To what an extent is it acceptable for an admin to be performing G13 deletions (particularly a large number of them) on sight, that is, without anyone having tagged them beforehand and without the creator getting notified? – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creators should definitely be notified whether or not it is on sight, as they may not even be able to find their old drafts if they aren't notified.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• G13 is based on bright-line criteria (untouched for > 6 months - yes/no) unlike some of the other CSDs which require an opinion. As such a second-pair-of-eyes won't make any difference and on sight deletion seems fair enough. Notification, with the offer of WP:REFUND, are a basic courtesy... perhaps even a basic decency. Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea is to get at least two sets of eyes on a draft to see whether it's salvageable and should be deferred. (Besides which, anyone who watches WP:REFUND will be able to tell you how often creators can't figure out the names of their drafts even when they are notified.) —Cryptic 12:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• G13 deletions should be done only by bot. The bot gives the author a prior notification, and then the deletion notification that includes the instructions to get it WP:REFUNDed on request. Is the bot, once hasteurbot, taken over by someone else, not functioning? Ad hoc G13 deletions serve no useful purpose and increase the chance of bad G13s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (You're conflating taggings and deletions here. I know what you meant, but it's not helpful.)
    FWIW, it's been some time since I saw a G13 tag that was bot-applied. But then, the G13 category's mostly been tending to instantly empty by the time I finish reading through the first draft in it, so. —Cryptic 13:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bot is User:Bot0612. As far as I remember, its G13-tagging task didn't end up getting approved because there were minor issues that the bot operator, User:Firefly, didn't address as they had stopped editing by that time. This bot has another task for notifying creators, and that one seems to be working alright, but it only affects AfC submissions. Drafts that aren't done via AfC, as well as dratfified articles, don't seem to result in bot notifications, but the drafts get G13'ed anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Twinkle nominations and clicking the AFC script G13 nomination notify the creator just fine. Legacypac (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I object to bot-deletions of G13 because, disdainful of draftspace junk as I am, a bot deletion would lead to indiscriminate deletion of even good drafts that happened to not be edited for six months. G13, although it almost invariably is treated as such, is not mandatory. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I know, it's up to an administrator whether they want to CSD tag an article for someone else to delete or to delete it when they come across an article that qualifies for deletion. Should G13 be different from this? Natureium (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I asked the question that started this thread, the focus was intended to be on the without notifying the creator bit, not so much on the without anyone else having tagged it beforehand. There's always an element of courtesy in notifying people if any of their stuff is about to get deleted, but if G13 is different from other speedy criteria, it's the fact that the creator of the page can remove the speedy tag. You know, a G13 deletion depends entirely on the creator doing, or not doing, anything about it: the only thing making a given page eligible for deletion is the presumption that its creator has abandoned it. There's no way to find out if this is indeed the case unless you nudge them; How is a newbie supposed to know that anything they don't touch in six months will disappear? – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This should not be done. The notification issue is address above already. Another issue is that the page does not receive a tag. And then when it has a WP:REFUND it looks as if it has nt been edited for 6 months and then others delete or attempt to delete it again. In the history of the page, the log is not attached and others cannot see what happened to it with ease. I think there will be people willing to tag these pages for g13, we just don't need admins jumping in and deleting before there is a tag. So a page should be be tagged for g13 before deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There is general policy against bot deletions, or automatic unthinking administrative actions of any sort. The idea that G13 is different because it is readily reversible is absurd--it is rare that the original editor is still around to see it ,and quite unlikely that anyone else ever will. But sometimes the editor will be here, or will have thought to be notified by email of edits to his talk page. Warnings serve as a backup in such cases. (my experience is that about 1/3 of the time, the editor does follow up, and in 2/3, lets it get deleted) The very idea of deletion without warning (except in the case of vandalism) is antithetical to the principles of an open project, and even more basically, repugnant to the general concept of fairness (which it seems even non-human primates have, and is sometimes thought to be the basis of morality in general.)
  • What we instead need to do, is to resume the practice of one-month warnings, and then notification, and then discourage anyone or two admins who may watch to remove them immediately without looking at them. We've been mindlessly deleting drafts by G13 on subjects notable in the de and fr WP -- which have higher notability standards than we do in almost all areas. We've been deleting G13 for articles on famous people that the single editor who looks does not recognize.--and in at least one or two admins, would think it right to delete regardless of possible usefulness to the extent they make a point of never looking We've been deleting by G13 sourced drafts on subjects that are always considered notable, such as named geographic places. For the last month, now that I am free from arb com, I have been doing what I originally asked to become an admin to do, which is " to search for pages need rescuing," systematically in the deletion log. In every 100 G13 deletions, I find about 5 worth rescuing; in 100 speedies, I find 1 or 2. I would probably find twice as many of each if I also checked sports or popular music, where I am too ignorant to judge. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I only manage to get to it about half the time, so the true numbers per day must be about 20 – 30 G13s, and 5 - 10 speedies. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing DGG's findings I find a topic or two that can simply be accepted to mainspace out of every hundred or so on Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts. Someone should glace at the pages before sending for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two criterion, A10 and R3, that only apply to recently created pages. I have always used a month or so as the cut off. If it is older than that I don't think it is recent. Any other thoughts on the definition of recently created? ~ GB fan 18:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is too strict: within the last year certainly seems to qualify as recent to me. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's somewhat purposefully vague but that sounds about right to me, especially for R3. I try to be somewhat context-aware, though; I'd consider even longer to be recent in the context of an A10, probably even (somewhat) progressively more so as it appears more and more egregious and intentional. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think about the purpose: To enable legal attribution, particularly for copies outside Wikipedia. After a month these copies very likely exist with a link back to the name that is being considered for speedy deletion. The copier made a good faith attempt to attribute, but then a nominator and delete come along and trample on the legal rights of the people that wrote the page (at the wrong name) by deleting the assistance to find where it moved to. This is even more serious with images as they get moved to commons as well as renamed and can be very hard to trace using search. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider periods longer than a month to be recent for this purpose; for A10 if it's clearly inferior and has no content worth merging and is useless for a redirect and does not appear to be an attempt at a draft or revision for an improved article. Most of these are people not seeing we already have an article, or writing on a vague topic already well covered; for R3 it depends on the degree of implausibility and not apparently a good faith effort we might want to make use of. For this purpose, I interpret "recent" to be the opposite of "well-established". It's there to make sure that anything that has actually been around for a while gets a discussion, to make surethe impression of duplication or uselessness isn't a misunderstanding. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At RfD, at the Redirect project the "recent" R3 is always interpreted very conservatively - anything over about a month is definitely too old, with around 2-3 weeks being cited on some occasions (and not only by extremists). The issue is that there a great many redirects that don't mean anything if you aren't familiar with the subject area but which are but which those who are regard as (all-but) essential and a hugely significantly greater number of redirects that are not clear-cut in either direction. RfD is not overloaded and having a possibly implausible redirect around for a week or so is rarely going to harm anything (and many of the ones that would are caught by another speedy criterion anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Any page whom's subject is made up by the author is not notable at all, and as such, it should be deleted as hopeless, like we delete adverts, tests, vandalism, hoaxes, attacks and nonsense. Deleting drafts that are made up and have no credible claim of significance would reduce the AfC backlog (especially high at the moment) and discourage further recreation. I propose the new criteria be G15, since there is no D criteria. Thoughts? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan. (A) If it only applies to drafts, it should be among the D criteria. (B) Articles about neologisms that would probably be speedied under A11 in article space can be more tolerable in draft space. If G1/G2/G3/G10/G11 don't apply, maybe wait a while. (C) If we start speedily deleting AfC drafts for typical A criteria, draft space kind of loses its point. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on your first point: Proposals for a new D criteria a few weeks ago were unsuccessful (including moving G13 to D1). Not sure there is consensus for D criteria. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal D2 above was clearly a non-starter, and moving something that applies to draft and user space to D1 wasn't clearly a good idea either. I am not convinced the discussion shows a general consensus against D criteria. Compared to the completely useless P criteria, there could actually be some point in having them. —Kusma (t·c) 20:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of current drafts that would be eligible for this new criterion? Regards SoWhy 18:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a current draft but I can recall Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kingdom of Matthew City - ping TonyBallioni. I have to say I can't recall that when I used to review more AfC drafts that there were that many A11 candidates, but then again I mostly reviewed older submissions and A11 submissions would be rejected quickly before they made it that far. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support SoWhy has near zero experiance in Draftspace or MfD so of course has not seen these. I have seen plenty of examples. Most get shoehorned into Hoax or Spam but would be much better classified as "made up one day" I don't believe this change would result in may additional deletions but would much better classify the G11 and G3 applications into an easier to understand criteria. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead of commenting on my (perceived lack of) experience, could you maybe just present those examples for us to make up our own mind? Regards SoWhy 20:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not "perceived", it is an easily demonstrable lack of experience. 500 examples will never convince you to support anything that might expand a CSD so, why entertain the question? Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Legacypac: It is an ad hominem fallacy and is clearly commenting on contributor rather than content. Knock it off. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Combine with G3 per that MfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The whole point of draft space is so that users have time to find reliable sources to prove that their article is about something that wasn't made up that day. Is there really that large of an issue that MFD or G13 can't handle? Iffy★Chat -- 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A11 doesn't apply if you can assert that the subject is significant. That means an A11 candidate is not necessarily "hopeless", because the author could add claims of significance or additional sources. In mainspace that's a problem but draftspace is supposed to be a safe space to allow article improvement without the immediate threat of deletion. Hut 8.5 20:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also opposed to combining A11 with G3. They are fundamentally different in that one relates to good faith contributions and one to bad faith contributions. We shouldn't ever label good faith contributions as vandalism. Hut 8.5 18:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Combine with G3. I agree with TonyBallioni. A11 is really just a lowering of the standard for G3. A11 and G3 should be combined, and thus would be applicable to drafts. --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Combine with G3 by wordsmithing G3 a little. I actually came back to the discussion because I had the same idea. A game/term/club/stupid idea someone made up last week is pretty much on par with a fake topic someone made up. An A11 is just a G3 where the writer told us they made the thing up. We even have "Note: This is not intended for hoaxes" bolded in A11 because the concepts are so close. We just need to add a little text about "obviously invented" to G3. I can't imagine why any Draft that fits A11 would be or become acceptable. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume this supersedes your previous support !vote? Appable (talk | contribs) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, either option is good. I believe inserting junk you WP:MADEUP in an encyclopedia is vandalism and everyone knows this who does it. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Combine with G3. I have definitely closed multiple MfDs within the past couple years that have been dumb things some kid made up, stats for fan-created seasons of America's First Top Drag Survivor, or flat-out hoaxes, but because they're in draftspace, we have to either MfD it or wait for G13 to kick in. Why? We're not a webhost for inane bullshit, and hosting unverifiable made-up garbage is not the point of draftspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Oppose combining with G3, currently neutral on expanding A11 to drafts unless someone actually shows that this is a real problem. With all due respect to Tony, G3 and A11 are not similar. G3 implies bad faith editing by the creating user with the sole intent to disrupt Wikipedia by deliberately adding content that purports to be correct but obviously is not. A11 on the other hand applies to things that actually exist but were madeup by the creator or someone they know. To quote the policy as currently written: "Unlike a hoax, subject to deletion as vandalism under CSD G3 as a bad faith attempt to deceive, CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game or new word.". To put it another way: An article that reads "Floppersgust is a game John Doeson and his friend created on a snowy winter evening in 2019" is clearly not a hoax because the subject is real, just not significant. Adding these kinds of articles to G3 (without a real need to make such a change to begin with!) would just make G3 hopelessly confusing because it would then apply to madeup stuff and real stuff at the same time. Regards SoWhy 21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As Hut and Iffy mentioned, A11 candidates are not hopeless. It's needed in mainspace because general readers actively read mainspace articles. Draftspace is not critical; the only issues with A11-eligible drafts is that they fill AfC and MfD queues. Though I don't doubt that there are some number of drafts that would qualify under expanded A11, I don't see evidence that there are enough that it would significantly reduce AfC/MfD burden. Appable (talk | contribs) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm somewhat in agreement with SoWhy and Hut, and per usual don't see the dire need for expansion to draftspace, but my stronger opposition is regarding merging with G3. G3 is for pure vandalism. Okay, we've stretched that to encompass blatant hoaxes, which is fair because a hoax is really vandalistic when you get down to it, but incorporating A11 really just takes it too far astray from "pure vandalism." G3 is one of our most clear-cut criteria, and I don't think muddying it up helps at all. A11 works precisely because it's limited to mainspace, so I think keeping things clear (aka as is) is to our benefit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support expanding CSD#A11 to all namespaces. This includes userspace, which I support weakly but can not articulate a good reason not to. Do not merge with G3. A bad faith hoax is not the same thing as a kid’s inept exposition of their imaginary friends adventures. Different auto-messages and log records are needed. Possibly add a U5 style restriction, that the author has never made any real contributions. Personally, I’d prefer it if the reviewers would just quietly and simply blank these pages, but I get it that passing them over irks their sensibilities. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose combining with G3 per SoWhy. I'm flabbergasted by the support for merging A11 with G3. It seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's definition of madeup (as well as the difference between madeup and hoax); madeup is something that is real, but hasn't been noticed by anyone outside of a small group of people. One could call it a most extreme case of non-notability. A hoax, on the other hand, is pure, deliberate disinformation. It matters not whether or not the creator admits it. There's a reason A11 and G3 are separate criteria; madeup does not equal hoax. Madeup cases are usually the result of a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. There's a big difference between that and vandalism. Those that are bad faith are G3 as well as A11. There really is no need to merge two completely different criteria together. That would just muddy the waters and even potentially drive away new contributors (they may think their edits are being seen as vandalism). Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Draft:The Ashmole Wars has just been IAR speedied as WP:MADEUP. Not sure if this occurs often enough to justify expanding A11 to draftspace though. I just thought I'd point this out as it appears to be relevant to this discussion. Adam9007 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose combining G3 and A11per SoWhy, Adam9007 and others. They are fundamentally very different criteria and lumping tangientially related things together makes everything more opaque to end users and more open to admins and taggers getting it wrong or abusing the criteria to speedy delete things that should not be speedily deleted. Lumping too much into one is what resulted in the problems we have with G6 which we're slowly unpicking. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose expanding A11 into draftspace per Iffy and Hut8.5, this would be contrary to the purpose of draftspace as a place where articles can be written and developed without needing to immediately satisfy all the rules so as to allow time for sources to be found and added to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A11-eligible topics are not plausibly considered draft articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. A draft of a notable topic may start out without making any credible claims of significance but have one or more added subsequently - e.g. it may contain a claim that does not seem credible at first but is once a source has been added in a subsequent edit, or the drafter may be writing a biography of a person who did not become notable until adulthood chronologically starting with their early life. These are examples of the correct use of draftspace to create articles about notable topics that would be speedily deleted under this proposal. The proposal would therefore harm the encyclopaedia without bringing any benefit - if the draft is not finished G13 will pick it up, if it's egregiously bad then one of the other G criteria will apply, the few remaining examples that really don't belong and need to be deleted sooner than 6 months should be nominated at MfD where the reason for the hurry can be explained. Thryduulf (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a pedantic line to argue. All A11 articles might become FA quality with the next edit. Also, it is clear that we are not clear about the drafts needing deletion - these are fleshed out personal stories of blatantly non-notable things, like the child's imaginary adventure, or the school bathroom. The only fail to be G11-eligible die to a lack of promotion, as they are actually worse, lacking any purpose at all. Perhaps we need to say that page contains material that would never be suitable, not just that there is no material that is suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Combine they are very closely related, and can best be considered together. There are a good number of drafts each day that would fall into this category, and there is no sense in not removing them asquickly aas posible. --they are likely being used to game WP as much as because of vanity. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Combine with G3. New Page Reviewers already have to consign 22 CSD criteria to memory, any merging or reducing their number would help alleviate the thankless task of NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should a new CSD criteria (T4T5) be added for unused templates that meet the following criteria:

• Template is not used anywhere, I.E. has zero transclusions excluding templates own documentation of course.
• Template is NOT a substitute only template. Should go without saying but templates that are substitute only by definition should never have transclusions, doesn't mean the template can been speedily deleted.
• Template is older than 6 months. No speedily deleting a new template that hasn't been used just yet.
• Template is NOT a sometimes unused/temporary template. An example of this would be {{help me}} which may have 0 transclusions at any given moment.

Please discuss. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Practice shows that such templates are routinely deleted at TfD without much discussion, CSDing them would save effort. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• For the same reason it was unanimously rejected barely a month ago. Please read the "Please read this before proposing new criteria" box at the top of this page and do the due diligence of at least a minimal search before squandering the community's time with a formal rfc. —Cryptic 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cryptic: that was not a formal RFC, this is. Additionally, I added some clarifying criteria in this proposal, such as the note about substitute only templates being exempt. Would be nice to have the proposal discussed on its merits rather than based on a cursory previous discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The reason this gets suggested repeatedly is because it's a good idea. So much time is wasted taking unused templates to TfD when there is virtually no opposition to their deletion. Number 57 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - just look at the logs for the past few months, most (or even all?) of the unused templates were deleted without any objection. Regular nomination just clogs the list with pointless discussions full of "per nom" as there is virtually nothing to say. As these templates weren't in use, there is nothing to lose by deleting them. If someone later on wants the template back, they can ask an admin to WP:UNDELETE it and move it to their sandbox. --Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – templates aren't articles, so the CSD criteria for removing unused ones should be low. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – it's too difficult, because too bureaucratic, to have unused templates deleted, so many editors, including me, have given up. Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, for example, is full of unused templates, almost all blanked. The suggested criterion would help to get them deleted instead of leaving them just sitting there. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support much like we delete unused pages with just the article wizard text. Clear the clutter and focus management on the useful. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment should this CSD apply to unused Lua modules too? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It cannot be T4, because T4 has been used before and we do not re-use old codes. unless it can be demonstrated that each template to be deleted under the proposed criterion has never been used, either directly or as a substitution. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Redrose64: so you are opposing the entire proposal because it cannot be T4? That is a pretty simple correction... If it was T5 would you then support it? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Assuming this accounts for transclusions that have been removed as part of vandalism before the template is deleted, is not just used to bypass TfD in some way, and say around 7 days has passed after being nominated before deletion. Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Breawycker: great point. You can't just remove the transclusions and then CSD the template to game the system. If a template has a number of transclusions and you think it should be removed, that is a case for XfD. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such activity is a possible behavioural issue rather than a reason to not have a CSD for non-controversal cases. Anyway if someone changes a handful of templates A to template B and the gets rid of template B where is the problem? Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The fact that a template is unused is never by itself a reason to delete it, it's only relevant as a criterion by which to select a potentially unneeded template for further inspection at TfD (see also this brief essay). An evaluation of use, or the potential for use, of a template requires knowledge of its context, the function that it serves and the existence of related or similar templates. All this calls for judgement that is above and beyond what goes into dealing with the obvious, clear-cut scenarios that the CSD criteria are there for. A template can be "unused" for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe it's a useful template that nobody happens to know about, in which case it needs not to be deleted, but popularised and integrated into the project documentation. Maybe it's a template that is meant to be used only temporarily, for example until certain issues on a given page have been addressed (niche maintenance templates). It may be a currently unused element of a wider system that somebody might soon need (happens sometimes within the lang-xx family of templates). It may be unused because it was removed in error from the one page where it's meant to be used and nobody has noticed yet. It may be unused because the editor who tagged it for deletion has just removed all of its transclusions. It may be unused at the moment, but its existence may be assumed or required by some other piece of machinery (like a module) in a way that doesn't show up in its list of transclusions. A template may be unused, but it could hold the history of a fragment of article text that has at some point been merged into the article, and hence the template is there to preserve attribution. A template may appear as unused because it's meant to be substed; yes, such a template should be exempt from the proposed CSD, but how do you determine if a template's meant to be substed? (It doesn't always say so in the documentation; I remember there have been TfD discussions where several editors had voted to delete such an "unused" template until someone noticed it was a user warning template and so is always substed.)
  I don't think any one editor is attuned to all these possibilities, and that's why such things are better decided by discussion involving several participants. However, TfD does indeed occasionally feel like it's getting flooded with similar nominations, so something probably ought to be done about that. If new speedy deletion criteria are going to be part of the solution, then they should be about easy, clearly-defined subsets of templates; there could, for example, be a CSD criterion for unused navboxes that fail WP:NAVBOX. – Uanfala (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This helps make editing an easier experience by simplifying the set of available templates. The amount of verbiage and time wasted on discussing (but rarely if ever actually using) potential uses of these templates is vast. A template exists to serve the encyclopedia in some way (helping editing or reading) and if it's not used, in the caveats above, it should be deleted.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, unused templates can hold interesting history that needs preserving. Also, deleting templates that have been widely used destroys old revisions of articles. And per Uanfala. —Kusma (t·c) 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  "this destroys old revisions" is not an argument that TfD seems to be accepting: Template:Persondata was deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that argument is a flawed argument from its root, as the whole deletion process of TfD destroys old revisions all the time. --Gonnym (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is sometimes relevant. For Persondata, old revisions just have a redlinked template at the bottom. That is not a problem. Deleting templates used within the text (convert-like ones) is a much more serious problem. —Kusma (t·c) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Uanfala and Kusma. I'm generally not opposed to cleanup but the above-mentioned risks are clearly higher than the potential benefits. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've supported and even proposed the ability to PROD unused templates, since it takes a step out of the deletion process but allows users seven days to oppose and potentially discuss its deletion and use. Speedy deletion offers none of that. Nihlus 09:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some unused templates, such as {{Roads legend}} and {{Trillium Line route diagram detailed}}, are nevertheless permanently stored in template space, and they may be linked to Wikidata items which are structurally useful. I would support if there were a provision for certain templates – such as templates explicitly marked as historical, templates with incoming links from articles, template sandboxes, templates for which T5 has previously been declined, and templates which have been otherwise marked as ineligible for T5 – to be ineligible for T5 deletion. Jc86035 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While I think the basic idea is good, there are too many nuances and exceptions to the point where I believe a CSD to be untenable. I think the proper solution is to expand PROD to templates so the distinction becomes potentially controversial vs. uncontroversial, and I would support such a proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking I'd like to see template prod as well, but that's a discussion for a different page. --Izno (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that was not a template PROD but another CSD proposal disguised as a "PROD". A template PROD would be simply expanding WP:PROD to include (unused) templates. If you read that discussion, I had opposed that proposal for that very reason. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Either way, this isn't the page for it, was the point I was making. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the above opposers and the many previous discussions where a CSD criterion for unused templates has been rejected. Not all templates need to be used at all times (e.g. {{help me}} may be unused at any given moment), not all subst-only templates are marked as such, some templates should be kept so as not to break old revisions, etc, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  C1 exists despite the fact that Category:Wikipedians looking for help may be empty at any given moment. Why can't T5 be implemented in the same way? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per those above who have already highlighted many situations in which a template with zero transclusions should be kept anyway, i.e. there are good reasons why zero transclusion templates should not be deleted without prior discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Thryduulf: and a few others have made a very valid point that there are some templates that at any given moment may have no transclusions ({{help me}} for example). Pppery raised a good counter argument about C1 accounting for sometimes empty categories. This is why we have {{Empty category}}. With that in mind, I 100% agree that something would be needed to document that some templates may have zero transclusions at any given moment. I'm curious those who have objected based on this point alone, if we were able to account for this case would you be more supportive of this? I have added a new criteria to the top of this RFC to account for that case. It would seem to me that it would be pretty easy to add some documentation to the new CSD criteria that exempts templates that may at any given moment have no transclusions.

Additionally, I'm curious if there are additional conditions that would cause some of you to be more supportive of the idea? For example, if we said that the template must be at least 1 year old instead of just 6 months? Thryduulf thank you for raising that point, it wasn't something I had considered and definitely needs to be accounted for. A reminder, the goal of this CSD criteria is to expedite the process of deleting old unused templates that have been sitting around for a long time and are unused. It is not my intention to facilitate a method for gaming the system and quickly nuking templates someone just doesn't like. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64, SoWhy, Jc86035, Thryduulf, and Ivanvector: please see above comment. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition to this criteria is based on far more than just on that one point, and still stands. For example the older a template is the higher the chance of breaking old revisions. If a template has been around for a year without causing problems then I'm not seeing any reason why deletion of it needs expediting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question about an {{Empty category}} equivalent for templates, {{Subst only}} will account for most of the templates that have no transclusions, with the caveat that some templates use {{Substitution}}, which allows a custom message, and thus requires examination to determine whether the jist is that it's a template that must be substituted. --Bsherr (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still a no for me, the temporarily-unused template (like {{help me}}) is just one of the issues raised. I'm actually more concerned about borked page histories that rely on templates that are later deprecated. I'm not against deleting unused templates, I'm only opposed to doing it without having a discussion to consider all the angles first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Again? We just discussed this in December. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 72#Proposal to add T4: Unused. I'll just quote my comment from then:

Alas, this has been proposed, many, many, many, many times. The iterations sometimes vary, such as just for user namespace templates, or just for those "not encyclopedic", with varying waiting periods or age requirements. Just some of these discussions are: /Archive 72#Proposed tweak to T3, /Archive 10#Orphaned templates, /Archive 67#New criterion - T4, aka Template PROD, /Archive 44#New CSD - T4 Unused userbox that is more than 30 days old, /Archive 42#T4: Unused template, /Archive_52#Deprecated_templates, /Archive 22#Speedy deletion of unused templates?, /Archive 59#Gauging opinion on a possible new criterion for templates. There have also been several proposals at WT:PROD for this (reportedly four in 2007 alone). There seem to be three reasons this has never been adopted. Firstly, as pointed out by Tazerdadog, templates that are intended to be substituted have no transclusions by design, and a summary process like CSD is not efficient to distinguish those not transcluded by design from those by circumstance. Secondly, CSD is generally for urgent deletions and, although TfD is busy, it is not backlogged enough (with deserved thanks to Galobtter (above), Primefac and others) to warrant the use of a summary process like this, particularly since an unused template is not an urgent cause for deletion. Thirdly, that a template is unused is not, in any guideline, a dispositive reason to delete it; rather, it is just a relevant consideration; therefore, it would be egregious to make it a dispositive reason to speedily delete it before there is consensus on whether this should be decisive for a deletion discussion.

--Bsherr (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to echo what Tavix said, because he hit it on the head. CSD should be quick and straightforward — the least amount of judgment or gray area required, the better. This proposal would require users to:

1. Ensure the template isn't substituted
2. Ensure it's older than 180 days
3. Check that it has no transclusions
4. Check if any redirects have transclusions or history that might have been merged there
5. Somehow know whether this template may have been used occasionally but not right now even though it's not substituted(???)
6. Know whether any of its redirects may have also been used occasionally but not right now

That's nowhere near tenable for a SD criterion. A TPROD process might work, but this is too complicated for speedy deletion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I'm with Amory. Too many criteria for a CSD, any questionable template should be sent to Tfd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question: How many templates fit the proposed criteria today? Are we talking about 10, 100, 1000, 10,000, or more? An order of magnitude (backed up by a reasonable method of arriving at that number) would be helpful in this discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a first approximation, there's 90684 non-redirect pages in the template namespace that currently aren't transcluded from any other page that were created before 2018-06-27 (quarry:query/33701). So something less than that - the count includes subst-only templates, and template sandboxes, and template documentation pages, and so on. —Cryptic 23:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluding pages with names ending in "/sandbox", "/testcases", or "/doc" brings the total down to 83752. Further excluding templates that themselves transclude {{require subst}} and/or {{subst only}} brings it down to 82204. Even supposing that many subst-only templates aren't documented as subst-only, there's only 518284 total non-redirect pages in the Template namespace. —Cryptic 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I wonder why Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates shows only about 13,446 templates before it starts to list redirects (and why would it list redirects, which are cheap?). It seems that a better set of queries is needed, perhaps one or two that implement some of the criteria listed at the top of this section. That might allow people who want to take templates to TFD (or label them as subst-only) to have an easier time of it, allowing all of us (or most of us, at least) to achieve our goals. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the deletion of templates very annoying when reviewing old page revisions where they were used. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the criteria under discussion would prevent that from happening. CSD would apply only to templates that are unused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. This is for templates that are currently unused, not for ones that were never used. —Cryptic 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'll give a current real example to illustrate why I disagree with this proposal. At Template talk:URL #Infobox input may vary, same output preferred, there was a request for code that "accepts all input forms, then reformats it as needed into good {{URL}}". Eventually we've arrived at updated functionality in Module:URL and a new template called Template:URL2 that's much more user-friendly in infoboxes than Template:URL. Take a look at the comparison between the outputs and judge for yourselves whether {{URL2}} has potential, especially as it doesn't throw an error in an infobox that uses Wikidata (which may provide blank input to the template). But {{URL2}} is not used in article space at present, so unless somebody uses it in the next x days, it would be deleted under this criterion. What value does that add to the encyclopedia? What happened to WP:TIND? Why would I spend time creating potentially useful code if I knew there was a deadline imposed for somebody to use it? If potentially useful code keeps being deleted, what will you do when editors asks for new functionality but all the coders are too fed up with having their work deleted to bother with it? --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - no matter how many ways these proposals are dressed, I will stubbornly oppose; unused will never be a synonym for unusable (a criterion I would support) and it will never mean its condition is final, and so absolute that every potential for use in the future is also precluded (only its deletion can accomplish that). And, so too is it fact that a template's deletion, after discussion at TfD, does not remotely suggest that discussion itself is not beneficial, or even necessary.

  In closing, I'd like to say: I find the proximal nearness of this discussion to its most recent counterpart more than a little disturbing. I hope when it closes, its proponents will accept the consensus achieved (or lack thereof) respect the mandate in its remit, and stifle the inclination to be heard again. These matters are settled, their questions have been thoroughly answered, and enough has been vested already. Moving on is the only course to follow from here, please follow that course!--John Cline (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Mere disuse is a bad reason to delete a template, if for no other reason than per SmokeyJoe and Cryptic. If they're not problematic, keep them, since otherwise you're damaging old revisions for no good reason. Also, per Cryptic's stats, this would involve a very large number of pages, even after you skip the ones that are always supposed to be substituted, the new creations, and the temporary ones. We shouldn't declare such a large number of pages currently speedy-deletable, except after a big community discussion on whether such deletions are appropriate. Look at the way G13 was originally handled; it was much bigger than merely a conversation here. Unless they come out of a big discussion, the only way we should create new speedy criteria is if they cover a class of pages that is rare at the moment because the pages are constantly getting deleted at XFD already. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (additional to oppose above). Zackmann08 has recently TFD'd hundreds of unused templates. The results seem to indicate to me that, while many are deleted unopposed, clearly not all are deleted, and the deletions are clearly not uncontroversial. So CSD for them is clearly wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for similar reasons as in this recent MfD of unused templates: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused userbox template. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On occasion, I stumble upon newly created pages in the talk namespace (recently, for example, Talk:Antonios torbey) that look like attempts at creating articles when the corresponding article page is nonexistent, but do not use talk pages for discussion, and could be deleted under a specific criterion such as A7 if they were articles. It seems that G8 would apply (talk page of a nonexistent page); however, G8 seems too broad in this case as it does not address the content of the page. Interestingly, Twinkle gives the option to tag such a page for A7, but from what I understand, criteria for content namespaces do not necessarily apply to their corresponding discussion namespaces, and no other criterion clearly outlines what to do in these cases.

Thus, I ask, what should be done to avoid treating G8 as an umbrella term or misusing another criterion? Some ideas:

1. Apply G8 using its broad definiton,
2. Expand the article criteria to cover talk pages that would be eligible for speedy deletion as articles,
3. Draftify and R2 the resulting redirect,
4. Create a new criterion or sub-criterion of G8 along the lines of:

New article-like page created on a talk page that makes neither a credible claim of significance nor an attempt at discussion to promote the article to mainspace. This criterion would not apply if:

• The content clearly outlines a proposal to create an article (e.g. rationale, possible sources)
• There is a signature by the user or another indication that it is an attempt at communication.
• The page could be made into an article that would not be eligible for speedy deletion (for users who only created the page in the wrong namespace).

Thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this happen often? MfD would always be an option. One could move the page to Draft or Article space depending on how it looks, deleting the redirect if needed. It seems like a weird gray area that a one size fits all solution does not apply. The example could be tagged as G3 which fits all spaces. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I delete such pages under WP:CSD#G8 criteria. Similarly, sometimes I will see other misplaced (template space, etc.) attempts to start an article with content that would be speediable in article space and I will deleted them with an edit summary such as "misplaced CSD#G11 candidate". No one has ever objected and I can't image anyone so rules-bound that they would. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, G8 already takes care of those. I'm with Ed about other such pages as well: If a page was created in another namespace that is clearly meant to be an article (such as in Wikipedia-space), A-criteria apply to it as well because one could just move it to article space, delete it under an A-criterion and delete the redirect per G8. Of course, if the page is not clearly not ready or if there is possibly something to salvage, moving it to Draft is usually the better idea (similarly, misplaced user pages should just be moved to user-space). Regards SoWhy 20:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I very, very strongly disagree that moving any page to a different namespace just so it can be speedily deleted can ever anything other than a gross abuse administrative privileges. If we wanted the A criteria to apply to anything outside the article namespace they would be G criteria (which is why A8 was replaced by G12) or there would be an equivalent criterion (e.g. A10, F1 and T3 all cover duplicates). If the page was intentionally created in the wrong namespace to deliberately circumvent a speedy deletion criterion (with the exception of creating pages in draft or userspace for testing or development) then G3 (vandalism) would apply. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my comment: If someone created Wikipedia:John Doemerman when they obviously were trying to create John Doemerman, then it would be completely correct to move the page to the right namespace, wouldn't it? And if after moving, someone nominated John Doemerman for deletion, it could be deleted via AFD, couldn't it? If so, then logically A-criteria also apply. There is no abuse in such cases, merely combining multiple allowed steps into one. Of course, if the page was not created somewhere else by mistake, then you would be correct. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be moving talk page "articles" to mainspace if they're created there to circumvent WP:ACPERM. They should be draftified if created in good faith, otherwise use whichever G criteria applies best (only using G8 if there's no better option). Iffy★Chat -- 20:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of why it was created in the wrong space you should always be moving pages obviously created in the wrong namespace to the correct location - if it's good enough to stand as a non-duplicate article already then move it to article space, if it isn't move it to draft space. If it would be a duplicate article then move it to article space then redirect it. In other situations MfD is the place to go. We should not be using G8 in this situation - it should either be moved to article or draft space or deleted using G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G10, G11, G12 or G14 if they apply; if none of them do and you still think it should be deleted then send it to MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all very good as a general statement of principle, but a lot of the time it doesn't work in practice. If it's not in Draft:, User:, or mainspace, would be a speedy candidate in mainspace, and it wouldn't be a viable draft, there's no more reason to move it into draft than there would have been to draftify it if had been created in mainspace. To make this a bit more concrete, I've deleted 27 non-mainspace pages with summaries mentioning an A-series criterion but not G1 or G10-G14, listed at quarry:query/33689; and, while I haven't reviewed all of them today, of those that I did, the only ones I'm having any second thoughts whatsoever about speedying are the ones labeled A10. You'd seriously have draftified or mfd'd Template:Lillye (band) or WT:AB or WP:Kaifgames inc? —Cryptic 11:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I'd have draftified the first and last of those three, and either draftified or MfD'ed WT:AB. Chances are they would sit there until deleted under G13 without harming anybody or anything, but there is small chance they'd have been improved. If a page does not meet the letter and spirit of a CSD criterion then it is not speedy deletable, no matter how bad it is or anything else. If you think these should be speedy deletable then get consensus for a new criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any wording changes. G8 permits the deletion of talk pages that don't have corresponding non-talk pages, so your suggestion #1 is appropriate. The only time G8 isn't appropriate is if the content's actually good, in which case the page can simply be moved to a different namespace, and then the redirect can be deleted as housekeeping. Also, note that many such pages are tests, which are already G2-deletable. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to create a new temporary criterion X3, for Portal-related speedy deletions, has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3. PLease contribute to the discussion over there. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago WP:R2 was boldly extended to apply to redirects from the portal namespace. There appears to be some disagreement at least on what exceptions there should be. Could we decide on all that here first? Pinging involved editors: Legacypac, Thryduulf, Tavix. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace and Portal space are both reader facing content spaces. Draft space is for stuff that is not intended for readers. Links between Mainspace and Portal space and vice versa are fine but if a portal is draftified it is exactly like draftifying an article so the redirect should be immediately deleted. When there were 1700 mostly dead portals this was not frequent problem but now we have 4500 new automated portals that are being examined and I expect a bunch will be placed in some Draft holding pen out of view while consideration of their future is done. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, it is not clear that this is a very common occurrence that would require it to be covered by CSD. Also, draft portals can just be left in portal space. If they are not linked to from any articles or other portals, there is no fundamental problem with keeping unfinished portals around in portal space. The mass-produced automatic portals should be deleted, not draftified. Classic portals with many subpages simply can't be moved around in any meaningful way, so instead of being draftified, they should just be tagged with some template that tells any accidental readers that it is unfinished and that they should go read something else. —Kusma (t·c) 19:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals is resolved. I don't see the point in draftifying portals if they are going to be deleted anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Main → Portal and Portal → Main redirects should not be speedily deleted under R2 as they are both reader-facing namespaces with encyclopaedic content. Such redirects will not always be optimal but that is a matter that should be discussed at RfD as deletion is not going to be the best action for all of them. This means that, if R2 applies to portals at all (which I have no strong opinions about) then the main namespace needs to be listed as an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

agreed 100% with Thryduulf's refinement. I disagree with waiting because the nuclear option is not going to delete all portals, only many portals. There are a bunch of legacy portals that may well be draftified and dealt with seperately. I actually tagged a portal=>Draft redirect R2 but it did not display properly, then I tagged it housekeeping with a not it was R2 and that was accepted. I don't see this change as an expansion, more a refinement of wording based on the principle of the CSD. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about a separate bullet point for R2 that includes any other namespace to draft, so we don't get a bunch of potentially-confusing exceptions and includes anything that has been draftified (eg: templates, books). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Add the words "Also any redirect to Draft namespace, except from user namespace." This way anything draftified from any random spot (like I saw someone post a draft as a category recently) can be moved and the redirect nuked. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, redirects created because a page was obviously created in the wrong namespace are already covered under G6. —Kusma (t·c) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix, the question is why we would want to move pages from non-mainspace to draft anyway. I am unconvinced that this is a good idea, as many namespaces have their own special features. Draft books should be in Book space, just as draft TimedTexts should be in TimedText namespace. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "special features" argument just convinced me no Portal should be in Draftspace. It breaks them anyway. Can you make that point at AN against the idea of sending Portals to Draftfor more work? Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, done. One problem with the current portals discussion is that it is so fragmented... but the AN discussion should fix the main issue soon. —Kusma (t·c) 20:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can a TE tag (or an admin delete) Template:Editnotices/Group/List of countries by Yazidi population and Template:Editnotices/Page/List of countries by Yazidi population for speedy deletion under WP:G6? I can't because its on the title blacklist. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Catgegory:Molloy College alumni the definition of "recent" has been mentioned. While there probably doesn't need to be a strict limit, it would be worth adding a footnote to a general time. Per the comments at the RFD maybe "generally less than 1 month old" and noting that generally a shorter time can be given for redirects that were just created as redirects than redirects created from page moves. @Thryduulf and Tavix: Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the criterion "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created." (emphasis in the original) and in the context of page moves "recently" needs to be understood far more strictly than for redirects created as redirects as articles are more likely to gain incoming links from outside en.wp than redirects are. Something like "Generally less than about a month old" for redirects created as redirects, and something like "In most cases, around 2 weeks old or newer" for those created from page moves would get my support though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This was just discussed at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#What is recent?. I think 3-6 months sounds right to me, personally. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with Thryduulf's reccomendations, obviously common sense should be a factor to, a clearly implausible redirect that's 2 months old might stand a better change of being deleted under R3 than a less implausible redirect created 2 hours ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also be fine with Tavix's suggestion of 3-6 months. Anything longer than 6 months does almost always not qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common sense is precisely why there isn't a firm number, and why I would be wary to define one now because it would take away some discretion on the edge cases. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That RFD does indicate the problem with not specifying though. In that case I was tempted to (and wasn't far of doing so) tag it with R3. If Thryduulf thinks its 1-4 weeks and I thought anything up to around a year, that's quite a difference. IMO a vague pointer to not more than 3-6 months may be beneficial (again just as a footnote rather than in text). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am absolutely not fine with 3-6 months as that's way too long in all but extreme edge cases (if something has been around that long it needs to be evaluated to see if it has links and/or uses - not something that is suitable for speedy deletion). A hard number is not appropriate, I agree, which is why I phrased my suggestions using "generally" and "about". Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something I remember reading years ago which I found again is User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion in which #10 says "If a redirect exists since 2004 and you think it's implausible, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfD concerns a redirect one year old, which basically everyone agrees doesn't qualify as R3. I made my thoughts known in the recent discussion, but as has been said there and here, a level of discretion is valuable. More to the point, if you think there's a chance something might not qualify or there may be some concerns, it's probably better to go the XfD route rather than speedy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, if you have any doubt that something meets a speedy deletion criterion then it doesn't - and this applies to every criteria. The goal here is not to remove discretion, but to give guidance (not strict rules) for what "recent" means in context. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a porn host. Therefore I am asking if there should be a CSD that allows users and admins to 'speedy' delete explicit image that are unused, or which cannot be used within the context of encyclopaedia. This would in effect make the NOPENIS policy used on Commons a grounds for speedy deletion of the same kind of media on English Wikipedia.

The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'll need some refinement on what is considered unusable and for why, but it's a sensible proposal. Nick (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable explicit images (or those uploaded and then used for shock value) are covered by WP:CSD#G3 vandalism already. How common are cases not covered by G3? —Kusma (t·c) 17:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of existing media that would be affected is hoped to be tiny. See item #3 in the banner above about proposing new criteria. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusable" is subjective so can be dropped if that would make the proposal more acceptable....

To me unusable images would be (non-exclusive criteria) :

• Images that lack full sourcing, authorship or attribution as to where the media was obtained from, and who the creators were.
• Those that are of low technical quality, (out of focus, JPEG artifacts, badly lit) such that whats displayed isn't clear in relation to any provided context.
• Images that cannot legally be displayed or shared with respect to US law (with consideration being given to the equivalent laws in other jurisdictions, such as those of the uploader)

The following would not be "unusable" grounds within the context of the proposed CSD, but would be grounds for requesting FFD or PROD on an image:-

• Images where model or participant consent is not explicitly stated.
• Images lacking a detailed contextual explanation of what the media contains, the articles in which it is intended to be used, and what points or content in those articles it is intended to support (essentially amounting to an "explicit image use rationale").

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also WP:NOTCENSORED, so "explicit" is not a workable definition for a new criterion. Lack of authorship, attribution and source leads, in most cases, to lack of licensing information and is thus covered by F4 or F11. Files that are so corrupt that the subject is not identifiable should probably be covered by F2 already. "Illegal" is not something an admin can really determine and is thus not objective enough for speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can always just PROD the files ... {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How often do images like this come up at FFD? Do they always close as "delete"? Are we being swamped by them to the point that the FFD regulars are not finding enough time to handle the non-explicit images that are sent there? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an FFD volunteer, we get hardly any. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: As mentioned, I see where you're going, but most of your edge cases can be covered by perhaps amending G3 with an "images uploaded solely for shock value with no possible encyclopedic use". ViperSnake151  Talk  17:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  G3 already covers that, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: Uploading shock images [...] Regards SoWhy 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Out of the roughly 2000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. The speedy deletion policy is designed to reduce the volume at xFD. In the absence of a significant volume of problematic material, I can't see why we would adopt such a subjective policy with so many clear possibilities for disagreement. UninvitedCompany 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Out of the roughly 13,000 deletions I have performed, I don't remember any that would fit this criterion. Since what constitutes "explicit" is always going to be subjective—what's porn to you might be a noteworthy artwork or a useful medical illustration to me—such things are never going to be appropriate for speedy deletion unless they already fall into one of the existing criteria, in which case we don't need another. ‑ Iridescent 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the criterion is too complex and subjective. In my deleting I have not come across such images either, so they must be rare. Removal from articles can be done, and the pic left for FFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Which current criteria would cover images that if assesed by a competent legal professional as potentially "obscene" (with respect to US Federal law, and those of the State of Virginia) would have to be removed for legal reasons? (Also such images should presumably be reported to a contact off wiki.) ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: That would likely be WP:G9, since its up to User:WMF Legal to decide that content would have to be removed for legal reasons --DannyS712 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)WP:G9 - the WMF has a legal team, and it is ultimately their job to assess if something is illegal and so to remove it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If an image is unused & unusable, does it matter if it's explicit or not? "I oppose" is explicit, and I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. On the other hand, "I fucking oppose", is veering into obscenity. Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I was aware DAB pages that have a primary topic and there is only 1 other (WP:2DABS) can be deleted as unnecessary DAB pages. This was quite clear in the past but it looks like since G6 was split, the inclusion of situation where there are only 2 topics and there is a primary topic has been lost for some reason. See User talk:Patar knight#Ross Greer (disambiguation) and User talk:Sir Sputnik#Magnus Lindberg (disambiguation). I would note though that DAB entries that are red links and part title matches do still count as "entries" for this purpose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the plain wording of G14 as it is now, if there is a primary topic and a non-primary topic on a 2DAB, then it is still disambiguating two extant articles and ineligible for G14. My experience has been that they are then typically PRODed, so they show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Article_alerts for a week and gives room for editors who work with DABs to review them. This interpretation fits with the framework of CSD as getting rid of unambiguous cases and letting other deletion processes deal with less clear cases.

For DABs, those "disambiguating" one or zero DAB entries absolutely fail as DAB pages and are arguably actively unhelpful in navigation, while those with two entries do not. Those with two entries are more easily converted into valid DABs with the addition of only one additional entry or might be converted into a 2DAB page with no primary topic if the article at the base name doesn't have a solid claim to be the primary topic. Having a 2DAB page is at worst neutral, and an additional week to potentially save it isn't a big deal.

Looking through the history of G14/G6 I don't think that it ever explicitly allowed deletion of 2DABs with a primary topic:

• August 2009: Added to G6 as "deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages
• January 2013: G6 is broken out into bullet points
• January 2013: "unnecessary is clarified as "those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles."
• March 2017: "links" to zero/one extant article is changed to "disambiguates" zero/one extant articles.
• December 2018: G14 is split off from G6 with minimal changes.

My interpretation of Tavix's change in March 2017 is that linking the previous wording technically allowed DAB pages with zero valid dab entries but some links to existing articles, either in invalid DAB entries or a "See also" section, to escape speedy deletion. The new wording shows that the linked articles must be part of a valid dab entry, not just any link whatsoever. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a speedy deletion option for disambiguation topics where there is one clear primary topic, only one other topic, and for which the primary topic page already contains a hatnote to the other topic, with no link to the disambiguation page. In that case, any reader looking up the term is already going to be taken to a page with an existing hatnote leading to the other topic, so there is no point in the disambiguation page existing. bd2412 T 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully agree with Patar knight. Dab pages with a primary topic and only one other link are pretty useless most of the time, but the emphasis here is on "most of the time". Such pages are normally dealt with using PROD, and often enough it would happen that somebody might come along and expand the page with additional entries. Or it might turn out that the page is a result of a bad move. Or it could disambiguate between two articles only because of a previous overzealous attempt at cleanup that had removed valid links. Etc, etc. There are too many possible scenarios and too many nuances for CSD to be appropriate, and there are too few pages of this kind getting deleted for there to be a need for an extension of the existing criteria. – Uanfala (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Uanfala that extending CSD to cover primary+1 disambiguation pages is not appropriate. In addition to the scenarios they list, in some cases there will be people navigating directly to the disambiguation page where they know or suspect the topic they are looking for is not primary but do not know what its title is. Whether this is likely will depend on factors that cannot be judged by a single admin reviewing CSD nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add Permalinks to the AN discussion, the recently closed MfDs where various users expressed a need for X3, and the VPP where various users requested some version of X3? The discussion is so fagmented but the conclusion in favor of X3 is very clear. Also we are going to call it X3 not P3 even though it is for Portals. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed the X3 Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as mass created Portals now exists and pages get added when Template:Db-x3 is added. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of pages [1] there may be a better way to list them. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is - that doesn't list pages created before June 27 or pages created outside of Portal: and then moved there, and includes redirects and already-deleted pages. quarry:query/34239 (all pages) or quarry:query/34240 (omits subpages). —Cryptic 03:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useful Query for quantifying the issue, not so useful for tagging as the page names are not clickable and don't turn red as they are deleted. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this query what you're looking for? (Note that if someone else created the page at a different title and TTH moved it to the portal namespace, this query will show TTH as the creator, so double-check the history before tagging unless it has an obvious edit summary like "created new portal".) ‑ Iridescent 09:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac Quarry queries can be downloaded as a wikitable - see User:Galobtter/Portals by TTH. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent's and Galobtter's queries are perfect. Look at the creation rate - I spotted 5 a minute in some cases.

I'm not aware of any Portals created elsewhere and they don't work elsewhere (like draft) so page moves from outside spaces are not likely to be a big problem. He did rename a few Portal though so watch for that.

X3 does not address the equally problematic "rebooted" portals[2] or the approx 1000 built by other editors in exactly the same way using his instructions. I started building a list here User:Legacypac/not x3 portals but it is painstaking to check each one. Better to wait till X3 pages are deleted first as so many Portals one checks will go X3. Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently G5 is actionable for articles created by editors violating a block or ban. This is a personal block or ban: "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban."

Well, an undisclosed paid editor is "banned" from editing, not by Wikipedia policy but by the WMF's Terms of Use. This ban isn't directed at any specific editor, but editing without disclosing payment is blockable.

A discussion on the OTRS mailing list suggests that it would make sense, as an additional deterrent, to treat articles created by such editors as any other G5 article, but the wording of G5 would need to change.

We have the Terms of Use, and we have G5, and the purpose of G5 seems like a good fit for enforcing the Terms of Use ban on undisclosed paid editing.

I suggest adding after the bullet list in G5:

"In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created by undisclosed paid editors are candidates for speedy deletion under G5."

Or an alternative suggested by Cryptic below:

"In addition, because undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by Wikimedia Foundation policy, articles created by editors who have been indef-blocked for undisclosed paid editing are candidates for speedy deletion under G5."

What say everyone? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: I like the idea... My question becomes how do you determine that the user IS an undisclosed paid editor? I've personally accused someone of being a paid editor to later find out it was a high school kid who was just really excited about the product. Page certainly needed to be reworked, but didn't really qualify for CSD. I would argue this sort of article really needs to go through WP:AFD so that the paid editor status can be proven/flushed out... Now, if on the other hand, the editor in question is blocked as a result of paid editing, that is another story. Just some food for thought. I like the idea. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.

Can't support deletion because the criterion is not object, per User:Thryduulf. (we've been here before). However, something' has to be done. Counter proposal is to Quarantine suspected UPE product. --SmokeyJoe (talk)

Support toughening the current rules to better than toothless. Consistent, or even prerequisite of this, is that at WP:COI most of the occurrences of the toothless "should" are changed to "must".

COI editors MUST NOT edit articles directly; instead they may make requests and suggestions on the talk page.

COI editors MUST NOT create articles; instead they may use WP:AfC.

UPE editors are a worse-problem subset of COI editors, and the boundary is indistinct. Where a page is the sole product, ignoring minor edits, of a UPE editor or editors, an admin may delete it per WP:CSD#G5(UPE).

Post deletion of UPE product, if the editor later sufficiently declares and complies, the deleted page should not be WP:REFUNDed, instead, the COI editor may start again, ensuring that all COI editing has links back to a declaration older than the edits. To comply conservatively with attribution requirements, if they request an emailed version, email only the references (there is no creative content in a reference list).

I would like to go further, and require paid editors to use a special alternative account, named with the suffix "(paid)". Eg. User:Example (paid). This account must be a fully declared alternative account, linking to & from all other accounts controlled by the same person. The right to privacy is compromised by engaging in paid editing. Paid editing accounts must not be allowed to vanish leaving their product live in mainspace.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I don't support excluding Wikipedians in Residence or WMF employees. If they are making edits for which they are paid to make, they should use similar declared alt. accounts and suffixed usernames: User:Example (WiR), and User:Example (WMF). Not because they are problem editors, but to set the example for best practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Just as I support banning any form of paid editing (except WIR) and deleting their contributions. Making money out of the work of the volunteers who create and maintain this encyclopedia is dishonorable and unethical. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a straightforward and long overdue extension of WP:DENY. The only snag I can foresee is that proving UPE is hard, and it wouldn't be in the spirit of speedy deletion to use it when there's merely a suspicion. I'd suggest restricting the new G5 subcriterion to articles created by users who have subsequently been indefinitely blocked/banned for UPE. – Joe (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose. In order for this to meet the requirements 1 and 2 for a new or expanded criterion (i.e. only applying to things that it should) it would need to be restricted to pages created by confirmed (not just suspected) undisclosed paid editors, for pay (i.e. not other articles they have created) who knew at the time of page creation that they needed to disclose and have not, after a reasonable opportunity to do so, disclosed in an appropriate location that they were/are paid to edit, and the creation was not otherwise permitted by the ToU. Given that it would be impossible for a single admin to verify even half of this it is not remotely suitable for CSD. Even if it were, almost all the actually problematic content would be suitable for speedy deletion under an existing criterion anyway (failing requirement 4 with the remainder probably failing requirement 3 also). Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Thryduulf makes an important point. It would be fine to G5 known UPE product, but nearly always, it is a mere suspicion, at best a DUCK test. That is why I proposed: Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. Quarantine suspected UPE, blanked so that it looks not there, subpages so that "Quarantine" is in the title, but available for the author to defend themselves. Note that the proposal is rough with serious comments on altering the details, on its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: How about modifying the proposal to delete articles created by editors who have already been blocked for undisclosed paid editing? Often these are checkuser blocks. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SmokeyJoe: See SoWhy's point below - I would support this only if it applies only to pages that were created in violation of the ToU, which is not necessarily all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thryduulf, I appreciate that principle, you want to discriminate between UPE-TOU violators and other pedestrian COI editors, but how can you tell the difference if you don’t ask? And if you ask, how can you expect an answer with neither stick nor carrot? And why not chase the pedestrian COI editors to answer a few little questions? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can't tell the difference between UPE and other COI editors then that is another reason why this cannot work - I oppose in the strongest possible terms penalising editors for breaching the ToU when they have done no such thing. If the article is non-neutral then fix it or delete it - you can do this already. If the article is neutral then there isn't a problem that requires deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thryduulf. How do you tell the difference between a UPE and another COI editor? Suppose both are newish accounts, all they have done is written a draft on WP:CORP-borderline company&products, a couple OK sources, a half dozen non-independent PR sources, and another half dozen mere-mention sources. This is typical. I don't think I can tell the difference without a little free form discussion. The problem is, most do not even answer. I suspect most are UPEs, but there is no proof. What would you do in this situation? Give the suspect UPEs the benefit of the doubt, and let them through?
              Do you have a problem with OK articles in mainspace when they are the product of undisclosed paid editing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there is no proof that an editor has broken the ToU then it is completely inappropriate for us to be treating them if they have. If there is a neutral, BLP-compliant article about a notable topic in the main namespace then the encyclopaedia would be harmed by deleting it (assuming it's not a copyvio) - why does it matter who wrote it? If the Foundation want editors to rigorously enforce the TOU prohibition on UPE then they need to (a) explicitly ask us and (b) give us the tools to do so reliably. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Paid editing on Wikipedia is reaching crisis-level proportions and we need to deal with it as such. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please explain how your suggestion relates to the previous RFC. --Izno (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Over half of AfC submissions are likely UPE or COI edits. This could really cut down the AfC workload. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The way to make this criterion objective is to foist the uncertainty off on another process. To wit: the content should only be speedyable if its creator has already been indefinitely blocked as a paid editor. —Cryptic 02:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option 2 as it is clear cut easy to see. I'm going to suggest we try to feed a notice about COI and UPE to every submitter of content at AfC that someone might pay for. Maybe a bot can do that. Even if it get posted to editors that are writing historic topics etc who cares because it will raise awareness without accusing them. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose particularly at AFC. It is difficult to determine whether the writer is paid or has made a disclosure. So this is not suitable for a speedy deletion. At AFC pages will be examined to see if they are promotional or not. It gives a UPE editor a chance to learn they need to disclose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting a notification system to encourage disclosure. We would only speedy drafts at AfC created by blocked UPE users. Often these drafts get worked on by sock after sock so flushing them from the system would be a good thing. Why waste my volunteer time to ensure the UPE gets his/her paycheck? Why make it easy for them to violate our rules? Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose How do you tell that something was created for undisclosed payments? Idle speculation and "I think so" is not clear enough. Besides, G11 is a thing for spammy articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• G11 only catches the product of the most inept UPEs. Granted, there are lots of them, but they are noisy inept UPEs that will learn how to avoid G11, and G11 leaves no record for the non-admin reviewers to refer to when they try again, and again, and again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does no one like my quarantine idea?

* The suspected UPE page can't be deleted, because the reviewer rarely can know it is UPE objectively enough for any acceptable CSD.

* It is not worth a community discussion for every suspected UPE creation, NPP and AfC reviewers have to be trusted on this to do something.

* The page has to be blanked, so that the UPE is not recognized for the work in progress.

* The page and every version of it has to have the ugly title, including "Quarantined", so that the UPE can't even send the sponsor a version link. (Achieved by the page move)

* if the author can declare, or explain that the are not a UPE, then the reviewer can move the page back, no admin functions required.

The quarantine proposal talk page has productive input on details. I think the concept is the only viable action I've seen. A CSD based on the unknowable author=UPE condition is not workable. A CSD requiring the author to be blocked will miss 99% of the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer on that proposal - too complex and too much work for reviewers. A blank in place for drafts might work with a message about UPE/COI much like we do with suspected copyvio. We could make it a CSD with a delayed deletion, it only shows up in the CSD pending list after X days. That can be programmed right into the CSD template. Give the user time to disclose and remove the CSD. Otherwise bye bye. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be work for the reviewer. It is meant to be less work than giving a reviewing comment. If the concept is agreed to, everything is easily scripted.

You can't have a CSD for suspected UPE. Anachronist's proposal is doomed for this reason, just like the previous one last time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly support #2 delayed. I could entertain supporting some kind of UPE-PROD which gives these editors the chance to disclose per Legacypac above or dispute the UPE and a block based on that. After all, just because an admin has decided to block someone for UPE does not mean they are an UPE. However, I do see the problem that in most cases, such a deletion mechanism will fail due to the uncertainties surrounding UPE and how to prove it. Regards SoWhy 08:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support option 2 While I agree that suspicions of UPE are not sufficient for the deletion of a page (that's why we have the {{undisclosed paid}} template), if it is confirmed that a user has been editing in violation of Wikipedia's TOU, that's a good reason for deletion. As a comparative analogy, if a user is blocked for copyright violations, we delete pages they have created which are violating copyright, and we do so regardless of whether they were created before or after the block. In this scenario, we are blocking a user for violating the TOU, and the pages that they created prior to being blocked are part of that violation - they should, therefore, be deleted. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that analogy is apt. If we block an editor for repeated copyright violations, we still have to check whether all their creations really fit G12 because just because they violated copyright in some cases does not mean they did so in all cases. Similarly, someone blocked for UPE does not mean all their articles were created because they were paid for it. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (option 2) - Articles written by confirmed UPEs should be speedily deleted for two reasons: 1) there is a high probability that the articles were also paid for, and 2) deleting all article created by the UPE would have the same disincentivising effect as it does for socks of blocked/banned users.- MrX 🖋 11:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]