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.

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]

Requested move 19 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion be renamed and moved to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion → Wikipedia:Speedy deletion – I searched through the archives to see why "Criteria" is part of the title, but couldn't find anything much, other than these comments [1][2] that mentioned it without any follow-up. Previously, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was an information page listing the criteria and Wikipedia:Speedy deletions was the process page where SD candidates were listed. With the introduction of deletion templates in the late 2000s, the latter page was deemed redundant and became a redirect to the former in this edit. Several editors in the linked discussions suggested support for removing "Criteria" from the title, and in my search I have not found one editor opposing the removal of "criteria" from the title, so it led me to believe this move simply was never proposed. Therefore, I am proposing a move from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion for the following reasons:

To increase emphasis on the process itself, rather than the criteria. It is evident at this point that this page isn't only about a set of criteria but also an established process to delete pages based on the criteria.
To enable titling consistent with the other deletion process pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion).
To allow smoother referencing and better syntax, e.g. "tag it for WP:Speedy deletion" vs. "tag it for WP:Criteria for speedy deletion".
The page currently contains topics other than just the criteria, such as the step-by-step instructions, the procedure, and information about the process. A rename of this page could make room for expanding/altering the scope if needed in the future. Frost 10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've wondered myself why we need the longer title. Yes when the page is saying what should or should not be done like Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks it includes an instruction but as noted the likes of AFD and PROD etc do not have this so is consistent and more concise. See also Wikipedia talk:Attack page#Requested move 2 March 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]