on board and moving on with your good and important work. Thparkth (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 by month
Hello. At Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded, we are trying to empty the category. It happens that pages:
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 January,
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 February
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 March,
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 April,
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 May,
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 June,
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 July,
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 August,

all created around 2011-03-23, are now on overflow. The first consequence is that they aren't completely displayed. These pages were obtained by tranclusion of the daily logs, perhaps a solution could be to split each month in two parts. What is your opinion about that ? (please ping if you answer here). Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Pldx1: Knock yourself out. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Pldx1 (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How to contact closing administrator before listing a review request
From Articles_for_deletion and Requests for administrator attention I am directed here. Instructions start with "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first" - which remains unclear how to do, at least to new contributors like myself. Grey.dreyk (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which article would you like to discuss? If you can answer that then I should be able to identify the relevant sysop and help you begin a discussion with them.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Relevance Paradox, see first link I gave. It was a general question, that's why I avoided putting that specific in text. So is the admin's talk page the right place to put the discussion, or is there a more appropriate one for this, specifically? Grey.dreyk (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the right page.— S Marshall T/C 12:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * How you can identify the admin, is to go to the page that creates the article, a deletion log message will say who deleted the page. You then click on the talk link to communicate with the deleter. eg
 * 03:49, 25 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Medicalresearch.com (G 13 (TW))
 * tells us that Sphilbrick deleted the page. The reason is given by G 13. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion: When is it appropriate to delete stale drafts?
There have been a number of DRV's recently regarding deletion of stale drafts. Some of these are in the Draft namespace, some are in User namespace. The current crop are in Deletion review/Log/2016 January 26 and Deletion review/Log/2016 January 25. Rather than discuss each of these by themselves, it makes more sense to discuss the general topic and come to some policy decision which can be applied uniformly to all such cases (guiding both when to delete, and how to treat requests for undeletion after the fact). So, I'm going to close all of the remaining open DRV's and request that further discussion happen here. I'm also going to link this into Requests for comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, as you discuss this, please ignore all the ancillary issues like DRV's from IP editors, proper conduct, etc. I'd like to focus on the core policy issue.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This may seem meta but, please review if User:Mangalcharansingh/Arjan Singh Dillon, undeleted for purpose of DRV, should now be redeleted as it's DRV was aborted. — xaosflux  Talk 23:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Isn't this entirely covered by WP:STALEDRAFT? I'm fine with a new RFC on the topic but I did ask for proposals to change the timeline at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages. I can probably find more examples but the one year concept of stale = subject to deletion has been pretty standard policy with examples going back to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ArmadilloFromHell/List of ambulance manufacturers in 2008. The main fighting everywhere is whether this should fall under speedy deletion criteria which is fine. As for restoration, I say WP:REFUND is perfectly fine but WP:DRV can have the same standard essentially. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If something was deleted solely because it was stale, and they're being requested by their creator, I don't see why they should be treated any differently than G13s are over at WP:REFUND - undelete the first time no questions asked, but if it manages to get deleted for being stale again without anything having been done, require an outline of future work to be done on it and a promise that such work will actually be done this time, per . (Though to be honest, I can't recall anyone responding to that.  Either the user gets scared away entirely; or he contacts some admin directly to get him to restore it; or he recreates the draft verbatim, proving he didn't need to bother an admin to undelete it in the first place - good to feel needed, eh?)If it's not the creator requesting, and not Ricky's friend the-IP-usually-starting-with-160, then enh.  Treat it like any other DRV on a case-by-case basis.  In particular, we wouldn't give any consideration to someone seeking to overturn an afd solely because WP:N drives away content contributors; we should give similarly short shrift to the current crop saying the same, much less justifiably, of WP:STALE. —Cryptic 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - My reaction to this is that we shouldn't delete anything from user space. If an editor wants to start a draft article in his/her user space, stop, and then sit on it for years and years before continuing... I don't see any harm.  It's called USER space for a reason... It's there to let users experiment and draft.  It's there space.
 * Stale articles in Draftspace are a bit different... The idea of Draftspace was to have a place where multiple editors could work on a draft together. So, if no one actually does work on it,  there is no collaboration... and no point to keeping the stale draft in Draftspace. Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except it's not "their" space. That's why we don't let them make copies of articles, store stuff that's been deleted, keep their disputed version of content, etc. or in particular as policy explicitly states, old unfinished draft articles. It's literally been a policy since the start of the project that you can't just put stuff in your userspace for all eternity. Also, the note 2 requirement (which I added) is explicit that both the draft itself and the user have to be inactive for it to be considered stale. There's nothing wrong with storing stuff in your user space if you're here. It's just that if you aren't, people are free to go there, review it and use it as they see fit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful here. We want to empower sysops to remove drafts on the basis of good judgment without enabling some draft-hating crusader to write a script to hunt down drafts tagging them for speedy deletion.  A core principle of Wikipedia is that we don't delete material without good reason.  Distinguish userspace from draft space.  A userspace draft has a clear owner/maintainer who accepts responsibility, to an extent, for it and should only be deleted if the user in question is inactive or shown not to be in good faith.  A draft space draft should be deletable if in the deleting sysop's opinion there are good grounds to do so, where "good" means more than just "nobody has worked on it for %arbitrary_length_of_time%".— S Marshall  T/C 10:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that other than G13s for AFC submissions, these still go through MFD (at the moment) for seven days which has a number of editors (including admins like myself) who do make sure that plausible and good drafts don't just get deleted. The rejection of expanding the CSD options doesn't change that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What Ricky said. These DRVs are about MFD discussions not speedy deletions, and usually the DRV nominator's rationale boils down to "not enough people participated/I don't like the outcome". Stifle (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think those are different things. If it's "I don't like the outcome", then tough.  If it's "not enough people participated", then I'm more sympathetic. I think that's something that could legitimately be raised at DRV; particularly if the whole discussion consists of a nomination and a close, or a nomination and a pernom and a close.  That's not a particularly robust consensus in my view.  I want to emphasize that I think the guideline we come up with in this discussion should distinguish between userspace drafts where there's an active user in good standing, userspace drafts with inactive users, and draft space drafts that have been abandoned.— S Marshall  T/C 16:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem you have is the very limited amount of people who actually comment at MFD. AFD you'll know if the article is up for deletion, deletion sorting, a million ways. TFD is you see the template notice on the page. CSD if you pay attention to projects. MFD? You have to actively want to go there and review these things. In the past, I've done nom-only votes as delete but maybe they should be relisted. The other problem is my own fault: my own nominations were just bare "stale draft" when they should be "draft from whenever consisting of unsourced or poorly sourced X which has no likelihood of being an article." I imply it but I've made it explicit now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel what you're saying about low participation. The problem is that a lot of users don't care about individual MFDs and I can't criticise them for that (I've been a Wikipedian for nearly ten years now and in that whole time, I've commented in about two MFDs).  (What I care about is this: any good faith user who comes to deletion review should come away feeling that there's been a Fair Process which reached a well-reasoned decision.)— S Marshall  T/C 11:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The pending question is off-topic for this talk page and belongs at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a pointer from there to here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've prosper the complete elimination of WP:STALE since there's no support for it. See WT:UP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.147 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My general sense is that we shouldn't be deleting stale drafts unless there is an active reason _to_ delete them. Just being stale isn't a reason in general.  And deleting them might not be helpful with editor recruiting and retention.  I think the bar at WP:STALEDRAFT needs to be a bit higher/clearer.  And MfD closes should at most be (clearly labeled) soft deletes. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think stale should be a reason by itself to delete a draft or userspace draft. But on the topic of review, if a draft is nominated for delete and not one supports the delete, and it is closed as delete, we can count it as softdelete, even if not mentioned on the close. Then if any of the writers or someone likely to add to the draft requests undelete, it can be undeleted uncontroversially. If uninterested people, or those with only an idealogical interest want it restored it can have a review here, where a restore reason can be considered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think every voted upon discussions is treated that way. Personally I've restored anything asked of me. People interpret and use WP:REFUND broadly even though it is allegedly only for AFC to include pretty much all drafts (rather than the process that is DRV). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect that they are treated that way, but it would be good if the MfD close makes it plain it is a soft delete and how to go about asking for a restoration. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, the issue at hand is that a seemingly banned IP-hopping user is making frivolous or vexatious requests to have drafts undeleted just for the sake of it. Not with any intent to develop the articles, only to make work for people. If that isn't WP:POINT, I don't know what is. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, but even people making a WP:POINT sometimes have a valid point. I've no problems with waiting until someone who actually is going to do something with these to come by before we undelete.  But they have pointed out that while we allow people to freely request undeletion of a soft delete, you really have to know the system to know that that is the case unless the closer makes it clear. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Graeme. But further, even if there were an agreed definition of "stale", I don't think "stale" is an acceptable standalone reason for a nomination for deletion.  It is an important factor if there is another reason, but if the worst thing you can say about someone else's userspace work is that it is "stale", then your nomination is making more work than it is worth.  It is busywork.  The nomination itself is disruptive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DRV nominations. An insufficient case was made for deletion.  Perhaps the nominations should have been collated, but I object to their collective procedural close.  This discussion should be at DRV proper.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that if any good faith established editor would like a stale draft to be restored for them to work on, it should be restored if there are no copyright violation or BLP violations. See for example Deletion review/Log/2016 January 24. However, most of the recent DRV nominations on stale drafts have been by IPs in the range 166.170.48.0/22 who are harassing . See 's comment at Deletion review/Log/2015 December 1: "Note – The filing IP is part of the exact same range 166.170.48.0/22, who has been stalking and harassing all of User:Ricky81682's actions since August 2015, likely in retaliation as part of an ongoing dispute/disruption over at WP:WOP. Please see Deletion review/Log/2015 October 16, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894, and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for more details. --MuZemike 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)" See also Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21, Deletion review/Log/2016 January 25, and Deletion review/Log/2016 January 27. I encourage and  to keep speedy closing nominations by IPs in the range 166.170.48.0/22 who keep targeting . Cunard (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Stale drafts should never be deleted just because they are stale if they are in the user space of an active user. A stale draft should never be deleted if it looks even remotely like a servicable article.  Moving the latter into mainspace is a much more constructive thing to do, it is much more likely to get improved there. SpinningSpark 18:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the rough consensus, but correct me if I'm wrong: Thoughts? Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Being unedited/stale for an arbitrary period of time is not an automatic deletion criterion, though it is open to editors to list such articles at MFD.
 * 2) MFDs where only the nominator and closer have participated are to be treated as soft deletes, whether or not officially recognized that way by the closer, and may be undeleted via a good-faith request at WP:REFUND (or WP:DRV, I suppose) assuming no copyvio or other overriding issues exist.
 * 3) MFD closures are out of scope of the discussion but it is open to anyone to open a discussion at WT:DPR or WT:MFD about them.
 * 4) DRVs listed by IPs in the 166.170.48.0/22 range may prima facie be treated as being bad-faith/banned user and speedily closed.
 * 5) None of the above affects ordinary editorial discretion nor narrows the options at WP:STALE.
 * You know, a lot of this should be about procedural fairness. If (a) the draft creator hasn't edited in the past 180 days, (b) no one else has has actively edited the draft in the past 90 days, and (c) the draft creator and any other contributors have been notified of the pending deletion by user talk page message for a period of 30 days, then my reaction is soft delete with an appropriate notice on the creator's user talk page.  If, at some point, the creator becomes active again, and the draft does not otherwise violate policy, then it should be available for un-deletion.  Sure, we should not discourage new editor retention, but we should have a straight-forward, bright-line way for dealing with abandoned clutter, too.  As outlined above, the draft creator may preserve the draft by re-appearing and responding to the pre-deletion notice; any other contributor may do so by completing a serviceable stub and moving to article space; and even after deletion, the creator may request un-delete if they become active again.  I think that would nicely balance all of the interests involved.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I fundamentally disgree with the thrust of Dirtlawyer's position.  If that was meant to be an opinion on the consensus of the debate so far it is also just wrong; many have opposed deletion on the mere grounds that a draft is stale so that cannot possibly be portrayed as a consensus.  Assuming that a draft has some discernable merit and the creator has gone inactive then I believe that the correct action is to move it to the Draft namespace if it is in userspace, or else move it into mainspace if at all possible where it will be seen by far more editors.  If it has no merit, use an appropriate existing deletion procedure.  On the other hand, I think it is ok to delete stale drafts that have been tagged with a deletable concern (including notability, but not including lack of references) for a considerable time.
 * Something that might help with stale drafts is if the redlinked mainspace title of the draft had a page notice added to it indicating the existence of the draft and inviting the editor to use it as a foundation. SpinningSpark 15:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SpinningSpark, I don't think I suggested that my comment represented the "consensus" of anything. It was a suggestion for the creation of a fair and easy-to-understand bright-line rule (a very sensible one, I think) by which abandoned userspace drafts might be routinely deleted after ample notice to the creator and contributors.  Heck, that's far more notice than is presently required by our AfD procedures.  Would you feel better about it if, as part of the required procedure, the userspace draft were listed on a community board and any editor who saw merit in the article/topic could assume responsibility for it, moving it to mainspace when they thought it was ready?  I certainly don't oppose adoption of an abandoned userspace draft by an experienced third-party editor who -- like you or Cunard -- is willing to adopt the article and make it your own.  On the other hand, simply moving every example of a userspace draft to mainspace without a currently active editor assuming responsibility for it as its "creator" of record is, in my humble opinion, a very bad idea.  Call it the "baby bird" theory of draft article adoption; if you touch it, it's yours.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ABANDONED DRAFTS provides a noticeboard of sorts but it's not formulated well. I've been aggressive about adding wikiprojects to drafts (user and draftspace) so that the project is notified of any MFD notices and those editors can examine drafts. One project in particular (EastEnders) used that to coordinate hte duplidate drafts and organize them into a single one to publish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misread your post, but you did appear to be replying to Stifle's summary of consensus. I do not understand why it is so important that a draft has an owner; we do not apply that standard in article space.  In fact ownership in article space is severely frowned upon.  Nor do we delete articles in mainspace because no one has edited them in a long time.  Any draft can be posted in article space by any editor at any time without anyone's permission.  I could move the entire library of drafts right now if I had a mind to.  They then could not be deleted without a positive, policy based, reason for deletion.  It is not logical to apply a different standard while they are still in draft-, or userspace. SpinningSpark 23:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The point I have been arguing for years, ever since User:Gigs invented the STALE shortcut and added to a linkbox, is that "STALE" is not a sufficient reason to even nominate another's userspace page for deletion. The biggest problem is different readings on the word "stale".  If it means "gone off", as in "no longer accurate", then yes, it should be cleaned up so as not not mislead anyone.  However, a lot of editors over the years who have turned their attention to cleaning up up old things have mindlessly taken stale to mean "old", before admitting "old AND unedited for a long time AND authored by editors who have been inactive for a long time".  This longer definition will obviously offend less editors likely to complain, but it is no better because it makes absolutely no reference to the material in question.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having kicked this discussion off, I've stayed out of it so far, but I figure it's time for me to express my own opinion. As long as there's nothing particularly harmful about a draft (i.e. copyvio, BLP issues, hate speech, that sort of thing), I don't see any reason to ever delete it, stale or not.  Sure, it may not be doing any good, but it's also not doing any harm.  It's not (I assume) indexed by the search engines.  It's not (in theory) the target of any mainspace links.  Unless you explicitly go looking for it, it pretty much doesn't exist.  Sure, it takes up some server resources (i.e. database records and disk space), but that's not going to change just by being deleted.  As for deadlines, I've got drafts I haven't touched in years.  I would sure be torqued if somebody came along, decided they were stale, and deleted them.  This is especially true for drafts in userspace, but I don't see any reason why the same logic shouldn't apply to the public Draft: namespace.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am definitely in agreement with RoySmith.
 * WP:MfD has long-since stated:
 * Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.
 * The problem with Wikipedians wanting to clean up other's userspace exploded with the inclusion of "stale" language under WP:UP#NOT.
 * I propose that we remove the term "stale", and instead write more explicitly what sort of content is not OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * May I make another suggestion? Rather than argue this here, how about we take this to WT:UP and propose a change to WP:STALE # 2? WP:STALE could probably be worded as "seemingly abandoned" or "uncompleted" or something. Point two currently is "if entirely unsuitable, seek deletion" and that can be reworded or a note added or whatever. I'd be fine with a change to something like "if in violation of other policies" and "if there are other concerns" and dropping it to number 5. The only policy that could be relevant is WP:UP and try to focus only on drafts that have a current mainspace version out there. That is entirely separate from being stale of course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the MFD page hasn't stated that for too long, I added that comment to the instructions somewhat recently. But SmokeyJoe is generally right, staledraft was meant to mean, outdated and unnecessary, not merely old. Gigs (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes to CSD G13

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Already being discussed elsewhere, this is not the best venue. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I propose that G13 be extended to apply to all drafts, regardless of whether they are within the scope of the AFC project, but the criteria for deletion be tightened so that all of the following conditions must be met, Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) that if the page were in article space it would be deletable under the deletion policy and the nominator has given a reason for deletion that falls under that policy,
 * 2) the draft is stale and has not been edited by anybody within the last six months, excluding bot edits and technical edits such as adding or amending AFC templates, and
 * 3) the creator, and any subsequent editor, has been inactive for six months (excluding bot and technical edits, and any editor who has explicitly stated they wish to be excluded).


 * I still don't understand what problem we're trying to solve by deleting these drafts at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose any extension of G13 into userspace. Userspace, within reason, belongs to, and is the responsibility of, the user.  There are no space issues.  There is already an editor shortage.  This rudeness to inactive users will only keep them away.  Imagine returning from a trip to find all your old notes trashed.  It is not welcoming, is it.
 * Oppose any language that can be read to imply that a reason for for deletion in mainspace is a reason to delete in userspace. It defeats the purpose of userspace.
 * Oppose any use of the word "stale", given the abundant evidence of many editors thinking it is similar to "old".
 * Oppose any time limit on how long Wikipedian's may take a break before messing with their userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we close this? Literally (and I mean literally) this exact same discussion is going on (and is similarly opposed) at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. There is zero gained by another discussion on the topic here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.