Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

0 views

See also Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions for discussions which took place in 2006-07 before it was redirected here.

Merging F7 and F9

[edit]

Why are these criteria separate? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ 22:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate because they deal with different matters. Invalid non-free usage is not the same as a copyright violation. One has to do WP:Non-free content criteria policy and the other has to do with WP:Copyright violations policy. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: Template:Country data Kokand Khanate

[edit]

} please delete this (Template:Country data Kokand Khanate) i didn't know another template existed, this falls under G7, G14 and A10. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, G14 and A10 would not apply here, as to my knowledge A10 is for only articles and G14 is for disambiguation pages. However, I've tagged it to be deleted under G7 and G6 (as an error). FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] No no wait it's also G14 and A10 because it's a duplicate of Template:Country Data Khanate of Kokand- The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Right, but the A prefix means A10 is only for articles and G14 specifically refers to disambiguation pages and redirects ending in disambiguation I think. Either way, the page will be speedily deleted. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Criterias A4-A6 and A8

[edit]

I was wondering what happened to these missing criteria on the list of CSD for Articles, apologies if this isn’t the correct place to ask such a question. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The #Obsolete section explains what happened to former CSD codes. Iffy★Chat -- 17:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, will look into them. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)

[edit]

This criterion strikes me as controversial, being vague and subjective on the lower end. It says " that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." - But it is a matter of opinion. The explanatory essay gives a "Captain Obvious"-type examples: "John Doe is the President of the country of Wiki-Zeland". Sure thing. But what about "John Doe killed a mockingbird"? I say, for "tree-huggers" John Doe is a significant villain. Sages say "he who murders one man murders the entire human race" (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5) but this would mean that "he who murders one mockingbird murders the entire mockingbird species", right? But what is your say about a mockingbird-killer?

My point is that the meaning of "wikt:important or wikt:significant" for the purpose of Wikipedia must be clarified on the lower end of the spectrum.

Any opinions?--Altenmann >talk 17:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two-part test:
  1. Is it plausible that the claim is true?
  2. Assuming the claim is true, it is plausible that someone would recommend keeping or merging the content if it came to AfD and/or that there might be sufficient coverage of them to confer notability?
If the answer to both question is yes then A7 does not apply. It is an intentionally low bar. Assuming no other claims in the article, "John Doe killed a mockingbird" would get speedily deleted as while the claim is plausibly true, killing a single nonspecific bird is extremely unlikely to be notable. "John Doe killed the last mockingbird in Alabama" would not meet A7 though as this is the sort of thing that would likely get coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I was thinking along the same lines and I intentionally gave this silly example to mark the "lower bound" for the lower end. However the explanatory essay says something different: "B. assuming that the claim were indeed true, could this (or something that "this" might plausibly imply) cause the subject (possibly with other plausible information added) to be notable? Or, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?" I think your addition "...or merging the content" would be an important addition, because deletion and merging are drasticaly different outcomes. @Thryduulf: That said, would you care to update the explanatory essay and the policy accordingly? IMO application of policies should not heavily rely on essays: essays are not policies. Something into the policy along the lines: "A7 must be applied only if the content cannot be plausibly merged/redirected somewhere else" --Altenmann >talk 18:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think that would fall under "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion)", which is at the top of WP:CSD and applies to all the criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Right. I suspect nobody looks at the top when reading instructions for a specific tag, then next hour it is gone, and it is too late. Vague policies of this kind may be easily misused ad an extra caution in the description will not hurt. May be I am stupid, but I spent pretty much time in trying to figure it out. Not all of us are seasoned wikilawyers to know all books by heart. --Altenmann >talk 19:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] then next hour it is gone, and it is too late and then you ask an admin to undelete/userfy the page to keep working on it. I know your concern is the immediacy of the deletion (and that's not an invalid concern) but deletion is never the final stop. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that's my concern, because I suspect the number of really active wikipedians is dwindling. Even it is not, many active wikipedians I knew are long gone, so the numbers of watchful eyes is decreasing. In my watchlist 80% of edits are vandals and punctuation/formatting/typo-fixing wikignomes. I dont see why } will not do. IMO speedy is for something detrimental. --Altenmann >talk 21:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Adding something into a major policy like CSD is not something any one editor should do without first making sure that there consensus for the change first. In this case, as Extraordinary Writ notes, the change doesn't seem necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well, I beg to differ. --Altenmann >talk 19:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] You did request opinions... BusterD (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I did. But you phrased yours as a statement of fact, nail in the coffin, dismissed without contest. First you say, "seek consensus first", next you say "don't even bother". --Altenmann >talk 23:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Personalizing my choice not to offer an opinion is an interesting way to gather information. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, my brain is dizzy and I thought that your comment was from Thryduulf right above.--Altenmann >talk 23:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] My first sentence is a statement of fact, making it clear that any change will not happen without consensus. My second sentence is my own opinion in the discussion that will determine whether or not there is a consensus to make a change. You are free to disagree with my opinion but you do not get to demand that I (or anyone else) makes a change to a policy based on that disagreement. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] "Demand"??? Wow!. Goodbye to you all. --Altenmann >talk 00:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This user was once an admin? BusterD (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Let's not go there... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate draft shenanigans

[edit]

After the recent shenanigans at The 50 and this recent ARE, I am convinced that we need a new CSD to handle bypassing of the AfC process. Often, users will create a new draft on the same topic instead of rewriting the existing one (such as in the ARE for the topic of Deola Dada), and where the user cut-and-paste moved into mainspace an article that was draftified (in The 50 and at least three times for Deola Dada). I've also seen drafts declined because they are copies of an existing draft. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily see bypassing the AFC process needing a new CSD, as we already have processes in place to deal with it. Creating a new draft on the same topic in a different location is perfectly fine, just redirect the not-as-good draft to the "better" draft. If there are cut/paste pagemoves, use histmerge as necessary. Drafts should be declined if they are copies of an existing draft. What are we meant to be deleting here? Pages repeatedly draftified should be nominated for deletion (either by AFD or G4 as The 50 seems to merit). Primefac (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retire R3

[edit]

R3 is quite specific, designed for recent redirects that are not an obvious typo. In addition, interpretation of R3 doesn't seem to be quite crystal clear; I see only redirects with } deleted under this criterion, and sometimes random other redirects are tagged for deletion as an "implausible typo" even when they are not trying to typo-correct. I suggest Redirects for discussion be used for questionable redirects instead.

Should R3 be retired, as RFD can be reasonably be used instead? TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course not. Where's your WP:RFCBEFORE? —Cryptic 18:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite literally on my way out the door, but here's some of the stats you should have, at minimum, collected before considering this. 6.1% error/recreation rate is only slightly over our target, and I guarantee you RFD does not want to deal with another 4.2 MInster Stakes->Minster Stakes's every day from now until forever. Let alone forbidding this rationale from being used for moves while suppressing the redirect, which is likely the overwhelming majority of both R3 usage and redirect suppression. —Cryptic 19:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am sympathetic to this idea, because as I have said in the past, R3 is misused a lot. However, I'm not yet convinced that retiring the criterion entirely is necessary, perhaps an edit filter that warns on tagging/deleting old pages with R3 (and A10) could prevent most misuse? Also the opening statement is inaccurate. R3 is for deleting typos and misnomers. A redirect does not have to be misspelled to be eligible for R3. Warudo (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC) edited at 19:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "[WP:R3] applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are some redirects in other languages." (This is part of the Speedy Deletion policy.)
"[RfD] is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed." The former is about erroneously written Redirects. The latter about "problematic" Redirects, which is evidently rather beyond simple errors. One is lower court, the other higher court. When one of the two courts has, for whatever reason, fewer cases than the other, you do not integrate them into one court. It's just confusing. -The Gnome (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.