Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CSD)

G11 on Draft: namespace?Edit

re: Draft:Gin Mare

Gin Mare is a brand of high-end gin. It's easily notable (if any modern brand of gin is notable, Gin Mare would meet the same standard). I don't know the state of the draft when it was deleted.

Should G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" ever be used on a recent draft? Isn't this sort of "promotional writing on notable topics" what the Draft namespace is for? Otherwise why do we bother? (It's not as if anything else about Draft works). @Deb: Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should. Drafts are visible and advertising is meant to be excluded from the encyclopedia. COI concerns me equally. But if the guidelines change to allow POV editing, I'll stop enforcing it. Deb (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Quality third party independent coverage should make it G11-proof. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
But not if it's deleted first. I'm thinking of draft articles on good topics, where a current version is overly promotional, but not unfixable. If Draft: doesn't have a more lenient approach to this than mainspace, then what's the point in Draft:? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I think draft articles on good topics should have been written straight into mainspace. I think if anything, AfC reviewers are too cautious with G11. If the sources are all unsuitable, and it is promotion, it should go immediately G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
But they then run the risk of CSD, moments after creation. It's also very BITEy to new editors that way. But at present, new editors simply have no route to article creation 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
If it is about a company or product selling now, and the only sources are external links to the company website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, anything short of G11 is wasting their time and your time when they come back again still not understanding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course G11 should be used on recent drafts. If a draft requires a fundamental rewrite to become non-promotional, the situation is improved by deleting the draft and waiting for a non-promotional version. If there is promo content plus a few reliable sources, improve the draft by removing all of the promo content, no matter how little is left over. If Draft space is currently broken, we should discuss why and how, but not here. —Kusma (t·c) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. There is still a long distance between "a fundamental rewrite" and "there is nothing here worth saving or re-using". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
If the content has zero acceptable sources, it can’t be rewritten. Editing to hide bad sourcing is not helping anyone. The answer is at least WP:TNT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, just nuke all the ads if you ask me. If it's spammy now, it was probably done so deliberately and the author is WP:NOTHERE. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Do some basic WP:BEFORE if there is anything to suggest that it might be notable, regardless of whether those sources are present in the article. If it needs a fundamental rewrite with better sources, then that's fine - it's in draft space not the mainspace. Just leave a note on the talk page with the sources you found and explain what needs to be done - or better still just improve it yourself. Remember to be cautious - especially if there is a likelihood of non-English and/or offline sources then don't just assume that a 2 minute google search is a reliable indication of its notability. If you think it is irredeemably spammy and no sources exist to improve it then take it to MfD if it can't wait for G13. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • what I do is somewhere in between. I consider part of the reason for having G11 is that is is harmful to have advertisements in the encyclopedia, similar to the way it is harmful to have BLP violations or copyvio in the encycopedia, and the advertisements that can't be fixed should be removed. Tho they ae not searchable in google, they are searchable, and we do harm by letting people who reach them think are even provisionally apart of the encyclopedia. I list for G11 or delete if listed recently or even immediately submitted drafts
those that are written as advertisements without any disguise or adjustment to even pretend its an article.
those that have no non-advertising content worth saving.
those that besides being entirely promotional, are for things that also are utterly and hopelessly never possibly going to be notable, for no rewriting cn help them.
those that would need to be completely rewritten and were clearly written with promotional intent, especially if clearly by the subject themselves or an undeclared paid editor.

I do not use G11 for

those that are just "spammy" but not exclusively or almost exclusively promotional.
those that may not have been promotional in intent but good faith efforts at an article, even if they would need substantial rewriting to avoid being promotional
those that can be made less promotional by removing part of it, & are not otherwise obnoxious. I just remove that part.

And I think it very important that admins do not delete G11 singlehanded. It's almost always at least to some extent a matter of judgment. I know I can make errors; I know I have made errors, and I want my work to be confirmed. (That said, I have sometimes--not usually, but nowadays about once a month, gotten so exasperated that I have removed just by myself something really outrageous. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: R5: Redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that do not target a disambiguation pageEdit

This proposal is similar to the proposal that resulted in the R4 criterion being created by extracting it from the G6 criterion. At the present time, the G14 criterion includes a portion near the end of its description that applies exclusively to redirects:

"G14 also applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)."

I propose that this sentence be extracted from the G14 criterion to create a new "R5" criterion as follows:

R5: Redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that do not target a disambiguation page
This applies to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

--Steel1943 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support- I think spinning this out into its own thing would be a good idea. Reyk YO! 10:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh Does it really matter whether this is R5 or part of G14? G14 is a new CSD and I haven't seen any evidence of confusion with its application. IffyChat -- 11:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm very much in favour of splitting overly large criteria like G6, and I cannot see any potential harm from this proposed split, but equally I'm not seeing evidence of problems with the current set-up. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. G6 is a mess and creating a separate R5 would be less confusing to editors and admins. feminist (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's why it was pulled out of G6 and into G14, but (like Thryduulf) I'm not sold that G14 is now similarly unwieldy. This seems to fit in with the general oeuvre of G14. ~ Amory (utc) 18:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass nominationEdit

I would like to mass-nominate 101 redirects for speedy deletion under WP:G14. Would a nomination here and now be acceptable, or is there another way to mass nominate, or should I tag each page individually?

The pages are "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" where N is every number from 600 to 700: ie Virginia State Route 600 (disambiguation) to Virginia State Route 700 (disambiguation). In every case "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" is a redirect that targets "Virginia State Route N", which in every case says "State Route N (SR N) in the U.S. state of Virginia is a secondary route designation applied to multiple discontinuous road segments ...". There is therefore no ambiguity and no requirement for a redirect "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" to target ""Virginia State Route N" since there is only one Virginia State Route N. These redirects may have had value before @Famartin:'s good work in expanding the target articles, but now they are not required and speedy deletable G14 (the targets are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll go along with this. – Fredddie 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I would think people who might want to contest such a thing would be watching those pages not these Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads also seems like a better venue than this for notification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with deletion as long as someone checks to make sure any pages linking to them (there were a few) are corrected. Famartin (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I changed one of the submodules for {{Jct}} this morning to avoid the dab pages. I think that's where the handful of incoming links were coming from. I did a spot check just now; 600 and 700 were pointing to this discussion while the rest only point to User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation_redirects/004 and User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation_redirects/005. –Fredddie 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have just deleted … 700 … and "… 69? …". If nobody screams, I will delete the rest in a couple of days. Even with Special:PrefixIndex and Twinkle's batch delete tool, it is going to be slow work because I have to carefully pick out the (disambiguation) pages from lots of others. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Should articles created as redirects be deleted under A7?Edit

Or should they point back to their redirect target as initially created? I've seen situations where:

  1. A redirect is created from a company to a related topic (such as parent company or industry), or from a product line to its company. (This would not meet any CSD criteria).
  2. A user converts the redirect to a (usually promotional) article. This article would be eligible for A7 were it created initially as an article.
  3. An editor tags this article for A7 speedy deletion.
  4. The article is deleted under A7.

In such a situation, a redirect to an article mentioning the topic is surely more useful to the reader than having no page at all. Surely speedy deletion would not be appropriate here? feminist (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In such an instance, I certainly would see nothing wrong with just recreating the redirect to its original target. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
No. And the policy already forbids that when it clearly says A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible. (emphasis added). Such a deletion is most likely the result of sloppy review by the deleting admin who did not check the page history (thoroughly) enough. You might want to remind the admin(s) you have seen doing so that such deletions are not allowed under the policy because a revert to the redirect is a preferable alternative to deletion. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
No they should not be deleted per A7 but reverted to redirects. But if article gets deleted in this situation, just recreate the redirect. Redirects are cheap and it does not matter at all if old redirect gets replaced with identical new one. Rules lawyers will tell you to go complaining to deleting admins being sloppy about their work, if they happen to not notice the one valid revision among garbage, but why be a useless complainer when you can correct the situation yourself with much less typing just by re-creating the redirect? (assuming of course you know where it should point. In other case, the deleting admin will happily restore the redirect if by some odd chance someone remembers its existence but not to what article it points to.) jni(talk)(delete) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think expecting admins to follow the rules makes one a "rules lawyer" or a "useless complainer". Also, your advice is fine when someone like Feminist notices the mistake but in most cases, such mistakes go unnoticed. Hence, it's better for the project, if said admins are reminded to follow the rules and not delete pages ineligible for speedy deletion in the first place. Restoring a mistakenly deleted redirect instead of pointing out the error might be less work in a single case but pointing out the error might save everyone work in the long run if the admin stops making such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 10:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
No. Exactly per both of SoWhy's comments. If the redirect is also problematic then nominate it at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

New criterion: P3 (or maybe expansion of P2)Edit

In lieu of an en masse series of nominations at MfD concerning neglected/stillborn portals, I would like to see if there's a consensus for expanding CSD criteria to cover certain portals of this kind (specifically clear-cut failures of WP:POG).

My proposed qualification conditions would be the following:

  • The portal must have less than twenty selected articles total (this includes the number of selected bios, if there are any). Of those, at least half must be B-class or lower.
  • The last regular maintenance done on the portal must have been done at least five years ago. Additionally, said maintainer must have been inactive for at least one year. (The creator's statistics may be used if there were no other maintainers.) Bot edits, semi-automated edits (such as AWB), and addition and reversion of obvious vandalism do not count towards this condition.
  • Average daily pageviews during the last semi-yearly period (in this case, it would be January 1 - June 30, 2019) must make up less than 5% of the corresponding article's average daily pageviews in the exact same time period.

All conditions above would have to be satisfied.

I don't have any strong expectations for how this will mull over, but I think this may be a worthwhile criterion to consider adding, especially considering how many nominations of this kind are at MFD right now. ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • To be honest I think this is far too complicated, and the correct solution to the issue of mass nominations at MfD is simply not to nominate inactive portals for deletion unless they are actively harmful (and I don't recall seeing any evidence that any of them are). I've given up fighting for them though as I don't have the energy to deal with all the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing in the walls of text that inevitably follow from doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with Thryduulf on all counts (I find arguing in portal MfDs a rather soul-destroying experience, and have let myself be bullied out of most portal-related discussions). Further, there is absolutely zero reason to make a comparison of article views and portal views a criterion for deletion. (My own portal, Portal:Germany, misses the 5% by a country mile or so [1] but is more popular than most of the articles I have created: [2] (note that these are all pages linked from my user page, including some that I have not created). So what? It doesn't give us any indication that the portal is more or less worthy than any of my substubs). —Kusma (t·c) 20:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CREEP. The MfD process is handling these cases just fine, and Wikipedia benefits from the discussion there. There are less than 700 portals, and the narrow criteria mean this proposed reason would only ever apply to a tine fraction of them. (another problem: what is "regular maintenance"?) It does not make sense to add a new speedy reason that would apply to such a tiny number of pages. 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talkcontribs) 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The multiple RfCs on portals, including their deletions, have failed to develop a consensus. Portal deletion is therefore contentious. In practice, most are experiencing WP:SNOW deletions, but I don't think this is read for a new CSD. WP:POG remains a pariah guideline. WP:POG requires community support well before being reflected in WP:CSD policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

G13 questionEdit

I recently saw an editor make the case that once a draft survived an MfD, it could never be deleted under G13, even if it was never edited again. This didn't seem right to me, as I think there are other speedy criteria that certainly can apply to pages that survive XfD, and it seems to me an abandoned draft is still an abandoned draft. Who is off base here? If it's me, I suggest the description of the G13 criterion be changed to make clear this exception to G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

At the top of the page: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below." G13 isn't one of the exceptions listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions; ergo, as currently worded, surviving MfD does indeed immunize a draft against G13. ♠PMC(talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This is correct, however often the consensus (certainly my !vote) has been "leave for G13". I think in these cases it is a fair reading that the page can be deleted per the XfD when it otherwise meets the G13 conditions. If the deleting admin then (auto)logs it as "G13", it is not worth mentioning.
If the CSD is in doubt, go to XfD. If this question arises at MfD enough, it will provide justification to add clarification to the text for G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe the Draft space should exempt from MfD honestly. This space is meant for new articles by newer editor to grow their articles to the point of inclusion free of threat from instant deletion tagging. Almost all MfD in the draft space will end with keep, because as long as there is any indication that it may have notability it should be kept and allowed to grow. This leads to us opening up the doors for perpetual drafts that will never go anywhere because they survived a MfD and are no longer candidates for CSD. I would say we either do away with MfD in Draft space or add G13 to the exemption list. This isn't meant to be webhost. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been closing MFDs for a while and I've seen many cases where a MFD said "keep, punt to G13" or where a draft was deleted there because it was unsuitable and editors were gaming the G13 rules. With these points in mind, I would say that G13 should remain applicable regardless of the existence of a past MFD and that draft space should not be exempted from MFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd support adding G13 to the exception list. ♠PMC(talk) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I support documenting this. I think it is standard practice. G13 applies to any page in draftspace unedited for six months, even if was kept at MfD (over 6 months preceding). If someone wants to keep something longer, they can move it to their userspace, and remove any AFC templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks all for the thoughtful comments. Since I obviously agree also, do we have the start of a consensus to add G13 as one of the exceptions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there really a need to make a change? If the consensus at MFD is to "leave it for G13", then there is consensus that G13 should apply to this particular draft despite being kept at MFD. If anything, the exceptions list should be amended to include a provision like
If the most recent XFD discussion did not end in deletion but there was consensus that a specific criterion should be applicable anyway, the page can be deleted under this criterion once its requirements are met.
Regards SoWhy 09:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I am more concerned about the cases where the MfD's consensus or closing do not specifically mention G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeating a challenged CSD?Edit

Extended content
Extended content

When is it appropriate to repeat a CSD, when this has already been removed by another editor?

When is this appropriate when there is no "additional reason", such as BLP / copyvio etc?

See WP:ANI#Template:BMW E24 timeline and {{BMW E24 timeline}}.

This template was deleted some years ago. Two editors nominated and supported this at TfD, neither is still active. The template was re-created today, I think by the original author. IMHO, there is good reason to have this template, and the original criticisms were that it was "ugly", which ought to be fixable by editing not deletion.

It was G4'ed today, then the ANI thread began (which isn't the right place for a content dispute, but that's where it is) as to whether it should exist or not. So I removed the G4 notice, as there was now an active discussion. It was then deleted anyway.

Now as I read CSD, "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. " i.e. once a CSD tag has been validly removed, it shouldn't be re-applied, but XfD etc should be used instead. This is for just the same reason as WP:PROD: we perform deletion by discussion at XfD and both of these accelerated deletions are there for clear, uncontroversial and unchallenged appropriate deletions to which a consensus of editors would be assumed automatically. If one GF editor disagrees, that point fails and they can no longer be applied. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy "forgot" to mention that the re-creating user is the same user who created the original deleted content, that the re-created version is near-identical to the deleted version, and that the user responded to the G4 deletion by creating the exact same content at a different title. He also "forgot" to mention his past history with the original XfD nominator and his past history with the G4 deleting admin. Is the WP:FORUMSHOP open again now? Guy (help!) 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Guy, stop lying. " The template was re-created today, I think by the original author. " Third sentence I posted. You can't have missed it. Now I can't see the creation history, so I don't know this, but it seems likely and minor though it is, worth mentioning. Certainly I'm not trying to hide it. And cut it out with your other personal attacks too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I apologise. You merely minimised, rather than "forgetting". However, I am certain you were just about to mention your long-standing grudge against admins in general and me in particular. Weren't you? Because good faith users don't assert "lying" when an honest mistake could explain it. Guy (help!) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop, quite literally, making stuff up for yourself to feel aggrieved over and attributing it to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"A sign" is not "a requirement", and for a removal of a speedy template to be in good faith, the remover has to have a good-faith belief that it's incorrect, not merely that they disagree with the deletion discussion. For a G4, that means that the new page has to be not sufficiently identical; not deleted at its most recent deletion discussion; have a deletion reason that no longer applies; or been moved to user or draftspace for improvement. Which was this? —Cryptic 23:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
G4 covers substantially identical content. For the most part, only admins can see that. Andy is not an admin.
The second recreation at Template:BMW E24 models was byte-for-byte identical to the first, but at a different title. First G4 at 16:04, 18 September 2019, second re-creation 19:23, 18 September 2019.
This user has made significant numbers of edits in the four plus years since the original deletion, there is no indication why this is suddenly so urgent as to require re-creation and a second re-creation at a "much better tile". Guy (help!) 23:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Your point is as irrelevant now as when you made it before. No one is questioning the duplication or the validity of the original G4, the point is whether you were right to repeat it once challenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest how G4 could ever work at all under your idiosyncratic theory of "challenge" when the content is the same. See also WP:LASTWORD. Guy (help!) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You brought that up earlier in relation to armies of meatpuppets. But then they wouldn't be GF challenges to the CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "A sign" is a good point. For that wording, I'd have to agree that this is advisory then, not binding.
The question remains, what is a GF challenge? And specifically here, what is a challenge for G4? I don't believe that deletions are meant to be binding for all time, even if byte-identical. Opinions can shift, we always recognise that as a general principle. For the word of G4, I'd go with pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,, but for the principle of it I'd fall back on the original TfD as having had only two participants and a weak rationale (the better fix is to edit the ugliness, not remove the attempt). The core of my challenge though would be that a discusssion had since started (at ANI) and that CSD is just not appropriate (it being right outside the intended scope of CSD) for cases where there is an ongoing discussion. (Which isn't to exclude discussions which then conclude in a consensus to act speedily). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
G4 is not about "good faith" or anything else. It's a very simple rule: if it's the same shit, we don't muck about, we just nuke it. You could not see the content. I could. And the fact that the same user created it it yet again at a different title probably tells us all we need to know here. Guy (help!) 00:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And yet again, this isn't about whether it's a recreation or not. It's about whether CSD should be applied, and re-applied, when there is already an ongoing GF discussion elsewhere and the first CSD has been challenged. That's no longer about who created the content, who OWNs it or whatever, it's about trying to reach some objective consensus as to whether it's better for the encyclopedia (remember that?) with or without the content.
CSD's function is not (and should never be) to supplant discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:G4 is about deleted pages that have been improperly restored, which is not being undisputed. I agree with Guy that allowing the CSD to be removed due to any other objection is unworkable as it opens up a massive loophole in the AfD process. There are undeletion processes in place, which apply perfectly to the situation with the BMW E24 timeline.

    Also, having this discussion both here and at ANI smells like WP:FORUMSHOP. It would be much better if the discussion could be all held in one place. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Administrators' behaviours, especially in carrying contested speedy deletions, belongs at ANI.
Challenges to the old TfD and disputes about its continuing applicability can be entertained at DRV.
Principles of the application of CSD policy should be discussed here on this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If any editor in good standing presents a reasonable case against deletion, it should not be speedy deleted but should go to XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#Template:BMW E24 timeline is a very weak consensus. If someone wants to talk, take it back to TfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I did suggest that at ANI (because it was an old TfD with limited participation), but we need to look at the broader point, which is that a valid G4 cannot be objected to (well it can, but an admin can still delete regardless), and a moments thought will show why. If Editor-in-good-standing-A creates an article and it's deleted at AfD, then they could simply create it again, identically, the next day and get their friend Editor-in-good-standing-B to remove any G4 tag that was applied - at which point it would have to go through another AfD 24 hours later, which is ridiculous, and could theoretically continue forever. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
No. Alternative solutions to that scenario include: Warn then block the disruptive meatpuppets (next day identical re-creation is unlikely to be co-incidence); Make a stronger case for a stronger close in XfD2. I think G4 disputes come from weak ambiguous XfD closes, where it is debateable whether something has changed and overcomes the reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Although the XfD was weak in this case, most G4s aren't; they're usually editors not understanding (or not caring) that they can't just re-create their unsourced / non-notable / promotional article after it is deleted. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In that common case, the page is coming back via the creator, who is already specifically excluded from removing the CSD.
It's a real problem, I recognise, but we already have plenty of ways to deal with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

  • A page (regardless of if it's an article or a template, as in this particular case) that is a substantially identical re-creation, under any name (so the re-creation doesn't have to use the same name as the original page that was deleted at XfD, it doesn't have to be created by the original creator either...) of a page that has been deleted at XfD is always eligible for CSD G4 with or without a speedy-deletion tag (so removing a speedy-tag does not in any way make the page ineligible for G4...). If someone feels it shouldn't be deleted because of there being few participants in the XfD-discussion, as in this case, the only way to get it back is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, not Wikipedia:Deletion review, since it's not the speedy deletion that needs to be overturned but the outcome of the XfD, because as long as the outcome of the XfD stands any substantially identical re-creation of the page is automatically eligible for CSD G4. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I, for one, oppose the idea that you can do an end-run around a deletion discussion by just re-creating the article and, going "nuh-uh" on a G4 tag, and then expecting an entirely new AfD. Take it to WP:DRV or requests for undeletion instead. Reyk YO! 09:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So what if it's not a G4? This point applies to CSD generally, or at least those CSDs where there is no sense of urgency to them, i.e. no BLP / copyvio issue.
The point here, at its core, is "Should CSD override discussion?" Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of all criteria for speedy deletion are unambigious, and not open for discussion (check for yourself at WP:CSD), with CSD A7 ("No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)") one of the few that isn't unambigious, so I suggest you limit your discussion to that one... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'd say it depends on which speedy criterion it is. There are some speedy criteria that don't require a discussion- attack pages, office actions, copyvios, and the like. Others can be treated more like disputed prods, if there's a genuine disagreement about whether something is, say, genuinely patent nonsense or merely hopelessly inarticulate. G4 doesn't exactly supersede discussion, because there has already been one. Reyk YO! 10:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing is always simply "unambiguous". If one editor says "This is unambiguously one thing" and another says, "No, it is unambiguously the other" then there is an impasse. At which point we have to abandon CSD and revert to our basic mechanism, that of discussion through XfD. CSD (and PROD) is there to short-circuit discussion for speed. For which reason we can only use it outside of any discussion, ambiguity, conflict, opposition or whatever. If the long-form process has started or been requested, we have to fall back to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're once again making the mistake of bunching all speedy-deletion criteria together, and speaking about them as if everything applies equally to all of them. It doesn't, there are multiple speedy-deletion criteria that override any and all deletion discussions, and require pages to which those criteria apply to be deleted immediately. So specify which criteria you're talking about, or you simply can't be taken seriously. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about all CSD criteria. CSD exists because we delete on the basis on consensus discussion via XfD. However we also recognise that there are some cases, across the criteria, where we might choose to accelerate this because the outcome of such a discussion can be assumed as a pro forma. If something is a copyvio or a BLP problem, we're all (as GF editors sharing the same principles) against it, so we can assume the results of a hypothetical discussion about it, without stopping to hold that discussion.
But if we're holding that discussion anyway, that derails CSD. We can no longer assume the result of that discussion, because it's ongoing and clearly not an unambiguous pro forma, if it has got this far. CSD should not supplant discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to show why I object to your attempts to bunch all speedy-deletion criteria together I'll give you some examples of CSD that can not be "saved" by a deletion discussion, i.e. where editors have no say in whether the material should be kept or not, provided that the pages in question clearly meet the requirements for the CSD they're tagged as, or deleted under. I don't claim it's a comprehensive list, and some may disagree with me on some of them, but it should give you the more common ones (for more details about each such CSD see WP:CSD): G1 (Patent nonsense), G2 (Test pages), G3 (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes), G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion; if someone feels that the deletion was wrong it should be discussed at the proper venue before recreation...), G6 (Technical deletions), G7 (Author requests deletion; if you feel the article should be kept, start editing it, since that would make G7 no longer apply...), G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page), G9 (Office actions), G10 (Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose), G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement), A1 (No context), A3 (No content), virtually all that apply to files, U1 (User request), U2 (Nonexistent user), U3 (Non-free galleries) and U5 (Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host; there are quite a few users who believe that WP is a social networking site, or LinkedIn, and create elaborate self-glorifying/self-promoting user pages, with their résume, family photos and everything else people post on such sites, without ever posting in article space...). Which doesn't leave much to discuss here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • All editors will agree that a "bad page" (for any of our agreed reasons) should be deleted. But asking if a particular example of a page is such a "bad page" – that's a lot more complex.
As an example (and I'm looking at broad principles here, not narrow examples) We regularly see A7s on highly notable topics. But their failing is that they don't explain any of the context for that page. Editors who already understand that field (often narrow and technical) can't believe that anyone is deleting the next Nobel prize breakthrough, editors who don't understand the background already can't even work out what the words mean. That's a simple example of how two GF editors can interpret the same characters as either well-inside or well-outside some criterion. That sort of disagreement is inevitable with such a complex overall situation as WP and that's why we need to be able to discuss pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Which is why I didn't include A7 (or G11 for that matter) in my list. A discussion about A7 (and G11) could be interesting, but the discussion would need to be clearly labelled as being about those criteria, and not CSD in general. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Criterion G4 (and several other CSD criteria, as listed by Thomas above) is quite objective, therefore if someone wishes to contest the CSD, the onus is on them to prove that it fails the CSD criterion in question. This was not the case for the "BMW E24 timeline" template in question. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Once again, you fail to see the point. CSD (all criteria) is only permissible if there is no question of opposition to it. If there is a discussion open, that doesn't apply and so no CSD should override that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is this line of argument not being presented at WP:DRV? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Go to WP:DRV if you want to dispute the idea that a repost is not eligible for speedy deletion. If you don't want to go there, write an essay in your userspace, or create a new discussion here that seeks to have major amendments made to the G4 criterion. Don't waste tons more time beating the dead horse of "G4 currently doesn't apply if an editor removes the tag". Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with DRV. It's a general point of policy: Can CSDs be used to over-rule an ongoing discussion? It's not about one specific (and thus largely inconsequential) particular deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. If the CSD criterion applies, it can be used. Reyk YO! 07:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why? We have no basis to justify that. CSD has never been intended to stop discussions.
If we can assume that any discussion would inevitable and unquestionably come to the same conclusion as CSD, then we can use it to save time (and most of the time we will). But if it won't, we can't. If there's discussion ongoing, that would have that effect.
CSD is there for "We can save some time here". Not for "Stop the peasants discussing it, I'm an admin, damnit!" Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Article gets nominated at AfD on notability grounds. Soon afterwards someone notices the whole thing is a big copyvio and puts the corresponding CSD tag on it. Obviously, it should be speedily deleted without waiting for the AfD to run its course. Reyk YO! 07:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
But is the CSD tag correct in the first place? Can it (and CSD is specifically clear that it can be) be challenged by an independent editor and forced to a full XfD? Having a CSD tag applied is no proof that that tag is appropriate - editors may rightly disagree over that. Your claim here simply allows the nominator to re-add the tag until it's gone, over-ruling discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's up to administrators to check, and judge, if a page they're deleting meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you feel an admin has made an error, contact him/her/them, if you're not satisfied with the answer you get, or don't get an answer, post a complaint at WP:DRV. And for Christ's sake stop edit-warring! - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I just got a bit frustrated at all the irrelevant tangents. The goal posts were being shifted so often and with such vigour that I couldn't keep track. Reyk YO! 12:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Q. "Can CSDs be used to over-rule an ongoing discussion?".
A. I often, and always successfully when I do, tag a page with G11 and/or U5 during an MfD discussion, so I thin the simple answer is "yes".
However, "over-rule" does not apply, bad word choice, because the discussion is not a rule.
The CSD tagging short circuits, cuts short, renders moot, the XfD discussion.
If someone doesn't like that, they are instructed to preferably talk to the deleting admin first, and then to take it to DRV if they think the wrong thing was done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again: stop beating a dead horse, or you'll be getting a block for general disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Criteria for speedy deletion".