Wikipedia talk: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 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 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.

On 19 January 2025, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. The result of the discussion was moved.

G14 works on pages that have survived deletion discussions

I have added G14 as a criterion that works on pages that have survived deletion discussions, provided that something has changed since the discussion causing G14 to be met, when previously it wasn't. For example, a (disambiguation) dab listing three pages at the time of its AfD lists one extant page because the other two have been deleted. —Alalch E. 16:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New bullet point for "Other issues with redirects"

"For redirects that don't have any correlation to the page it links to, see G1."

This is also stated in rule 5 of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting, and the topic is frequent enough to be included here. I think a redirect that doesn't mean anything like "fjewif923fjwvidsjjwj" linking to the Magna Carta should uncontestably be speedily deleted. Senomo Drines (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such verbiage being added. It's extremely subjective and, as I've learned over the course of hundreds of RfD nominations, there's sometimes a relation that you had no idea about which makes the redirect valid. That's why a discussion can be a very helpful thing. As for your example, that'd be R3 eligible based on the current criteria we have. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

I placed a G14 Tag on Angus Taylor (disambiguation) which was declined. I talked to that user who declined it and I was suggested to come here to see if the page I was talking about meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under G14. Thank you everyone Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. G14 only applies to disambiguation pages with zero or one valid entry. This disambiguation page has two valid entries. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page disambiguates two extant entries. In order to qualify for deletion under G14, it is necessary that the page disambiguates either zero or one extant entries. The page can still be PRODDED or sent to AfD, however. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian If there are 2 with one as primary topic, does one have to end in (disambiguation)? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restate the question? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian. What I meant is, in order to meet the criteria for speedy deletion under G14 for an unnecessary disambiguation page in which one is primary topic and it only has one other article it might refer to, does the other one have to end in (disambiguation) in order to meet the G14 criteria for speedy deletion? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) G14 applies in only the following scenarios:

A disambiguation page has zero entries in it.
A disambiguation page ends in (disambiguation) and has one entry in it.

Entries that don't link to an article at all, or where the article in question was deleted, can be discounted. What you described, disambiguation page in which one is primary topic and it only has one other article, has two entries so G14 never applies, regardless of its title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery Luckily, I copied the disambiguation page of Hilary Knight (disambiguation) before it was deleted and put it on my user page. There are two there. It is the one that has after on it. With the one that mentions the primary topic above. To be more specific, this is the link. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin and can see deleted content, so that copy wasn't necessary. Anyway the speedy deletion of Hilary Knight (disambiguation) was clearly incorrect, and I would have declined it if I had seen it. Ditto Dylan Cozens (disambiguation). If you keep pushing this point the result will be me undeleting those pages too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery Oh. I didn't know you can see deleted content. Others editors like User:BusterD thought Hilary Knight (disambiguation) was an unnecessary disambiguation page. Also, I won't be bothered if they do get undeleted. I honestly don't think having unnecessary pages or information (In this case we exclude vandalism or false information, we are mainly talking about Trivia) is a big problem. And yes I am aware that it is says Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But what I am saying is; there are worse things than Trivia and Unnecessary pages. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion as an unnecessary disambiguation, for topics with two articles one of which is primary, is allowed but not as a speedy deletion. It was a reasonable outcome for Hilary Knight (disambiguation), but it was achieved through the wrong process. It needs to go through WP:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: DABs go to WP:Articles for deletion, not Redirects for discussion, although I've long thought DAB deletion should be merged into RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the correction. I don't know what I was thinking. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery If you think they should be Un-Deleted, just go ahead. Yes, I do see having the page as unnecessary, but deleting unnecessary pages aren't necessary TBH Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's two topics, then whether or not title include the phrase "(disambiguation)" doesn't matter. The inclusion of "(disambiguation)" in the title only matters when dealing with redirects to non-disambiguation-like pages, or if the dab page itself only lists one valid entry. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who declined. I'll admit that, every time I interact with G14, I have to go check the wording to see how it applies in this kind of case, and every time, I find the wording a bit tough to parse. On my usertalk, Servite et contribuere identified two previous cases where admins did G14-delete comparable articles that they had tagged, and I'm not surprised to learn that this confusion is common. Perhaps, in the wording of WP:G14, we should add a footnote after both instances of "extant Wikipedia page(s)" saying This includes any boldfaced links at the start of the page. or something like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should hold my speedy in this case up as a model for perfect behavior. I have entered into the realm of performing lots of speedy deletions this year, and I'm likely to get in a hurry from time to time (and in so doing over-rely on the good faith request). On re-looking at my action, my first reaction is "by what criteria did the hockey player become primary topic?" I know this comment is outside this discussion. BusterD (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did have pause for thought with the one I deleted, but did make sure that there was a disambiguation hatnote on the now primary topic article. I agree that clarifying the wording of WP:G14 would be helpful. --Canley (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'A7' applicable on notable subjects, without assertion of notability?

Hi, I wonder if WP:A7 works on subjects which are notable in reality, but lack assertion of being so in the articles. So if an article contains a set of informative claims about the subject but does not assert why it is notable, e.g. "Michael Jackson was an American singer, born in 1958 etc. etc.", would such article be deleted under A7? Even though we all know that the subject is of course notable?

And if such deletion occurs what would the undeletion process be? As WP:REFUND does not take in A7 deletions. Xpander (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about the topic. A7 eligibility is about the article as currently exists. So yes, it's possible for an article to be validly A7'd even though the subject is notable. As a patrolling admin I do sometimes Google a subject if I think there's a chance they're notable despite the lack of CCS, but it's not required. As to undeletion, I guess in theory the correct answer is the deleting admin's talkpage or WP:DRV, but in practice the answer is that an article without a CCS is basically worthless, and someone is usually better off drafting a new article from scratch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always have a quick look for sources to see if the article is salvagable, like this. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 summarises my view. The archetypical A7 should be something like "Bob Johnson is the principal of Podunk, Iowa High School. He teaches math and some sciences." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]