Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 75

9436:, I think we agree so far that if an individual that is not blocked creates socks, the articles those socks create before being blocked are not eligible for G5. That's not my issue. The "must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked" bullet point already addresses this. The "violation of the user's specific block or ban" bullet point appears to imply that socks get to brute force their new articles on here as long as they aren't violating the policy that got them blocked in the first place. (example: someone gets indef blocked for legal threats, then creates a string of one-off user accounts to continue writing articles.) We just need to get rid of the words "block or". 276:

G13 may make sense. But if the person is still active, there's no benefit to a deletion being speedy. At minimum there should be a message with some lead time before the deletion happens (like a prod, although I seem to recall something like that being proposed and rejected in the past -- can't keep track of all the RfCs throughout the slow erosion of the draft namespace over the last 3-4 years). Eh. Most users don't work in drafts, but there's no good reason to antagonize those who do with pedantry concerning pages that aren't indexed and nobody ever sees other than people looking for maintenance jobs. This isn't a judgment for/against the current topic btw. —

2534:

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 Knowledge 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. -

10255:. This is one of those "warring consistencies" issues. If we have one kind of consistency in which similar criteria are grouped/merged based on their rationales, and another kind of consistency in which they're grouped based on what content they apply to and where people are going to look for them, and neither kind of consistency is objectively and unquestionably "better", then we gain nothing by changing the already-stable wording, just to have little if any concision boost, and also at the cost of leaving another "dead" number in the list. (I do so wish we had not numbered these things ....) 4758:, yes I understood but found it easier to express an opinion about a template than categories. I don't dabble enough in categories to know all the ins and outs. That said I do think a category that didn't exist, but if it had would have been part of the same deletion discussion, can be G4 deleted at an administrator's discretion. However, at some point enough time has passed that consensus might have changed. It's this last part especially that I am ill-equipped to give an intelligent answer about here. So my answer to you is yes in theory and I'm not sure in reality for this case. Best, 8433:

Knowledge as a dating service, or a place to play games, or for blatant self-promotion, yes those do not belong an should be deleted, one way or another. Even an experienced, active, and valued user should not have those on a user page. But having a few verses of quoted and attributed song lyrics does not strike me as a danger to the project. Having a full CYV is promotional, and therefor inappropriate. but mentioning three or four employers in a general way might actually be relevant to possibile editing skills and interests, and so should not draw a u5. That is my view.

5951:, I don't think you've actually ever sorted through any of the draft pages. If you had you'd see that editors frequently review content and give the author an opportunity to fix the page. If the author doesn't take that opportunity (by editing it at least once every 6 months) Knowledge shouldn't be bothered to keep the page around. Also many of the submitters to Draft space usually come in for one day, drop a load of questionable material, and walk away. No less than any other Spam trap. Because of Knowledge's good Google score, we're targeted as one of the 3275:

sheer numbers, there being tens of thousands of abandoned useless junk, and intersperse among them were serious BLP and privacy violations, such as something a kid posted about another kid one day, sitting there live, forever. It was not viable to filter the tens of thousands for the few really bad ones that need. There is no similar justification for rushing a G13. If an editor's attention is drawn to it, and if there is a deletion reason (usually CSD G10, G11 or G12), then have it deleted for that reason by the appropriate process and code.

7653:

collaboration-wise, so moving pages under the project might create a workload with no one to manage). I don't know how many projects have someone actively tagging new drafts (presumably relatively few), but notifications should benefit those that do, while not affecting the others. For region-specific WikiProjects at least, having a filtered notification would be very helpful in bringing drafts to the attention of editors with foreign-language skills who could much more easily identify and assess sources than the regular AFC reviewer.--

5753: 8842:

articles on mathematics, many of which are written from a mathematician's point of view on verification (which is that directly giving a mathematical proof is preferable to a citation of some "reliable source" containing the statement), not from the accepted standard for most articles on Knowledge. In practice, this is not usually a problem, unlike statements about living people, currently operating companies, or involving ethnic feuds. Most importantly, when pages that are true and about notable subjects end up at

10726: 31: 1917:"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? — 487:

different in practice after all", and (2) "Upon proper reflection, since neither CSD nor PROD tags re-submit drafts to AFC, it probably won't affect AFC very much, after all". I'd be happy to discover that you have different answers to my questions, or even answers that are basically the same but expand upon it in detail, but so far, your non-answer is non-convincing with respect to convincing me that PROD is a worse process than CSD for this problem.

4468: 9081: 4155:

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.)

8362:, and user pages (particularly a user's main user page) should not be deleted for holding information about a user that is not excessively promotional nor excessively long. Particular care should be used on relatively new contributors who may be planning to edit more generally, even if they have not yet done so. Users who created a user page and nothing more long ago, and have (almost) never edited elsewhere, are a bit different, in my view. 4699:. I think G4 deleting the 2019 template would be well with-in your discretion in the same way that a recreated article deleted under G4 after an AfD can differ to some degree in content. The idea of G4, to me, is that community consensus has been established and absent something to suggest that consensus has changed (e.g. passage of time, new precedent or RfC, new sourcing) then requiring further community consensus is not needed. Best, 3716:... I'd bet most people don't even realize the blanket statement at CSD is really there. All this is 99% done using Twinkle without so much as a second thought. The people who do a lot of tagging can mostly rattle off the nomenclature and criteria by memory anyway. But there is no world where anyone acts like that blanket statement overrides the criteria on something like the C1 template, or any of the rest of them for that matter. 7497:). It seems there's general consensus that, given that G13 currently exists, having some form of advance warning when drafts are about to be G13 deleted (or reach G13 eligibility) would be a good thing. (Most of the oppose !votes in that debate were based on technicalities or otherwise irrelevant to the proposal.) Is there any reason (or discussion elsewhere) that we shouldn't be further ironing out a specific approach? -- 1676:. The MfD process is handling these cases just fine, and Knowledge 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) 5622:

blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another. People tend to not do this so much in userspace, as userspace is the users personal space. People tend not to write graffiti inside their homes, they instead go to a sort of public place to do it, starting from inside storm water drains and under bridges. Draftspace is kind of like open space under a bridge. —

6094:, and because draft space being intended as a productive-workspace with virtually non-existent inclusion criteria. Essentially unlimited quantities of worthless crap can frivolously be dropped in draft, and we require a comparably lightweight cleaned up process for abandoned pages. Human labor is a limited resource, and an infinitely expanding draft space has on-going and expanding maintenance costs. 1023: 10541:. Main reasons for the split were that G12 was too convoluted and difficult to read and that copyvio text can only result in a page deletion if there is nothing to salvage while image copyvio should basically always result in deletion. I find the latter a compelling argument actually and I am wary whether re-combining the two criteria will make it easier for people to follow the criteria. Regards 1938: 7755:

draft-review, when the draft is declined or rejected. review. (we can't really expect it to be added before it gets reviewed by the contributors, who are mostly new editors. We could possibly find a way of adding it optionally when someone comments) We can use keyword-based labelling; I think we have the facility at them moment, if any project wants to use it. it works, but very roughly. ).

1931: 10854: 10310:

prior version is free of infringemetns. Even where there is no good prior version, it is often possible to remove the copyvio by relativly simple editing, posisbly reducing an article mto a stub, and then use RevDel toleave only a clean version. Noen of this is possible for msot image files. So the normnal workflow is significantly different, as are the details of the criterion.

9923:

for good reasons, i.e. we deal with text and image copyvios differently: Text may be salvageable by editing and/or reversion to a previous version - none of which is possible with images. On the other hand fair use is possible with images in a way that it is not with text - in some cases it is possible that a valid fair use rationale can be written for an F9 candidate."

7225:. Many of these crtieria are already routinely misapplied (even now, people only read half of the description, e.g. a large percentage of pages tagged for A10 would pass RFD as a redirect), and merging several into "redundant" will lead to a wide extension of speedy deletion to anything considered "redundant". Having many small criteria is a feature, not a bug. — 5566:, in the absence of reliable volunteers who will review drafts, to separate minimally into unacceptable and unacceptable (G10, G11, G12) for long term live storage, who is going to remove them immediately or ever? NB. I consider this to have been the one compelling argument for the creation of G13. We’re young involved in the discussions, this page, from 2013? 5912:, it does not disrupt any Knowledge reader, because they don't randomly stumble upon it. Also, that page I have mentioned is not original research. Show me one other person that recreates these tables in that sophisticated manner. (Sorry for that arrogant language, but how else do I express it?). All the work I put into that could potentially be erased by 9721:, that still begs the question: when is a page creation a violation of their ban or block? In my opinion this should make clear that this qualifies for any creation by socks of the user after the original block on the master. IMHO this still leaves the interpretation open that pages unrelated to the reason of the original block are exempt from G5. 7523:, I can have it start warning page creators at 5 months stale (i.e. 1 month before it becomes eligible for G13). This would mean users get warnings (at least for drafts enrolled in AFC) that their draft will soon be eligible for G13, but not require any policy changes. I'm personally opposed to a 7 day hold as it's an exception to the rule. 3076:

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

8683:. "Verifiability", not "verified" is the policy. The phrase "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" is subjective, what is a "challenge". It being subjective means it is not suitable for speedy deletion, because speedy deletion must be uncontestably objective. If you contest the venerability of some content, then (1) 10128:

and image copyvios differently: Text may be salvageable by editing and/or reversion to a previous version - none of which is possible with images. On the other hand fair use is possible with images in a way that it is not with text - in some cases it is possible that a valid fair use rationale can be written for an F9 candidate.

7568:

Rescuing a draft can sometimes be as trivial as adding a few easily located references. Delivering the warning to potentially interested experienced editors would be more useful than to the creator who has long since given up, IMO. This doesn't appear to be within the scope of the BRFA (or the bot's previous functions), though.

9776:(and really, apart from G10 and G12, I don't think there's ever a strong imperative to delete if you can fix). I suspect it's a highly unusual case, so one might choose to make a highly unusual decision. Overwhelmingly, I expect G5s will have the same problem(s) that got the user blocked/banned, so it'll be straightforward. 4132:(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 1489:

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

4165:

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

6773:, and it is hard to see how this could usefully apply to most other namespaces, as a G-series criterion would. What is the "subject " of a talk page? Or of many project-space pages? How would this apply in user-space? How many such pages are now going to deletion discussions? This has not been thought out. 10792:" in their delete reason. However, in general, I would say oversight responds very quickly; at the time I'm writing this, on the English Knowledge we have 36 oversighters, so we can typically get really good coverage during the day. There may be some delay at night in the US, but it's usually not severe. 5872:, although I'll withhold judgment on that.) Notability is not temporary; if something was so time-sensitive that once deleted it could never be recreated, it probably didn't belong on here anyway. I also think you're overstating the perceived threat of REFUND; I see IP addresses there fairly frequently. 1796:: 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. 10127:

per SoWhy in the section below. A long list of short, focused criteria is much better than a shorter list of more complicated ones - the latter makes misuse (in good or bad faith) more likely and harder to detect and makes things more confusing. This was split for good reasons, i.e. we deal with text

9414:

Sock puppets are people. Generally, all related socks are one individual. G5 is applicable only if when a blocked sock created the page, the individual was already blocked from before. Thus, when there is a new sock farm, the pages created by the socks are not eligible for G5, but later if more socks

8841:

This is terrible for speedy deletion. Articles that are true but do not have any citations can be fixed, and should be fixed. If you want to clean up Knowledge's first couple of years of growth where citations were optional, you shouldn't do that by deleting everything. You'd end up deleting a lot of

8062:

Handroid: Considering that the largest proportion of those comments consist of you repeating variations on the same theme, and the second largest proportion of those is of people replying to your repetitive comments, it wouldn't be an issue if you made your point once and then let it be. The loudest

7754:

But we also do need subject based notifications. The problem here is that projects are not generally assigned until the drafts are accepted--I do not think there is any real mechanism for doing this otherwise. I'm sure we could figure one out--it would be a matter of adding a project-labelling to the

3498:

a speedy deletion, it is explicitly a delayed deletion, and doesn't really matter anyway, because it can always be undeleted when permission is received by OTRS. G13 makes no sense to prevent removal, because if someone wants to remove it, then presumably the draft is not truly abandoned. U1 makes no

2646:

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,

2533:

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,

2524:

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

2229:

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

10276:

Oppose as per SoWhy and others. The possibility of editing and RevDel, or finding a clean version and Revdel exists for text but not for files, so the workflow and thus the criteria are different. And I see no benefit to counter the disruption in tools, scripts, and work habits, even if the criteria

9897:

regarding you edit to CSD-G5: we have here discussed to even cut it down further .. any edit while block (or ban) is in violation of said block (or ban). The clarification that edits that were made before a block (or ban) are not in violation of the block or ban is a more clear (and less ambiguous)

8453:

Perhaps so, if it would be equally unacceptable for an active editor with thousands of mainspace edits. But a user page that would be tolerated albeit frowned on for an active user can be dealt with more gently than an instant U5 for a new user. A note explaining the issue with a request to trim or

8427:

and a true CV. Nor have I made any detailed study of how currently active contributors might have styled their user pages when first joining. I would say that a person who has created a fairly extensive user page, but has done no significant article, draft, or project space editing in a year, or say

7394:

I see no benefit and significant cost to all these proposals.In addition to the specifics mentioned above, it seems as if the proposer has looked only at the bold titles of each criterion. No detailed text for any of the new or revised criteria has been proposed. That detailed text, giving the exact

7377:. Broadly opposing. The small arguable benefits are heavily outweighed by the cost of breaking long term consistency in practices and logs. CSD criteria do not need to be easily understood in a general audience presentation, they need to consistently understood and respect in the fine details. -- 4154:

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

3752:

The blanket statement should really say "For many of these, the creator of the page should not remove the nomination themselves, but should follow the instructions on the relevant templates in order to contest the deletion." There is no real line you can draw there other than "some do" "some don't".

3737:

LOL @ "there is no world where..." yeah, I'm going to have to say that if there is a way to misread and wikilawyer something, someone will find a way. Was your "yes...." regarding possibly editing the blanket statement? I'm sorry, that still isn't entirely clear to me given the rest of your comment.

3541:

U1 having the note sort of makes sense, since anyone can create a page in anyone else's userspace, and simply the author of the page who wants it kept does not override the user to whom the userspace "belongs" who wants it deleted. (To be clearer: User 1 who creates a user subpage of User 2 does not

3520:

Perhaps I was unclear. I thought I had stated above that in cases where the original author is allowed to remove the tag, such should be specifically spelled out. Oh, I did say exactly that, you must have missed it. I also specifically called out g7 and u1 as being obvious exceptions, so any defense

3342:

I argue it's not just working. I am suggesting that good faith editors, including myself, are having work needlessly deleted. I don't know why you're asking me to justify a PROD on the basis of Speedy deletion criteria. A PROD is not a speedy deletion and I think we'd all be better off taking 7 days

3274:

If it is the same as G13, and if no one is watching, meaning that no one is doing anything with it, then why not leave it for G13? Have you read the archives on the creation of G13? The quite broad applicability with few conditions, beyond the objective old and unedited, were justified only by the

3101:

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

2737:

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

2414:

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

2120:

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

2083:

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

1780:

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

1509:

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

1488:

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

839:

The premise of G13 is that there is no one around who care about the page, no one at all. Keep G13 out of this. This is an issue of overgenerosity of userification or draftification, and what to do when you now consider that the REFUND request was not made in good faith, or if you think the author

331:

A PROD system would make more sense, and it would realistically be no extra work, but I think it might not feel as emotionally satisfying to some editors. PROD feels more like "Eh, that's not really wanted", and CSD feels more like "Die, horrible scum!" Also, sending contested drafts to AFD (i.e.,

174:

I agree that submitting a draft could be a major event, if the submission was at the end of a series of edits. But, if the last that that happened to the article was to decline a previous submission, resubmitting it with no changes seems rather trifling to me. It's not even an edit to the content,

9473:

clarifies that if the sock master is not blocked at the time the article was created, the article can stay. The wording seems to have been chosen to prop up a line in the next bullet point: "It is recommended that this criterion be used mostly for pages that are a part of disruptive behavior." That

8953:

It's possible for a non-admin to remember what the previous article looked like. It's also possible that the AFD discussion makes it very clear what the deficiencies with the old article where, and if these are still present in the new article, G4 may seem likely even without knowing the exact text

8253:

G6 applies when any admin decides that the SPI subpage has no administrative value to the project ("unambiguously created in error" in G6's wording). Honoring G7 here really equals G6. We don't need any more instruction creep for trivial project administration tasks like getting rid of premature or

7291:

merging criteria only makes sense if they really are the same thing in different incarnations, if the criteria have caveats, explanations, special cases etc then a merge no longer makes sense. To take an extreme example we could merge all the criteria into one mega-criterion, with all the others as

6884:

A10, F1 and T3 have too many specifics to handle for a combined criterion. A10 only applies to recent creations that cannot be turned into viable redirects. F1 requires a different file to exist but does not care which was there first. T3 has a 7-day-wait-period before a template can be deleted and

6552:

be kept indefinitely? Also, plenty of drafts are highly promotional, which could apply for G11, but could also work for G13. As a community, we need to scout the long abandoned draft list and make a judgement on whether to delete or improve the draft. If the draft has potential but with no editors,

5688:

You are not presenting a workable solution to Who will do the discrimination. Many drafts are made by IPs, and many by new accounts that become inactive. It is no OK to blindly userfy all drafts without checking whether they are “Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something,

5593:

I have never understood the “new editors might be able to improve the draft” argument for keeping drafts. My experience working with new editors is that they are unlikely to troll through draft space, looking for old drafts to improve... instead, they will simply start a new (fresh) article on the

3676:

liberally, probably through sheer weight of habit, and the de facto policy is you can remove the templates from all kinds of things, especially where pages categorically either do or do not objectively qualify. It's the subjective stuff that people shouldn't remove, but that advice is itself mostly

3305:

The issue of active editors having work deleted and having to fill-out REFUND paperwork when they care about something. Incentivizing editors to make stuff in their userspace which doesn't invite collaboration rather than draft space which does in order to avoid summary deletion. It's attempting to

1814:

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.

923:

if your sandbox ever does get promoted back into mainspace, please make sure you find an admin to help you get the attribution history fixed. The best thing at this point would probably be to (re)-undelete the draft, copy-paste your sandbox onto that, and go from there. But please don't do any of

605:

I agree. Sending it to MFD doesn't save net effort (unless someone thinks the MFD regulars would invest less effort because they're sloppier, which is an insulting idea). "I spend one hour at AFD" or "I spend one hour at MFD" is ultimately the same amount of effort and the same opportunity cost.

316:

I genuinely don't understand why G13 isn't actually a PROD. If after six months someone is still around and editing and want to save a draft what's the harm? If it's bad content it can go to MfD but if it's just an imperfect article needing attention why are we acting like we have a deadline? Best,

10835:

Thank you all. I wasn't aware that this was considered serious enough to be sent to oversight, but I'm glad it does. Does this happen often enough to add some guidance to the intro of this page? "In cases of personal information about non notable minors, please contact Oversight" or something like

9922:

The arguments for opposing a merge are best summarized by Thryduulf: "A long list of short, focused criteria is much better than a shorter list of more complicated ones - the latter makes misuse (in good or bad faith) more likely and harder to detect and makes things more confusing. This was split

9469:. To simplify, the question I'm asking is: Should sock articles created by people who make legal threats be allowed to stand? If your answer is "yes," you would want to keep the language as it is written. If your answer is "no," you should support the minor change I proposed. The next bullet point 8523:

reliable sources (which may leave a statement as unverified, and thus free to remove, as per above), and in the case of a statement that is not supported, or even contradicted, by the source cited, to remove both statement and source (or, preferably, to replace the statement with one that reflects

8378:

I argued for the exclusion in the original U5. What if someone were to start their Wikipedian contributions by introducing themselves? So all the non-contributors’ CV userpages came to MfD. It was plainly obvious that they were all drive-by CV drops. Can you point to any valued contributor who

8230:

User:WikiWarrior9919 needed help (help, euphemism for attention). SPI page nominated for deletion is a red flag. The username includes "warrior" is a red flag. The user is six weeks old and dabbling with SPI subpages, is a red flag. I count three red flags for potential WP:GAME playing. I did

7567:

As an editor focused on a WikiProject, I would appreciate if such warnings could also be delivered to a draft's tagged WikiProjects. A common situation I'd like to avoid is where a one-time editor creates a draft, submits it to be declined, and no one else sees it until it's deleted in six months.

6696:

G1 can probably be deprecated but it shouldn't be combined with A1 because G1 carries the connotation of "nonsense" which would be inappropriate to apply to good faith article creations. Also, the proposed G15 would expand the applicability into namespaces where it does not belong, such as drafts.

5621:

here, there is an apparent inconsistency here, draftspace pages must be be allowed to live forever, but userspace pages may. The answer is that in draftspace, there is a tendency for driveby contributors to write an dump offensive material that is far less the case in userspace. Pseudo articles,

4496:

While working on several wiki-pages on 9th/10th century literature the requirement to create/extend book date categories arises. Much scholarship has yet to be digitized/wikipedia-ized and it is expected that single items (books) may initiate categories, viz., non-standard categories, where usual

4164:

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

3234:

Oppose DraftProd, like UserspaceProd, for the same reasons as stated consistently since the PROD proposal. PROD relies on watchlisters, and active patrollers. These don’t exist in draftspace. DraftProd would therefore be a pseudo-CSD. As a pseudo-it should be objective, unlike PROD tagging, and

2859:

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

2570:

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

2219:

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

1618:

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

1401:

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

275:

Assuming we're talking about drafts with meaningful content, I do wish this took into account the activity of the primary contributor (assuming there's a primary contributor, which is usually the case). If a user creates a draft and does nothing else or if a user hasn't been around in a year, then

10420:

treat images differently. I'd worry that combining the two would lead to a muddling, and we'd just get every image G12-deleted without any nuance. Laying it all out with "if this is not blatant and an image consider FfD but if it is not blatant and not an image consider CP" is likely to just be

10309:

Yes, if there have been multiple different versions of a file uploaded, RevDel can remove some and leave others. But file, at least an image file, is usually either a total copyright infringement or else celar. While text often invclude some infringing text and soem copyvio text, and frequently a

8933:

Does G13 apply to userspace drafts which do not have the AfC template? I've sometimes thought about an alternative to the long AfC queue which would involve making a draft and placing a notice on the talk pages of related WikiProjects asking editors to take a look and move it into the mainspace -

7585:

Not every draft gets wikiproject-tagged, so I'm not sure how much utility that would be. I wonder about configuring the bot to also post the upcoming G13s to a noticeboard... It would create a log of G13'd titles that people could poke through if they really wanted to see what had been G13'd, and

7124:

I agree with the comments of SoWhy, Geolodus, and Hut 8.5. U1 allows the owner of the user space to delete pages (well request their deletion, but such requests are normally be honored pretty much automatically once it is verified that the space owner made them) No matter who has edited them. G7

6800:

Mainspace: This is fuzzy. On one hand, it is fit to delete pages that are only nonsense like "sdfagwaeasfwaegewa". On the other hand, a poorly written article on a notable topic may also be deleted because there are a lack of MoS compliances, which make the exact subject of the article unclear. I

4855:. We may have misunderstood each other. If there is a disambiguation page at "Foo", the base name, then there needs to be a redirect at "Foo (disambiguation)" to point to it. This is so that intentional links to a disambiguation page pass through a (disambiguation) redirect. This is explained at 3477:

The only ones I can see having a clear commonsense rationale for not having the verbiage in question are g7 and u1. I think dB-G13 is overused and admins should be careful about deleting with it, but I'm less positive about omitting the "do not remove" verbiage there. It seems to me that a little

3039:

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

2460:

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

486:

If you can't provide concrete and specific answers to these questions, I'm going to be forced to conclude that the answers sound a lot like (1) "I guess that since changing anything in the draft resets the db-draft process anyway, someone resetting the clock by removing a prod template isn't very

187:

I'm not a great fan of seeing drafts resubmitted without changes either, but my point is that any (re)submission is a major edit: fundamentally, it's a strong statement that the draft is believed to be mainspace worthy. As I see it, it has the same relative weight as a "keep" !vote in an AfD; you

8759:

material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups ...and, from a ref (more like a footnote) used there, this quote from Jimmy Wales (titled "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" ...which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree

8031:

Indeed I am aware, but I wasn't denying that some folks took issue with G13 or that it was 100% positive, rather I was pointing out that the "statistics" above do not show what you were claiming they did. If you want an answer to that, others in the above section like Barkeep49 and Fastily have

6245:

and I disagree pretty strongly about G13 but we both do agree that we need an easy way to clean-up unencyclopedic content which could otherwise accumulate, with negative external effects. Saying "We have other ways of getting rid of bad content is true" but doesn't address our need to get rid of

10625:

linger any longer than necessary (and certainly not for 6 months), but it doesn't seem to match any CSD criteria either. Is MfD the way to go or is there an acceptable faster reason to get rid of it? It's not a G10, but we should perhaps some speedy cat for "hopeless pages with too much info on

8432:

is less of an issue. But I would also say that even after such a period, unless the "writings not associated with the encyclopedia" are "extensive" than a U5 deletion, even if technically legitimate, is not justified, serves no real purpose, and provides no serious benefit to the project. Using

7652:

IMO project-specific notifications would be much more useful (at least to me, working on Thailand-related articles). I do patrol the new articles feed for WikiProject Thailand and tag relevant drafts, but I'm probably the only one doing this for the project (which is admittedly not very active,

7415:

for all the reasons above - detail matters, and for something like CSD clarity regarding applicability is of utmost importance (speedy deleting something that should not be speedily deleted is one of the most harmful things an admin can do), so what we need is a longer list of narrowly defined,

1590:

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

8956:

For the userspace draft question, such a page would be explicitly excluded from G13, but may be deleted by MfD. This is a plausible outcome if the draft is considered unlikely to ever become a Knowledge article, though it's an unusual measure to take. I think normally such things would just be

2492:

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

860:

Sorry about that. Didn't know I was doing anything really wrong. I actually wanted it in my sandbox, which would have lesser bar of existence than a draft article. The footballer in question is still active for Rivers Angels, and there is a chance she may get a call-up for the African Games or

739:

The driving purpose of G13 was to remove the tens of thousands of ancient forgotten abandoned draftspace pages (mostly authored by IPs), largely motivated by the presence amongst them of BLP and copyright violations. Few *needed* to be deleted, but sorting the offensive from the worthless was

702:

Well that's a tricky one because it's been through AfD. In general if someone is working towards encyclopedic content with a reasonable claim of notability I take a pretty strong NODEADLINE view. However, for content already judged not-notable that does change the equation somewhat. For me, if

10783:

The thing about G10 is that it is explicitly for pages that "disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"; a minor posting too much info about themselves doesn't really fall under this category. The "summary deletion" authorized by

5643:

Then just move it to that user's name space instead of deleting it. Also, promoting anything on the draft namespace is ineffective anyway. It does not benefit the promoted thing. If they really intended to promote something, they could spam Twitter with it, not the Knowledge draft name space.

3023:

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

2064:

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.

7252:

is easy for users to read the criteria and understand them. Creating a whole new list of criteria with new numbers disrupts existing users more than it helps any future users. Criteria that need rewriting because they don't work or are frequently mis-applied are one thing, but this kind of

3603:

Then what is the point of this entire thread, then? To have a look at a bunch of CSD templates that I'm sure we've all already seen before? GMG has summed everything up in what should be common sense. If you were asking a question, then it has been answered for you. If it isn't and it is for

3075:

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

1633:

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

703:

someone cares enough to keep a draft alive every few months, that's more attention than some of our articles get, and so while the AfD is complicating issue for me not enough to suggest that it overrides the safeguards of a CSD. In the end of it doesn't on Knowledge there's always MfD. Best,

6980:

These all have caveats e.g. A3 lays out explicitly what the criterion applies to and we'd lose that clarity if we merged them. Also this would make A3 applicable to other namespaces, which isn't a good idea because it could be used to delete drafts in progress for having too little content.

10160:

having thought about it I'm not convinced that merging them would make the page clearer. The instructions for dealing with images and text are completely different and merging them would make the resulting criterion less readable. Although there isn't a suggested wording proposed here the

9195:

says this is dealt with, I am disabling the help request to prevent other administrators' time being taken up coming here to check this request. If you think the matter is not closed and needs more admin attention then please restore the request and explain what you think is still needed.

3133:

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.

3057:

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

7342:

changes like this is the tremendous confusion that would result. The people who deal with speedy deletion (either by requesting it or implementing it) are reasonably familiar with the current situation and a compelling benefit would be needed to justify the turmoil of changing labels.

9518:

I agree! That is how it should be. But the bullet point introduced in May 2013 was apparently intended to limit G5 to articles that were created by users whose articles led to them being blocked. We would lose nothing by removing those two words because the bullet point directly above

3774:

Ah, yes, brilliant! With that verbiage, no need to spell out each difference, or make lists - simply instruct to follow template instructions, and that will automagically instruct editors on correct behavior. Perfect. Start another section on the talk page here for straw polling it?

5795:, with or without a specific draft; this negates the need to keep a stale draft on here for eternity, and possible upsides of doing so are more than outweighed by the hidden policy violations that would be incurred on what are the hidden and less-watched crevices of Knowledge. – 3753:

Even then, the template instructions don't always make sense all the time. (e.g., If I accidentally create an A10, someone nominates it, but I think that it could make a plausible redirect anyway, don't come complaining to me if I remove the CSD template and redirect the page.)

213:

Even if it is, the act of asking is a significant edit. If you think the draft should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If you don't think it should be deleted then why are you discussing it here? Speedy deletion is explicitly only for uncontroversial cases where the letter

6744:

I think "lacking a clear subject" should be more specific. Or else this new criterion can be applied to pages that are simply poorly written and don't make the subject clear. My opinion is that this should be expanded to "pages whose subject cannot be reasonably identified."

7433:. Suggestions made in good faith, but IMO are a solution looking for a problem. CSD criteria may appear complex for the reader or article creator, but by and large, qualified reviewers, and certainly admins, have a good grasp of them. (That said, what we possibly need are 2036:

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

2874:

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

6179:

We're not a webhost. The reasons why G13 exist are real and pressing and laid out above by others. I'm in favor of something that's not speedy deletion but absent replacing it with a new kind of PROD, I would be opposed to trying to get rid of G13 completely. Best,

3929:

In the section defining the criteria it doesn't mention anything about whether the template is unused or not. On the other hand the default deletion message seems to be "Unused, redundant template". I think one of these should be changed to avoid further confusion.

7968:

even suggest that G13 is more disliked than other criteria, but by no means proves that it's "more trouble than it allegedly takes away." Another way to read it is that, after having a G13/draftprod discussion every few months, the stick has yet to be dropped. ~

9503:

Editor A is indefinitely blocked for making a legal threat (or anything else for that matter). Editor B is a new account created later and is a sock of Editor A. Editor B creates a page. That page is G5able. The nature of the block of the sockmaster (Editor A) is

3390:

MfD has three outcomes, not just two: 1. Delete. 2. Keep as a valid article, i.e. it is no longer merely a draft, it is now an active article. 3. Leave as a draft, a draft not yet ready for mainspace. "Leave for G13" is not only pretty explicit in its intention

142:

I think an edit automatically resets the clock. But i don't think resubmitting without any changes count as it was declined in the first place and abandoned until being tagged for G13. I have seen cases where authors just add a "." then the G13 gets reverted.

6807:

File: Can't think of any instance where this would help. Sure, you might argue for "I don't know what's in the file; it should be speedily deleted!" But other stuff like abstract art and peculiar sounds recorded from strange occurrences would also fall under

8109:, should the deletion be done (assuming no substantial edits by other users) or should tha tbe considerd a page of administrative value to the project, like a user's primary user talk page, and not subject to G7 speedy deletion. I declined a speedy today on 6512:

We're at a point on Knowledge where the important stuff will be covered already. If there's a draft that languishes for six months that no one works on, the topic may be Wiki-notable in theory, but not real-world notable enough to have anyone care about it.

5414:

Additionally, Draft articles are searchable. If a new editor starts to write an article on the same topic, but then notices that an article with that name already exists, that editor can directly proceed with a headstart and a template to edit that article.

7207:

all of these changes for largely the same reasons. While there is overlap in general ideas for each of the proposed merges, there are enough nuances and differences to merit each remaining distinct. SoWhy's U1 and G7 is a great such example of these. Best,

5331: 5321: 5036: 1784:

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.

3493:

There is no need for consistency here. They include or do not include the text based on the criteria. G8 and R2 are both technical criteria that a page objectively either does or does not meet. There is no subjective decision making there. F11 is ... not

2433:

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

2049:

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).

1376:

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.

6954:

Not to pile on, but I also believe that this would be a bad idea per SoWhy and DESiegel. While you could make exceptions with certain namespaces as is done with R2 more and simpler criteria are generally better than fewer and more complex criteria. –

7782:

Hasteurbot Task 14 is just the procedural "May I resume running Tasks (Nominate for Deletion), Task 2 (Remind people before the G13 eligibility date), and Task 9 (Inform editors who have edited a page who opt in that a page is coming eligible soon)

4676:

closed. It's clearly in the same scope as the other templates, so I likely would have been within my rights (and a little bit of IAR) to delete the 2019 template, but I left it out of an overabundance of caution. Would I be justified in deleting it?

2840:

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.

9563:

To qualify in the case of a ban, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other

745:

There was supposed to be a bot warning authors of upcoming G13 eligibility, and then doing the G13 deletions, and notifying the author, with nicely wordsmithed language, of the deletion and of how they can freely and automatically get it back via

332:

the place with the most people who are familiar with notability; the place against whose standards the AFC draft acceptance process is supposed to be measured against) would make more sense than sending it to MFD. We don't have an ideal system.

9488:

TLDR, this is at best an errant bit of stray text that is entirely redundant to the bullet point immediately above it. At worst its giving editors blocked for harassment, legal threats etc. permission to keep creating sock articles indefinitely.

2304:(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 1278:"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). 9751:(I agree, but,) my argument could be: An editor is blocked indefinitely for spamming. They create a sock and the sock creates an article on a long forgotten painting by a long dead painter and gets it to a level that is suitable for, say, GA 585:, indeed AFD is a bit understaffed, but I don't see why people interested in discussing drafts couldn't be drafted (haha) to go over there and help out, leaving MfD for stuff that really isn't an encyclopaedia article or intending to be one. — 689:-able, were it not for a single edit made in March, which deleted one character of whitespace. Are we really at the point where somebody can keep a draft alive forever just by making single-character whitespace changes every few months? -- 620:

AfD is much more work per page than MfD because MfD doesn’t examine questions of notability. MfD doesn’t consider notability of drafts because that is the whole point of the draft being in draftspace, the question of notability is uncertain.

7624:

Unfortunately, WikiProject taggings are near useless, because the tagging is done not by WikiProject members. It kind of devalues the meaning of the tag. However, they do make it easy for WikiProject members to patrol just these drafts.

2525:

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

2529:): 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 1646: 1510:

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

1347:

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.

2810:

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

9554:

To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other

2315:, 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. - 7599:

I think most WikiProjects are inactive. In a WikiProject, inactivity drives inactivity (and vice versa), but I think bot-delivered deletion warning notices of low quality abandoned pages is more "nails in the coffin" than "activity

2045:, 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 2590:

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.

8925:

Is is possible for a non-admin to evaluate whether G4 applies to an article, when they are unable to see what the deleted version of the article looked like for purposes of comparison? Obviously, this would be clear if there was a

7395:

circumstances when a given CSD does or does not apply, matters. Without new/revised detailed text, the proposal has no value. Without considering the current text and how it would be changed, the proposal ignores negative effects.

7095:(the user with the eponymous user page and its subpages) makes the request. These may be two distinct persons (anyone can create a page in anyone else's userspace), so a merge of the criteria would only make things more confusing. 5410:

If a new editor encounters an abandoned non-deleted draft article directly, which can even happen after years, he can immediately proceed to keep editing it, and eventually making it mature enough to enter the the main name space.

1950:

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".

1841:

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

7758:

The Thailand example is easy. But most of the assigned projects will be no more specific than living people, or companies. each of them is about 40% of the overall number of drafts, biut even geting it down that far will help.

360:

I concur. AFC has very large backlog. Getting rid of the drafts that don't get improved, is one way to clean up Knowledge. Knowledge is not a indefinite web hosting website. Of course, promising drafts should be G13 postponed.

9918:

There is a rough consensus against merging F9 into G12. The primary argument for supporting a merge is that it is redundant to have two "Unambiguous copyright infringement" speedy deletion criteria (one for images and one for

6801:

think that an "identifiable subject" might be better for mainspace: if there is no way (looking only at the content of the article, not the title) that the subject can be reasonably identified, the article is fit for deletion.

910:

of the draft with your sandbox, but I can't even do that because you've re-used your sandbox page for many different articles over the years. The history would be a total mess. What I'm going to do is delete the draft under

5135:: having G14 apply to these redirects (as currently done) works fine, as they are technically also "disambiguation pages that don't disambiguate". I don't feel particularly strongly about this though, hence my "weak" !vote. 5099: 3257:

If no one is watching the draft then it should be deleted. If someone cares enough to watch the draft and remove the notice then it's not really an abandoned draft. The objective criteria could be the same as for G13. Best,

9549:

Ah, I finally got what you're saying. Sorry it took me so long. Part of the problem is I never use G5 for ban-related pages, only for socks. If we're going to change the language, I suggest something a bit more to clarify:

4932: 4887: 8530:...but what happens when the whole article, consists of nothing but statements that are unverified, "verified" by unreliable source, contradicts the cited source, etc? When it is clearly obvious, that there is absolutely 3219:

I continue to think that G13 should be turned into a Draft PROD. If there are webhost issues MfD is more than capable of dealing with it. Otherwise what's our rush to get rid of eventually encyclopedic information? Best,

258:

It seems like there should be some.time provided between notification of a G13 and deletion. I'm not a machine. As far as resubmitting Plymouth Tube, why isn't it notable? Take it to a.deletion discussion and let's get a

3789:

Maybe. Maybe give it a minute to see how many people think my off-the-cuff suggestion is silly. I probably won't be here for it. I'm going to live in a tent for a little while and will have little to no internet access.

9685:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. This includes pages created by a topic-banned user under that particular topic.

9450:

I have trouble following you, but if you want to change the language to "must be a violation of the user's specific ban", that makes no sense as blocks and bans are not the same and are correctly treated differently by

5978: 2244:

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.

9523:

says: "To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion."

8114: 8110: 1594:

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

9281:

have totally irrelevant content on them as per the wikipedia policy. I seriously cannot find any particular reason to even create such pages. I am deleting a page with tag of pure vandalism. I just want to be sure.

901:

is a copy-paste of the draft, which is something we don't want because it messes up the attribution history. Should your sandbox page ever get put back into mainspace, it won't have the right history as required by

5715:

by default, meaning the only way to search it is using Knowledge's own search function. This is by design, for the reasons SmokeyJoe spells out above and because, for the most part, a good chunk of these drafts are

4211:

is correct that such redirects can simply be correct, but IMO is wrong to advise agaisnt "complaining" It is always appropriate to remind admins who have done out-of-process actions that they acted incorrectly. See

3904:

eh, good point - still leaves out the blanket statement as referenced by GMG above. And IMO it wouldn't hurt to be specific on the templates as well. Better to spell it out clearly rather than trust to implication.

10379:

as proposer (Sort of). I believe these are ones that definitely can be merged, as the one no stock clause can just be added to G12 and it covers everything F9 does. Most F9 deletions could easily be G12 deletions.

7937:

of rules / criterias, while G13 is just one out of the 14 “G” (general) CSD criterias, which is one of the subcategories. But what I meant was that I am certainly not the only one who holds this rational position.

1300:

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.

6811:

User: Not a good idea to delete user pages unless they are obvious and pure vandalism, advertising, using Knowledge as web hosting, etc. This would already fall under other criteria. No need to make a new G15 for

6796:

Talk namespaces: If the corresponding page exists in whatever namespace, it should not be deleted. If it is patent nonsense, it can just be blanked. Just removes page history and clogs the creation log to have it

6624:

So, I thought that it might be possible to simplify the CSD criteria, and make it easier for new users to grasp them. So, I am proposing a rewrite of the CSD criteria. Here's a list of the changes I am proposing:

1575:

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

960:

Does a page in the User: space, not associated with a registered user account, qualify for speedy deletion? If so, which criteria apply? If not, should it go to RfD process? (Suppose, for example, someone created

2292:

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

1602:

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.

7178:

these proposed changes. The criteria need to be "objective" and "uncontestable" which necessitates that some have similar purposes but for different uses. For example, G7 is to request a page to be deleted that

5325: 1550:

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.

1196:

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

3420:". Move it now to mainspace. Notable topics can should be created as stubs, and with an community discussion producing a consensus in support, there is no good reason to hide it in draftspace. Beware extreme 2575:

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.

1202: 1198: 9384:

To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

7360:- while there is good rational reasoning behind these changes, I find both the justifications for the status quo provided by others to be sufficient, as well as a major disruption as we adjust to the change. 5109: 3170:

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

9001:

G4. You can look at the google cache copy of the article, but it is unreliable because it may not be the version that was deleted. You may be looking at a version that was later improved and then deleted.

5334:

should also be renamed to remove the unused part as it isn't mentioned in the actual criteria. I think this could be done without a CfD as it misrepresent policy and consensus for such changes were shown at

1648:(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). — 1105:) 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 10907:

is broadly applicable to normal deletion too. If you're not, though, tagging the page for speedy is a really bad idea even if you simultaneously mail oversight - there's mirrors that preferentially scrape

4673: 803:

updating the project templates on the talk page. And it annoys me that this then caused it to pop up on my watchlist, leading me to spend time again looking at it to figure out why it looked familiar. --

10294: 8890:

as per Kusma, SmokeyJoe and others above. I particularly agree with SmokeyJoe about the distinction between verifibility and verified. We get too much automatic demand for a cite after every sentence now.

5825: 5757: 5192:. 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. 861:

Olympics, I didn't want to write from scratch or disturb another admin if it gets deleted again. Please feel free to delete the draft article, as I already have it in my sandbox and apologies once again.

8454:

rework the user page would seem a better choice in many cases, depending on the exact content of the user page in question, and the newer the user the more this would seem to hold true. Do you disagree?

7292:

special cases, but it would be a lot less useful. Most of these proposals have a similar problem. Some of then would also make major changes to the applicability of the criteria, and not in a good way.

567:

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but in general adding more things to AfD gets shot down because the venue is already too busy for everything currently nominated to get enough attention.

3978: 3542:

have the authority to force the page to be kept of User 2 wants it deleted.) Granted, most U1 cases are also G7 cases (in which this is irrelevant), but there is definitely a reason for the inclusion.

1218: 1086: 1082: 2334:

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

1969:

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.

157:

Any human edit, no matter how trifling, should reset the clock. But that's only natural: the criterion is content-blind (it applies regardless of quality or potential of the draft), so it needs to be

6459: 5430: 1790:"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. " 734:? No. Does this include a bot removing a non-free image or mainspace category? Probably no. Does this include a failed MfD nomination? Yes, even if the MfD nomination is "keep, leave it for G13". 8547: 3324:. Mere NOTWEBHOST violations do little harm in that hidden space called draftspace, and non-objective deletion of false positive does harm. The system is working well, is it not? DraftPROD fails 6458:

draft articles are questionable, and I never did. The problem is that I imagine that if I died tomorrow for any reason (e.g. road accident), and no editor happens to find the well-crafted article

7416:

simple criteria not a shorter list of broad complicated ones. Indeed some of the current criteria are already too broad (G6 being the worst offender) so we should be looking to split not combine.

8811:

I wasn't saying that it does, nor does it have to, for the purposes of what I was arguing there. It does say that it may be removed or fixed (with a clear preference for the latter, certainly ...

8324: 7494: 10538: 10514:

Notice how the similarities don't stop at "copyright infringement", but also includes mention of compatible licenses and lack of fair use. The "Getty/Corbis" argument I made was taken from the

6279:

Knowledge does not want to host masses of hopeless worthless pages with problem pages interspersed amongst them. A long-live repository of drafts would be the making of a shadow wikipedia. --

5747: 5511:

and copyrights violating material. More than can be reasonably expected of volunteers to review. It is hard enough to review every submitted draft, let alone every page created and abandoned. —

3677:

aimed at newbies, and no one bothered to update the rest because newbies generally don't deal in U1, or R2, or most of the criteria. (Also, everyone please dial the attitude down 1.7 notches.)

1643: 9377:

page creations made by sockpuppets (except own user talk page edits) would seem to be a violation of the user's "specific block." Therefore the distinction doesn't seem to make a difference.

5348: 4987: 4409: 3811:

Yeah, I think you're good. No one has commented in days. Ping me when you get back, we'll work on updated boilerplate, put it in a new section, and list on CD, and let the masses decide. :=)

8151: 5689:

or divulging personal information on another”, and it is not practical to ask someone to check them. For a time, some were trying to put all through MfD, which was completely ridiculous. --

501:

PROD is worse than CSD because PROD, unlike CSD, is not objective but instead relies on watchlisters. Draftspace doesn’t have watchlisters, and so draftprod amounts to a non-objective CSD. —

4107: 795:

It annoys me that somebody asked me to expend the effort to undelete and draftify it for them, then never did anything with it. It annoys me that having it exist in draft space also caused

10453:

You're going to need to propose wording for us to pick apart first. In particular, the real difference between text and image copyvio speedy deletion has nothing to do with stock images. —

9474:

line was rightly deleted soon after it was added because it guaranteed socks could go on creating more articles forever if creating articles wasn't what got them banned in the first place.

5828:

are exempt from eventualism. I doubt that if that article got swallowed by the black hole of G13, it would ever be recreated in that unique form anytime soon. Also, as much as there can be

5421:

And if the new editor creates the article about the same topic/thing , he will not notice that such an article already existed as a draft that could have given the new editor a head start.

8954:

of the old article. In any event, only an actual admin can perform the deletion, so it will be done by someone who can check. If you are unsure, you can always ask an admin to take a look.

8502: 10641:

I've removed some of the material that was excessive and managed to accidentally patrol the draft as well. I think the "excessive info about minors" thing is handled under G6, usually...

9127: 8481: 5746:

and can still be used as a head start for the new editor. Also, draft articles show up in search suggestions and from uncreated articles in the article namespace with the same name. e.g.

6545: 4098:

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?

9849:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users, and that have no substantial edits by others. This includes pages created by a topic-banned user under that particular topic.

8396:, I take your point. I am curious—what period of inactivity do you consider to be sufficiently "long ago"? I was thinking a year but am curious to hear others perspectives. Thanks, -- 6996:

I fully agree with Hut 8.5. There aree good reasons why these have specifics, and the general idea does not apply everywhere. In particular it should not apply in draft or user space.

5575:

Personally, I was content for all old unedited drafts to be blanked, forever available in the history but not live at a standard url, but that argument of mine didn’t gather support. —

3478:

more consistency here would be a good thing, or if not, then verbiage stating the creator can remove the tags should possibly be added to either the CSD page or the template, or both.

1695: 5525:

I fail to see how that is an argument for G13. If a draft is a serious BLP or copyvio violation, it should be removed immediately, not languish around for another six months. Regards

4966: 3052: 8240: 8221: 8199: 7800: 6019:

completely. G13 simply buries too much useful content. To deal with the inevitable deluge of garbage, however, a draftprod should be instituted to summarily delete bad drafts. Best,

3424:, that is not how Knowledge was created, but is how other online encyclopedias failed. In mainspace, mainspace editors will fix things. In draftspace, the drafter works alone. -- 8882: 8181: 6825:

Category: I could see this applied to a category whose content isn't coherent, but an administrator with limited information might use this reasoning and delete a suitable category.

5465: 5299: 4734:

My question is not so much about the 2019 recreations of the two that were deleted in 2017; it is whether the 2017 CfD may be used to justify a G4 speedy of similar categories that

4076: 3128: 2566:

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

1362:

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-(

8614:

If it's spreading clearly incorrect information, I would think that G3 (hoax/pure vandalism) might apply. Otherwise, a delay of a week for AfD probably isn't the end of the world.

7109:

These are fundamentally different. At the moment you can request the deletion of pages in your userspace even if other people have contributed to them. This would get rid of that.

6728:

This is certainly a bad idea in draft space or user space, and in many cases in project space. And exactly how would this new G15 be worded? I don't think this is a positive idea.

3663: 10609: 7571:

Alternatively, the tagging-to-deletion delay scheme would also allow implementation of such warnings through Article Alerts, which would avoid cluttering a project's talk page. --

6553:

why not move to mainspace or find a redirect? Also, let's not forget about userspace drafts, where more web-hosts are common. The policy should cover USD's as well in my opinion.

3288:

Why default to keep it 6 months? Because drafters are told that is what will happen. It is perfectly reasonable for them to take a few months break, and to come back and resume.

2198: 8315: 5779: 3115: 1526:

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.

410: 9393: 9051: 7647: 7634: 7454:

except for F9/G12 merger. To rehash what I said above, while it's good to not have too many criteria, more simpler criteria are preferable to fewer more complicated criteria. –

5061:"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 3820: 3806: 3784: 3769: 3747: 3732: 3707: 3693: 3530: 3515: 3411: 3143: 3070: 8276: 7662: 7594: 3024:

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.

7896: 4666: 4656: 3487: 1705:. The multiple RfCs on portals, including their deletions, have failed to develop a consensus. Portal deletion is therefore contentious. In practice, most are experiencing 1612: 1546:

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

455:, pointing out that I don't (in your opinion) know the information that I asked you to provide does not technically constitute an answer to my questions. Let me repeat them: 9065: 8992: 8966: 7817: 3229: 3157: 1722: 1587:

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.

9365:

or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic. (

8760:

with): "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information

8143: 6846: 6760: 5931: 5896: 5851: 5808: 5726: 3846: 3041: 2124: 1477: 373: 10245: 9618: 9604: 9533: 9513: 9498: 9483: 9460: 9445: 9428: 9343: 9291: 9025: 9011: 8773: 8704: 6615: 6559: 6532: 6079: 5076:

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

4085:

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).

2268: 1169: 945: 884: 285: 9262: 8902: 8764:

It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."--

8623: 8609: 8584: 8414: 8345: 8336: 8053: 8025: 7990: 7187:, regardless of who created it. Oftentimes U1 will be about pages you created yourself but not always and merging G7 and U1 thus conflates two different concepts. Regards 6675: 6549: 6109: 4952: 4919: 4878: 4843: 4823: 4119: 3433: 2704: 2682: 2220:

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.

2210: 2191: 1502: 1453: 1386: 1371: 1357: 1342: 1324: 1151: 755:

If you find an draft under six months since the last edit, but needing deletion promptly (eg BLP, copyright) then delete it for the reason it needs deletion (eg G10, G12).

630: 577: 510: 341: 10558: 8444: 8400: 8373: 6872: 6713:

Expanding A1 to other namespaces is definitely a bad idea, it would open the door to, say, userspace pages being deleted if they don't make it clear what the subject is.

6232: 6056: 6042: 5367: 5248: 4062: 3551: 3202: 3188: 2893: 2605: 2585: 2548: 2519: 2479: 2409: 974: 9274: 8870: 7690: 6541: 6374:

Then, why not get rid of every article with less than 500 monthly views? I am sure that if G13 did not exist in first place, nobody would care. Of course, there will be

5500: 5317: 3914: 3899: 3628: 3598: 3584: 2770: 2249: 2239: 2224: 2059: 1921: 1771: 931: 870: 496: 447: 355: 268: 10407: 9182: 8861: 8828: 8801: 8168:

I have once/twice misfilled usernames leading to botched stuff; before I had my pagemover flag, I used to tag them with G7. Policy ain't a substitute for common sense.

7580: 6784: 6739: 6496: 6326: 6288: 6259: 6212: 6189: 6173: 6028: 5698: 5683: 5659: 5584: 5520: 5201: 5127: 5028: 4767: 3990: 3972: 3366: 3352: 3337: 3315: 3300: 3267: 3252: 3008: 2948:

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. --

2167: 1619:

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.

161:

content-blind (it stops applying once any edit is made, regardless of the quality of this edit). And submitting a draft for review is as major an edit as it can get. –

10650: 10183:

since the tweaking to G12 to include F9 criteria would end up with basically the same words as we have now. Collecting F based criteria together is logical and works.

9221:

Is G7 appropriate for File: ? In particular, not the content of the page, but the image file itself? Where this is a photograph of an artwork, not by the uploader?

8655: 8388: 8163: 8076: 7554: 6723: 6126: 5964: 5773:. And the reason for it showing up in the article namespace as it does is because it's common for articles that aren't up to par to be moved back to the draftspace. — 5631: 5608: 5269: 5218: 5144: 5008: 4750: 4722: 4708: 4641: 4624: 4610: 4367: 4333: 4299: 4265: 4192: 3092: 2656: 1435: 1417: 1183: 849: 811: 786: 712: 654: 615: 553: 326: 227: 10092: 9632: 9038:

that preserves the versions of articles deleted on Knowledge except for certain circumstances, which is what I use when determining whether something is G4-worthy. –

8465: 7953: 7917: 6437: 6393: 6358: 6009: 5291: 4686: 4227: 4018: 2994: 2957: 2869: 2854: 2823: 2792: 2451: 2428: 2378: 1523:

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.

1240: 1212: 1053: 1007: 10570: 10049: 9225: 9087: 8519:

On any Knowledge article, editors are allowed (even encouraged) to remove any unverified statements (or, preferably, to verify them if they can), and also to remove

7738: 7532: 7506: 6708: 6540:

Thousands of drafts are web-host violations made by users with no to little edits outside of that draft. I'll give some examples I nominated on these drafts: Should

4579: 2442:

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.

2098: 2078: 2018: 2004: 1978: 1944: 1899: 1881: 1855: 1832: 1628: 1310: 208: 192: 182: 165: 152: 10343: 10321: 10304: 10220: 10119: 9162: 6690: 6419: 5556: 5536: 4032: 1805: 600: 243: 10845: 10705: 10679: 10527: 10442: 9902: 9892: 9885: 9797: 9785: 9763: 9739: 9725: 9596: 9525: 9490: 9475: 9437: 9400: 9141: 9117: 7467: 7068:

See my comment below. U1 and G7 have different requirements. Anyone can block a G7 request by contributed significantly to the page but not an U1 request. Regards

5184: 5167: 4147: 685:'s request. At that time, a couple of substantial edits were made to the draft. In December, one more word was changed. That was 8 months ago, so this would be 311: 10830: 10801: 10778: 10552: 10457: 10367: 10271: 10152: 9408: 9328: 9314: 8290: 6103: 2985:

Hi Nyttend. Despite any differences in opinion, I believe that Andy Dingley should be able to express his views here without the threat of being blocked. Cheers,

2911: 2140: 1539:

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

481:

on it, increase Articles for Creation's workload? (NB: Not NPP's workload: AFC's. And actual "workload", not "pages existing without anyone working on them".)

10916: 10635: 9668: 8947: 8258: 7770: 5355: 4159: 1663: 1294: 10937: 10719: 10393: 10137: 10036:

as said above, I'm fine with this. (However, if I'm not mistaken only Hut 8.5 and I said anything about this particular merger, though we both supported it.) –

9828: 9244: 7792: 7369: 4490: 4460: 3642:

We might want to take a look at a few of the templates that don't have "do not remove" - but not the obvious ones like Housekeeping or User request in own space

1964: 10589: 10288: 10070: 9964: 8208:

Who needed help? Nom G7-ed the SPI page and DES declined, pending which nom MFD-ed the page, as a natural re-course and ST47 speedy-deleted. What's the issue?

4506: 4393: 3672:

The only problem is the blanket statement at the top of WP:CSD, when the actual standard everyone follows it the templates. In practice, everyone just applies

696: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 10175: 9656: 7425: 7386: 7217: 6649: 4176: 1019:

Thank you for your help. Despite being an old Wikipedian I'm still not familiar with the criteria list. I've surfed across it but somehow managed to miss U2.

10886: 10872: 10749: 10028: 9210: 7406: 7352: 7333: 7266: 4943:

and that target were a disambiguation page (it may have been at some time but wasn't at the time of deletion). I hope that helps (but I'm not neutral here).

4358: 4324: 4290: 4256: 465: 385: 111: 10448: 8405:

When this was discussed, in the archives somewhere, the consensus was for the time to be zero. An unacceptable CV is unacceptable the moment it is saved. —

7537:

While there isn't a holding period for most criteria I don't see that as a good argument to dismiss a hold. There are already two where a hold is standard (

7446: 7302: 7013: 6250:

bad content in a way that is relatively low in editor effort just in the same way that most of what is being examined is low in encyclopedic content. Best,

9970: 9397: 9389: 8666: 8311:, but I am thinking of inactive user accounts (no edits for ~1 year or more) that contributed nothing other than an autobiography or resume/CV. Thanks, -- 5984:

Also, it is possible that some users request the undeletion of a draft article just out of curiosity of the content, which is another argument against G13.

1566: 1029: 232:

Adding to this, if an editor systematically tries to game the system by making minor edits to reset the clock, the editor can still be dealt with. Regards

10196: 8307:

be appropriate for userspace autobiographies or resumes/CVs, in cases where an editor's only edits are to those pages? Obviously, one should take care to

7283: 7240: 7198: 6968: 2510:

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.

1333:

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:?

10162: 9250:

The G criteria apply to all namespaces, except where there are specific exemptions - such as User: space being excluded from G2. G7 has no exemptions. --

6819:. This one only says "edit," so it falls under G15 even with the title. Compare this to an article titled "Edit edit" and whose text is only "edit edit." 5453:

Rule G13 could cause legitimately good draft articles to fall into oblivion. No one knows how much information the black hole of G13 has already pruned.

1138: 296:, removing the speedy tag/resubmitting without changes avoids going through a completely unnecessary deletion and undeletion, saving time for everyone. — 10903:

That "instead" at the end is important and bears emphasizing. If you're an admin, deleting a page pending oversight can make sense; most everything in

8646:. I'd be very much surprised if we are getting lots of articles that cannot be referenced and cannot be deleted by one of the other speedy criteria. -- 3033: 2898:

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.

1561: 9868: 9278: 7520: 678: 133: 9577: 8134:

I think it is fair enough to honor the G7 if no actions relating to it have happened. After all it could be a mistake, or based on wrong information.

8128: 6303:– Then, why not get rid of every main-space article with less than 500 monthly views? Problem pages are already covered by the other rules. G13 means 3061:

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. --

1947:

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.

538:, after thinking about it for 5 seconds, discussing drafts at AFD actually sounds like not a bad idea. Has this been discussed and shot down before? — 9609:

Good, I'll leave this unchanged so others may comment. I'll also be off-wiki for a few days. No urgency to making the change after all these years.--

9268: 8298: 7007: 6573: 2215:

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

10010: 9712: 6991: 6927: 5860:

and other assorted policy violations that you mention. While it's unfortunate that time-sensitive material like that might be irretrievably deleted

3939: 2329: 1792:

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

1225:

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. —

7614:? There, they are not subject to G13, they will be better organised, and hopefully at least someone in the WikiProject will routinely review them. 7056: 6949: 6911: 5864:, it doesn't really matter what form it assumes when it does eventually get created. (And if the particular form was so unique, it might likely be 4006: 3953: 2977: 2747: 1258: 830: 820: 9664:, I’m more concerned that material that is created by a ban/block evading sock has to be kept because we need the article/the content is good. -- 5441:

in the meantime, that compiled information in that article would be buried and possibly withheld from future readers who find it useful, forever.

3398:

We should innoculate against G13 in case #2 alone. But if the result of #2 is to immediately move to mainspace, G13 would no longer be applicable

1843: 9107: 8095:

If an editor creates a sock puppet investigation page, at the proper place and in the proper form, nbut later changes his or her mind and places

6896: 6473:

The same also applies to other legitimate draft articles created by other users. I still can't comprehend why erasing a legitimate draft article

6160: 6154: 4797: 4616: 4514: 4498: 4238: 955: 9976:

I'm not seeing much policy-based deviation between F9 and G12. The only real difference between them is that F9 explicitly excludes images from

8790:

complements it by mandating that surmountable problems in sourcing should be handled by fixing the problems, not removing the material. Regards

3825:

Um... it took me a few days to see this, but I don't think any of the above is necessary. The "do not remove" is removed for templates where it

2351: 1440:

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

800: 7745:

The proposed Hasteurbot14 at the top of this section is a very good thing, and a improvement over the someone unpredictable earlier versions --

7621:'s DRAFTPROD idea that drafts are to be patrolled for marking junk; instead WikiProject members patrol draftspace for things that are not junk. 4088:

A user converts the redirect to a (usually promotional) article. This article would be eligible for A7 were it created initially as an article.

3148:

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?

4810:

If a disambiguation page is moved from "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo", then the redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" does not need to be deleted (

677:, which I grudgingly went along with. But, surely there's some lower bound? Back in October 2018 (10 months ago), I restored and draftified 9929: 6822:

Template: This actually makes sense: if there's no way you can identify what the template does from its content, you might as well delete it.

6628: 5175:

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.

3654:

Hopefully you can grasp my meaning now. If you are still befuddled, feel free to ask questions until you're clear on what I'm talking about.

7140: 7104: 7038: 6349:. It moves the problem from one space to another that would then require G13 to be ammended lest we have yet annother sinkhole of garbage. 6346: 4869:(assuming that "Bar" is a now disambiguation page or a page with a disambiguation-like function). Perhaps you could give an actual example? 3162:

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

2939:

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".

2364:

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.

7162: 7119: 6148: 2084:

about trying to reach some objective consensus as to whether it's better for the encyclopedia (remember that?) with or without the content.

8846:

for lack of references, it is not true that the vast majority end up deleted: many of them have sources added, which improves Knowledge. —

7079: 5599:

That said, old (seemingly abandoned) drafts in USER space should be kept all but indefinitely (the user might come back and work on it).

5373: 5313: 3963:

cannot be used for unused templates either. There is currently no CSD criterion that allows for the speedy deletion of unused templates.

3959:

state anything about being unused. For the record (and this is specifically pointing at the admins who just care about deleting things),

3441: 2557:

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

2288:

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

1987:

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

1402:

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. —

47: 17: 7681:

I'd certainly support notification at 5 months, I don't think a hold would do any damage, but the notification is preferable and easier

4972: 10861: 9123: 9071: 7248:

all as a solution in search of a problem. The current criteria are not really confusing, citing the existing numbers with a link like

10836:

that? Needs tweaking to avoid deletion of user pages where someone says "Hi, I'm John and I'm 17 years old" or some such of course...

10757:, should they be CSD G10'ed in the meantime or does the Oversight team take care of it pretty quickly? I just saw another one pop up. 2182:

If any editor in good standing presents a reasonable case against deletion, it should not be speedy deleted but should go to XfD. --

10904: 10534: 9991:

Despite the overwhelming opposition in the aforementioned discussion, most users actually supported this particular merger. Pinging

6197:– I am sure that all draft articles combined just require a fraction of the disk space of mainspace article's version histories. –– 5258:

Would this, and does G14, apply to rediects resulting from page moves from names ending in (disambiguation) to names not so ending?

10614: 8117:

for more info on the instance. I am looking for clearer policy guidance in such cases for the future, not to do a DR on this page.

7488: 4935:

should have been deleted because at the time of deletion it did not redirect to a disambiguation page, it redirected to an article

4904:. You tagged it G14 on 12:33, 6 October 2019 . and I deleted it as peer your tag. The move wqas done on 08:08, 20 January 2016 by 1070:. Would a nomination here and now be acceptable, or is there another way to mass nominate, or should I tag each page individually? 8778:

An article that consists solely of unverified negative information about living persons is already subject to speedy deletion via

7874:

G13: 121 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

6685: 7610:? What would you say to the suggestion that any Thailand-related articles tagged as being worthy should be moved to subpages of 6680: 1426:

I disagree. There is still a long distance between "a fundamental rewrite" and "there is nothing here worth saving or re-using".

1271:

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.

6916:

I agree with SoWhy. Moreover, none of these now apply to draft space, user space, or project space, nor should they. Poor idea.

5308:

I've had them deleted before the 7 day holding period and think this could be resolved by adopting the categorization scheme of

3343:

to think about whether or not we want to delete something before doing it - it's sat for six months, what's the rush now. Best,

2415:

patent nonsense or merely hopelessly inarticulate. G4 doesn't exactly supersede discussion, because there has already been one.

8720:

I don't really get, how you get the notion that ""Verifiability", not "verified" is the policy". I don't really get that, from

10912:, not to mention users and admins here who actively patrol it without necessarily deleting or untagging everything they see. — 7168: 6974: 4523:

process. Until there are sufficient articles to justify a finer division, please use the existing century categories, such as

10232:

it has been explained multiple times in this and linked discussions why the two criteria are not redundant to each other. As

2282: 1691: 1157: 9676: 6878: 10045: 9910: 9380:

If the point is to specify that the period of the block is relevant, this is redundant to the bullet just before this one:

9113: 9047: 8514: