Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria

WP:NEWCSD

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

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

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

this header: view • edit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criteria for speedy deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:CSD

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90: 30 days

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Circumventing a salted title: G4 or not?

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

G4 applies since there was an AFD on the same topic (assuming concerns haven't been addressed) but not simply because of the salt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still surprised that evading a salted title isn't considered an explicit CSD criterion, since the salting is usually there to prevent users from recreating any page on the topic to begin with, not just a substantially similar one. Although I don't have the numbers to check how frequently it happens. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 88#Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both the previous proposal and the false positive list! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've G4-deleted the recreation and blocked the account (which was the same one that created the version at AfD) as spam/advertising-only. I came extremely close to title blacklisting, but decided that step isn't quite warranted unless they evade the block and create another version at a different title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a database report I look at every day or two that finds articles at titles that are a suffix of a salted title. There are a lot of false positives, but also a lot of stuff needing attention. And while G4 is my most common reaction, I have also created redirects or given name pages over obsolete saltings, started AfDs where I wasn't convinced enough that G4 applies, and done a lot of other stuff. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that, if we don't have a G4 equivalent for salt evasion, it means running through a new AfD each time someone tries to give a different title to the same topic, which goes against the point of salting to begin with. Often, the fact that the content might be technically different (since non-admin reviewers can't see the content) means that G4 won't necessarily be applied, even if it doesn't address the issues of the previous AfD at all.

In the case of obsolete saltings, I believe the best course of action would be to ask to create the page at the original title – if it is still the same topic, I don't see why creating the page under a different title would be necessary (and, if it is a different topic like in your given name page example, then it's not salt evasion to begin with). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been an AFD for the previous salted title then G4 applies regardless of title (unless concerns have addressed) otherwise G5, A7 or G11 often apply if not then AFD is probably the best thing to do. In the case of Arshin Mehta Actress G4 applied (G5 might also have applied but I don't know) and was used even though it had a different title to the article deleted at AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the issue is that G4 currently explicitly refers to sufficiently identical copies, something a non-admin patroller can't check, rather than any recreation not addressing concerns. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not sure if G4 applies then you can tag the page with {{salt}}, ask the deleting admin (or another admin) or just tag it with G4 and see if the new admin thinks G4 applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, {{salt}} on its own doesn't add any categories to a page. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that could be something useful to have. Given the specific title, I wonder if it should add the category itself or if there should be a similar maintenance template for "possible salt evasion" that would add it? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there'll be an archived copy of a deleted page to compare against, for instance [1]. Sometimes there'll be visible past versions in the edit filter log, for instance Special:AbuseLog/39211633. In other cases, you can ask an admin. There's usually someone around on IRC or Discord who wouldn't mind assessing for G4ability. (Not me. Don't ask me. I hate doing G4s.) That said, I wouldn't oppose the creation of a template that says essentially "This page was created in apparent evasion of creation protection at {{{1}}}, and an admin is asked to assess whether it should a) be deleted under CSD G4 or b) treated as valid and moved to the correct title". I don't think that's something non-admins should be doing every time they see a recreated page, but when there's clear salt evasion I think it's reasonable to presume admin attention is needed. (All that said, obligatory plug for my essay WP:NOSALT. G4s are easier to trace when there's no salting to evade!) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I to question how useful salting actually is especially how easy it is to use a qualified title or typo etc. But in addition to false positives with the title blacklist I'd point out that while indefinite salting may be useful for generic vandalism titles or if a title like Articles for deletion before it was a mainspace redirect that different people are likely to keep creating, many indefinitely salted articles are those created by sockpuppeteers, spammers or SPAs years ago where the person may well have long left or the topic may have become notable or a different topic with the same name may need the title. I'd suggest we should perhaps recommend only salting for a year or so for many NN topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest solution to the general problem you describe would be a sentence at WP:SALT saying that salted titles that could plausibly refer to more than one thing may be unsalted, without needing to talk to the protecting admin, if there is no apparent relevant disruption in the past five years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent to who? If a title's salted, there's not going to be any further disruption there. (Well, maybe on its talk page, but almost nobody persists after the first G8, and when they do, that usually gets salted too.) Most of the point of talking to the protecting admin is because they're likely to be more familiar with the situation as a whole, and if it's been five years, taking another day or two to ask and make sure isn't going to hurt anybody. —Cryptic 23:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that normal WP:RAAA requirements make it essentially impossible to clean up pointless old saltings at scale. A while ago I tried to do a review of indef IP blocks, and quickly ran into this problem. For each block, if I wasn't 100% confident they'd just pressed the wrong button, I had to go to the blocking admin's talkpage, and then check back a few days later, and then if they object, even for an invalid reason, it has to go to AN or XRV to resolve the minor question of some random IP's block, so in practice no one does this, and bad IP indefs accumulate over time. The same is happening with saltings, and will continue to happen so long as there's a multi-step bureaucracy in order to unsalt a relatively common name like Jimmie Harris or Luke Barber, to pick two examples that have been salted for almost 17 years and have a ~0% chance of being recreated about the same person as before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive229#Quick stats on salted pages. The protecting admin for both of your examples is no longer an admin, so you should be free to unsalt them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clean up old SALTing, where there’s any doubt you should go to WP:RFUP. True, you should ask the deleting admin first, but the text would be near identical in both places, should the old admin not answer or you not agree with their answer.

Do this a couple of dozen times, and then talk about the need for streamlining the process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think admins need to ask at RFUP before they unsalt pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except where stated otherwise in policy, any reversion of an admin action is governed by WP:RAAA. The way that policy is usually interpreted, that means that if the reversion is because of a clear change in circumstance, it can be done unilaterally; I did that with Willy on Wheels, the relevant change there having been the emergence of a suitable redirect target. But if it's because some admin thinks the title just doesn't need to be protected anymore, then RAAA's expectation of discussion applies (if the protecting admin is still active). WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO might cover some common-sense cases, but wouldn't apply to a systematic effort. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your essay! For the case where we already have a salted title and there is possible of salt evasion, I made a prototype template at {{User:Chaotic Enby/Salt evasion}} based on your wording (and the design of {{Salt}}), happy to hear any feedback on whether it should be implemented! (presumably, with a corresponding tracking category) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the "possible salt evasion" template

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

It's redundant to {{salt}}. Just give it its parameters (which you should always be doing anyway). —Cryptic 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, {{salt}} is to ask for a page to be salted, while this would be to note evasion from an already salted title. Also, {{salt}} does not produce categories (as it is meant to be used alongside G4), while this would be to alert admins that they should check if it might be a G4 (as non-admins cannot see it). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on interpretation of G11

See Wikipedia:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ought to sign your proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like policy RFCs shouldn't be about who started them, and WP:RFC says "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that - shows you how often I start RfCs...never. How about publicizing it at WP:AN? I wouldn't have known about it except I had the CSD Talk page on my watchlist because of a question I recently asked. Sounds like the RfC affects admins a fair amount.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § NPPHOUR, A1, and A3. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not. WP:ARBECR has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned). Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages of talk pages

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

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect - should go to WP:RFD. Not sure why it needs to be deleted, though... Primefac (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac it wasn't a redirect at the time they asked this question. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Wiki/lede. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]