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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: This portion was added to G14 as a result of a discussion which can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Deletion of redundant (disambiguation) redirects, a discussion that concluded on 20 June 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose: having G14 apply to these redirects (as currently done) works fine, as they are technically also "disambiguation pages that don't disambiguate". I don't feel particularly strongly about this though, hence my "weak" !vote. Geolodus (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- I think spinning this out into its own thing would be a good idea. Reyk _YO! 10:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh Does it really matter whether this is R5 or part of G14? G14 is a new CSD and I haven't seen any evidence of confusion with its application. Iffy★Chat -- 11:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I'm very much in favour of splitting overly large criteria like G6, and I cannot see any potential harm from this proposed split, but equally I'm not seeing evidence of problems with the current set-up. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. G6 is a mess and creating a separate R5 would be less confusing to editors and admins. feminist (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why it was pulled out of G6 and into G14, but (like Thryduulf) I'm not sold that G14 is now similarly unwieldy. This seems to fit in with the general oeuvre of G14. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Queston Would this, and does G14, apply to rediects resulting from page moves from names ending in (disambiguation) to names not so ending? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We should probably keep that discussion to #G14 question. Geolodus (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

In such an instance, I certainly would see nothing wrong with just recreating the redirect to its original target. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. And the policy already forbids that when it clearly says A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible. (emphasis added). Such a deletion is most likely the result of sloppy review by the deleting admin who did not check the page history (thoroughly) enough. You might want to remind the admin(s) you have seen doing so that such deletions are not allowed under the policy because a revert to the redirect is a preferable alternative to deletion. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No they should not be deleted per A7 but reverted to redirects. But if article gets deleted in this situation, just recreate the redirect. Redirects are cheap and it does not matter at all if old redirect gets replaced with identical new one. Rules lawyers will tell you to go complaining to deleting admins being sloppy about their work, if they happen to not notice the one valid revision among garbage, but why be a useless complainer when you can correct the situation yourself with much less typing just by re-creating the redirect? (assuming of course you know where it should point. In other case, the deleting admin will happily restore the redirect if by some odd chance someone remembers its existence but not to what article it points to.) jni^{(talk)(delete)} 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think expecting admins to follow the rules makes one a "rules lawyer" or a "useless complainer". Also, your advice is fine when someone like Feminist notices the mistake but in most cases, such mistakes go unnoticed. Hence, it's better for the project, if said admins are reminded to follow the rules and not delete pages ineligible for speedy deletion in the first place. Restoring a mistakenly deleted redirect instead of pointing out the error might be less work in a single case but pointing out the error might save everyone work in the long run if the admin stops making such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 10:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Exactly per both of SoWhy's comments. If the redirect is also problematic then nominate it at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No. SoWhy and Thryduulf are exactly corect here. jni is correct that such redirects can simply be correct, but IMO is wrong to advise agaisnt "complaining" It is always appropriate to remind admins who have done out-of-process actions that they acted incorrectly. See Process is Important for some reasons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

At the top of the page: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below." G13 isn't one of the exceptions listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions; ergo, as currently worded, surviving MfD does indeed immunize a draft against G13. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, however often the consensus (certainly my !vote) has been "leave for G13". I think in these cases it is a fair reading that the page can be deleted per the XfD when it otherwise meets the G13 conditions. If the deleting admin then (auto)logs it as "G13", it is not worth mentioning.

If the CSD is in doubt, go to XfD. If this question arises at MfD enough, it will provide justification to add clarification to the text for G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Draft space should exempt from MfD honestly. This space is meant for new articles by newer editor to grow their articles to the point of inclusion free of threat from instant deletion tagging. Almost all MfD in the draft space will end with keep, because as long as there is any indication that it may have notability it should be kept and allowed to grow. This leads to us opening up the doors for perpetual drafts that will never go anywhere because they survived a MfD and are no longer candidates for CSD. I would say we either do away with MfD in Draft space or add G13 to the exemption list. This isn't meant to be webhost. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been closing MFDs for a while and I've seen many cases where a MFD said "keep, punt to G13" or where a draft was deleted there because it was unsuitable and editors were gaming the G13 rules. With these points in mind, I would say that G13 should remain applicable regardless of the existence of a past MFD and that draft space should not be exempted from MFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support adding G13 to the exception list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support documenting this. I think it is standard practice. G13 applies to any page in draftspace unedited for six months, even if was kept at MfD (over 6 months preceding). If someone wants to keep something longer, they can move it to their userspace, and remove any AFC templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the thoughtful comments. Since I obviously agree also, do we have the start of a consensus to add G13 as one of the exceptions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a need to make a change? If the consensus at MFD is to "leave it for G13", then there is consensus that G13 should apply to this particular draft despite being kept at MFD. If anything, the exceptions list should be amended to include a provision like

If the most recent XFD discussion did not end in deletion but there was consensus that a specific criterion should be applicable anyway, the page can be deleted under this criterion once its requirements are met.

Regards SoWhy 09:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am more concerned about the cases where the MfD's consensus or closing do not specifically mention G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I continue to think that G13 should be turned into a Draft PROD. If there are webhost issues MfD is more than capable of dealing with it. Otherwise what's our rush to get rid of eventually encyclopedic information? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DraftProd, like UserspaceProd, for the same reasons as stated consistently since the PROD proposal. PROD relies on watchlisters, and active patrollers. These don’t exist in draftspace. DraftProd would therefore be a pseudo-CSD. As a pseudo-it should be objective, unlike PROD tagging, and WP:NEWCSD applies. No more backdoor speedy deletion. The loose in-practice WP:DRAFTIFY standards are already pretty bad. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If no one is watching the draft then it should be deleted. If someone cares enough to watch the draft and remove the notice then it's not really an abandoned draft. The objective criteria could be the same as for G13. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If it is the same as G13, and if no one is watching, meaning that no one is doing anything with it, then why not leave it for G13? Have you read the archives on the creation of G13? The quite broad applicability with few conditions, beyond the objective old and unedited, were justified only by the sheer numbers, there being tens of thousands of abandoned useless junk, and intersperse among them were serious BLP and privacy violations, such as something a kid posted about another kid one day, sitting there live, forever. It was not viable to filter the tens of thousands for the few really bad ones that need. There is no similar justification for rushing a G13. If an editor's attention is drawn to it, and if there is a deletion reason (usually CSD G10, G11 or G12), then have it deleted for that reason by the appropriate process and code.

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

What problem is DraftPROD seeking to solve? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of active editors having work deleted and having to fill-out REFUND paperwork when they care about something. Incentivizing editors to make stuff in their userspace which doesn't invite collaboration rather than draft space which does in order to avoid summary deletion. It's attempting to do this while not adding a burden for the numerous WEBHOST violations that the current speedy solves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors worthy of incentivizing should be pointed to WP:DUD. Mere NOTWEBHOST violations do little harm in that hidden space called draftspace, and non-objective deletion of false positive does harm. The system is working well, is it not? DraftPROD fails WP:NEWCSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I argue it's not just working. I am suggesting that good faith editors, including myself, are having work needlessly deleted. I don't know why you're asking me to justify a PROD on the basis of Speedy deletion criteria. A PROD is not a speedy deletion and I think we'd all be better off taking 7 days to think about whether or not we want to delete something before doing it - it's sat for six months, what's the rush now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not working? Maybe some examples? PROD without watchlisters or CATPROD patrollers is speedy deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MfD should not innoculate aganst G13 (and so the exception should be listed).

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

We should innoculate against G13 in case #2 alone. But if the result of #2 is to immediately move to mainspace, G13 would no longer be applicable for that reason, which is sufficient. In case #3, G13 should still trigger in time. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"2. Keep as a valid article" means "Mainspace". Move it now to mainspace. Notable topics can should be created as stubs, and with an community discussion producing a consensus in support, there is no good reason to hide it in draftspace. Beware extreme meta:Immediatism, that is not how Wikipedia was created, but is how other online encyclopedias failed. In mainspace, mainspace editors will fix things. In draftspace, the drafter works alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to lack a consistent approach to whether templates do or do not contain the text "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" Templates which do not have this text:

• Db-g8
• Db-r2
• Db-r4 (note that Db-r3 DOES contain the warning)
• Db-f5 (note that Db-f1 through Db-f4 and Db-f7 DO contain the warning)
• Db-f8 (note that Db-f9 through Db-f10 DO contain the warning
• Db-f11

The only ones I can see having a clear commonsense rationale for not having the verbiage in question are g7 and u1. I think dB-G13 is overused and admins should be careful about deleting with it, but I'm less positive about omitting the "do not remove" verbiage there. It seems to me that a little more consistency here would be a good thing, or if not, then verbiage stating the creator can remove the tags should possibly be added to either the CSD page or the template, or both. KillerChihuahua 17:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need for consistency here. They include or do not include the text based on the criteria. G8 and R2 are both technical criteria that a page objectively either does or does not meet. There is no subjective decision making there. F11 is ... not really a speedy deletion, it is explicitly a delayed deletion, and doesn't really matter anyway, because it can always be undeleted when permission is received by OTRS. G13 makes no sense to prevent removal, because if someone wants to remove it, then presumably the draft is not truly abandoned. U1 makes no sense either, because it's user request. So...of course someone can change their mind and remove the template. GMG^talk 17:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I was unclear. I thought I had stated above that in cases where the original author is allowed to remove the tag, such should be specifically spelled out. Oh, I did say exactly that, you must have missed it. I also specifically called out g7 and u1 as being obvious exceptions, so any defense of them here is tilting at windmills. KillerChihuahua 18:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• U1 having the note sort of makes sense, since anyone can create a page in anyone else's userspace, and simply the author of the page who wants it kept does not override the user to whom the userspace "belongs" who wants it deleted. (To be clearer: User 1 who creates a user subpage of User 2 does not have the authority to force the page to be kept of User 2 wants it deleted.) Granted, most U1 cases are also G7 cases (in which this is irrelevant), but there is definitely a reason for the inclusion. Geolodus (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain why each of the criteria you listed should have the "do not remove" bit added. I'll wait. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Who should explain that? Not I, because I didn't suggest that. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Then what is the point of this entire thread, then? To have a look at a bunch of CSD templates that I'm sure we've all already seen before? GMG has summed everything up in what should be common sense. If you were asking a question, then it has been answered for you. If it isn't and it is for something else, then please enlighten me. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will rephrase for you, and I'll simplify my verbiage to attempt to avoid misunderstandings.

1. We might want to take a look at a few of the templates that don't have "do not remove" - but not the obvious ones like Housekeeping or User request in own space
2. More importantly, we might want to spell out that in those cases, author can remove tag - either on CSD page, or template(s), or both

Hopefully you can grasp my meaning now. If you are still befuddled, feel free to ask questions until you're clear on what I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The only problem is the blanket statement at the top of WP:CSD, when the actual standard everyone follows it the templates. In practice, everyone just applies WP:COMMONSENSE liberally, probably through sheer weight of habit, and the de facto policy is you can remove the templates from all kinds of things, especially where pages categorically either do or do not objectively qualify. It's the subjective stuff that people shouldn't remove, but that advice is itself mostly aimed at newbies, and no one bothered to update the rest because newbies generally don't deal in U1, or R2, or most of the criteria. (Also, everyone please dial the attitude down 1.7 notches.) GMG^talk 18:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're suggesting editing the blanket statement? Or did I misread that? KillerChihuahua 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes ...somehow... I'd bet most people don't even realize the blanket statement at CSD is really there. All this is 99% done using Twinkle without so much as a second thought. The people who do a lot of tagging can mostly rattle off the nomenclature and criteria by memory anyway. But there is no world where anyone acts like that blanket statement overrides the criteria on something like the C1 template, or any of the rest of them for that matter. GMG^talk 19:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL @ "there is no world where..." yeah, I'm going to have to say that if there is a way to misread and wikilawyer something, someone will find a way. Was your "yes...." regarding possibly editing the blanket statement? I'm sorry, that still isn't entirely clear to me given the rest of your comment. KillerChihuahua 19:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The blanket statement should really say "For many of these, the creator of the page should not remove the nomination themselves, but should follow the instructions on the relevant templates in order to contest the deletion." There is no real line you can draw there other than "some do" "some don't". Even then, the template instructions don't always make sense all the time. (e.g., If I accidentally create an A10, someone nominates it, but I think that it could make a plausible redirect anyway, don't come complaining to me if I remove the CSD template and redirect the page.) GMG^talk 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, brilliant! With that verbiage, no need to spell out each difference, or make lists - simply instruct to follow template instructions, and that will automagically instruct editors on correct behavior. Perfect. Start another section on the talk page here for straw polling it? KillerChihuahua 20:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe. Maybe give it a minute to see how many people think my off-the-cuff suggestion is silly. I probably won't be here for it. I'm going to live in a tent for a little while and will have little to no internet access. GMG^talk 00:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think you're good. No one has commented in days. Ping me when you get back, we'll work on updated boilerplate, put it in a new section, and list on CD, and let the masses decide. :=) KillerChihuahua 12:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... it took me a few days to see this, but I don't think any of the above is necessary. The "do not remove" is removed for templates where it can be removed, and it shows on templates where it shouldn't. Per K6ka above, I'm not really sure what this thread is attempting to accomplish. Are you wanting to add "you can remove this if you feel like it"? Primefac (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And in each of the templates you've mentioned it says: If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. So the templates do already tell people to remove them if the page in question doesn't meet the criteria. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  eh, good point - still leaves out the blanket statement as referenced by GMG above. And IMO it wouldn't hurt to be specific on the templates as well. Better to spell it out clearly rather than trust to implication. KillerChihuahua 18:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the section defining the criteria it doesn't mention anything about whether the template is unused or not. On the other hand the default deletion message seems to be "Unused, redundant template". I think one of these should be changed to avoid further confusion. --Trialpears (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:T3 nor {{db-t3}} state anything about being unused. For the record (and this is specifically pointing at the admins who just care about deleting things), WP:G8 cannot be used for unused templates either. There is currently no CSD criterion that allows for the speedy deletion of unused templates. Primefac (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then messages such as this should be changed. I don't know what generates it since I don't do deletions so a pointer would be appreciated. --Trialpears (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears: |summary=Unused, redundant template in the wikitext of Template:db-t3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary text updated. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begging Ale jrb's forgiveness, I've made the same change to CSDH. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does G14, apply to rediects resulting from page moves from names ending in (disambiguation) to names not so ending? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: If a disambiguation page is moved from "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo", then the redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" does not need to be deleted (WP:INTDAB). I'm not sure if that answers the question! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does,Shhhnotsoloud. I have seen such pages tagged for G14 deletion. Would anyone object if I edited the CSD page to make this explicit? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel:. We may have misunderstood each other. If there is a disambiguation page at "Foo", the base name, then there needs to be a redirect at "Foo (disambiguation)" to point to it. This is so that intentional links to a disambiguation page pass through a (disambiguation) redirect. This is explained at WP:INTDAB. So, if you have moved "Bar (disambiguation)" to "Bar" then you can leave the resulting redirect alone, with rcat {{R to disambiguation page}} (assuming that "Bar" is a now disambiguation page or a page with a disambiguation-like function). Perhaps you could give an actual example? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhnotsoloud, 39th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation) (-> 2018 New Brunswick general election) which included {{R from move}}. You tagged it G14 on 12:33, 6 October 2019 . and I deleted it as peer your tag. The move wqas done on 08:08, 20 January 2016 by Anthony Appleyard. It seems that I should not have deleted this, correct? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Ah yes, I see, thank you. I'm clearly an involved party. 39th New Brunswick general election (disambiguation) should have been deleted because at the time of deletion it did not redirect to a disambiguation page, it redirected to an article 2018 New Brunswick general election which does not perform a disambiguation function. The situation would have been different if the target was 39th New Brunswick general election and that target were a disambiguation page (it may have been at some time but wasn't at the time of deletion). I hope that helps (but I'm not neutral here). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed that several administrators have started treating pages that have been nominated or deleted under CSD:G13 (Stale Drafts and submissions) to be summarily restored citing a finding that because the last XfD was a Keep (or no consensus) CSD:G13 is invalid on the page until a XfD results in a delete. I therefore propose the following modification to CSD:G13 to establish if there is a consensus for that interpretation.

Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

1. Draft namespace,
2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.

Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. Pages that have survived their most recent deletion attempt are exempt from G13 deletion. Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. Hasteur (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (G13 eligibility clarification)

Asked the question as the affirmative even though I believe that this is not the existing consensus. Open to any editor linking to where a previous consensus was to prove me wrong. If the consensus was established recently (last 4 months) I'm more than happy to suspend this request. Hasteur (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was discussed above in the topic called G13 Question. The consensus there was the G13 criteria is still applicable after surviving a XfD and has been added to the policy already. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the consistent backlog at WP:AFC, I wonder if it is possible to limit G13 to AFC Submissions which have not been actually submitted? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy does allow G13 deletions of pages which have survived deletion discussions, but it didn't until very recently, it was added two weeks ago. Hut 8.5 17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus for G13 was becoming obvious in 2013, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48 (2013)

Consensus that G13 should cover all drafts was very clear, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 65#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts (2017). Although this didn't address the question of drafts that previously survived a pre-G13 deletion discussion, it clearly intended that all 6 months abandoned draft pages would be deleted under G13 regardless of their history. There was not, for example, even sufficient concern about mainspace articles that were unilaterally draftified being auto-deleted by G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (G13 eligibility clarification)

• Oppose I disagree with this as there are a great many pages that survive XfD on promises of improvement (editing the text, promises to merge/redirect to a mainspace, or "keep and let G13 take care of it") that demonstrate that not all the keep XfDs show sustaining effort/improvement. I have no problem if a bot comes in every 5 months and changes a single byte on the page or if someone does a procedural clean on the page to reset the 6 months unedited clock. What I do care about is Administrators ignoring both the written text of the CSD and the intention of the CSD. Hasteur (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Most drafts taken to MfD that survive survive because taking the page to MfD was the wrong process, and the right process is to tag and ignore the draft until G13 applies. The G13 time period (6 months) is sufficient time for an author or interested party to engage. I usually try to remember to write "Keep" ... leave for CSD#G13", but it always applies. A page that should not be subject to G13 should be taken to userspace or a WikiProject. It's regrettable that Template:Promising draft does not work in attracting editors to help, but the fact is that it doesn't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying drafts should never go to MfD? That instead of discussing drafts at all we should always just delete them if they're flagged stale and nobody claims them? I could get behind that, it would remove a lot of administrative confusion about process, and I think address Hasteur's concern above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: What I'm saying is that if the draft is kept with a promise that it'll be improved to the point of being ready for mainspace, and that improvement doesn't manifest in the form of any edits in 6 months or promotion to mainspace in that time, that we discount the previous promises and let CSD:G13 process handle it without this rigmarole of evaluating the previous MFD. Hasteur (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. I meant to address SmokeyJoe's observation that the "right process" is to tag and ignore. If that's the case, then we should just say that drafts are no longer eligible for discussion at MfD, eliminate that step entirely, and allow G13 to work (or make it into a DRAFTPROD process which I've suggested before). Doing so would seem to support current practice where any draft that is nominated at MfD attracts comments in the form of "none of this matters, it's fine to sit there until G13 applies". I would support that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ivanvector, not "drafts should never go to MfD". Instead, "drafts should usually not go to MfD. More certainly, "bad drafts should not all go to MfD. MfD is not failure management process for Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. WP:AfC has good DECLINE and REJECT options that should be used.

For specific details: MfD for a draft is only appropriate where there is a deletion reason. Deletion reasons mostly come from WP:NOT. Draft deletion reasons do not include notability, although notability is an important factor to consider alongside an actual reason. WP:NOTPROMOTION of a WP:CORP-failing topic is a compelling reason (but please try to WP:CSD#G11 first if it fits). Resubmission of a draft without improvement is a reason explicitly approved by an RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any page in draftspace unedited for > 6 months is eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G13. Trivially objective. Preferably, authors of pages eligible for G13 will be advised by a bot prior to the deletion; failing that, on deletion, the author should be advised. The deletion log MUST contain a link to WP:REFUND. In principle, all G13-deleted pages may be REFUNDED on request, although the deleting admin is encouraged to observe that some other speedy deletion criterion applies (eg G5, G10, G11, G12) and to immediately re-delete per that criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad drafts should not all go to MfD" - to me that's a very confusing statement and makes for bad choices. But rather than continue here in the middle of the voting section of Hasteur's RfC, I'll collect my thoughts and start a separate discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the only change I will support to G13 is complete deprecation and removing it from the list of speedy deletion criteria. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too would support this change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivanvector, I would enthusiastically support this change. We need to find a better way to separate the drafts that have potential from the ones that don't, and this process should not be time based. Drafts that have no hope of ever becoming an article should be deleted promptly, and drafts that do have potential should not be subject to any sort of deadline. – bradv🍁 01:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Bradv's line of thought is one that was thrashed out in the discussions that created G13. It's good as a motherhood statement, but hopeless when it comes to practical implementation. The problem is: "who decides the draft has no hope"? Was that decision objective? For all the agreed objective reasons of "no hope", a CSD criterion exists. For the remainder, it is possible that the author may come back with additional information to justify hope for their initially scanty draft. It is an unjustified workload to do a "no hope no notability" test on every hopeless looking draft. The onus should be on the author, on the topic proponents, and from this comes the imperative that there be some time limit. 6 months is the agreed limit. For sure, 1 week is too short, and >1 year is getting too long for zero edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A draft PROD is the simplest solution, and vastly preferable to the current system where drafts are robotically deleted based on no other factor than that the author gave up on it six months ago. – bradv🍁 03:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFTPROD amounts to a non-objective speedy deletion, it fails WP:NEWCSD and should be rejected for that reason alone. G13 applies with no editor required to tag it ahead of time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G13 also fails WP:NEWCSD, as it is not uncontestable (anyone can contest it by editing the draft, if they get the opportunity). Even if draft prods are robotically applied, it is still better than the current system as other editors will have an opportunity to contest the deletion and save the draft. – bradv🍁 03:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G13 applies uncontestably. I applies when it is uncontestable that anyone has contested it's deletion in the last six months. For a rare case of someone who wants to auto-contest, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see is that no one really agrees concretely on the elements of a "draft with potential"—is it a draft that satisfies notability guidelines, a draft that has one or two reliable citations, any draft that an editor slapped a promising tag on? There are some obvious extremes—a draft that just reads "Joe is a funny man" clearly has no potential, whereas a draft that has multiple references to in-depth reliable sources clearly does (and is probably close to mainspace already)—but what is much less clear are drafts in the middle that might have a source or two, aren't promotional enough to be G11, but don't have enough content or structure for mainspace. What we used to see is these drafts sort of languish in the draft space indefinitely because no one is interested in working on them, and nobody wants to MfD (or PROD) them because they may have potential. Unless we actually start applying notability guidelines to drafts (which is an idea that has faced considerable opposition in the past), I see G13 as a reasonable practical solution, especially given the deliberately low bar towards undeletion and retention. Perhaps what we're really looking for is a 7-day grace period between G13 tagging and deletion, similar to WP:C1 or WP:F4, during which any editor may remove the tag if they think the draft has potential and kick G13 down the road another 6 months. Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor in good standing who thinks a draft shows promise should do one of the following: (1) Work on it; or (2) remove it from draftspace, per WP:DUD, putting it in their userspace or as a subpage of an interested WikiProject. {{Promising draft}} for draftspace drafts, tagged by an editor who takes no personal interest in what they tag, has not worked out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are workarounds, not a good system that improves collaboration and article quality. – bradv🍁 04:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. My preferred solution is to remove draftspace entirely, and to not invite any newcomer to create any newpage until after they are autoconfirmed, and to recommend that they don't attempt new pages before improving existing pages. "Anyone can edit" doers not need to mean that "anyone can create a new page". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than happy with that solution too. But as long as we must have draftspace, let's make it work as well as possible. – bradv🍁 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I've read you say a few times in these discussions, that DRAFTPROD fails WP:NEWCSD. I don't understand this. Proposed deletion is a different deletion method than speedy deletion so why does a new type of proposed deletion (which would join BLPPROD) need to meet the criteria for speedy deletion? What am I missing? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, yes, it is as if people have forgotten the foundation premise of WP:PROD. An article can be PRODded for any reason. A reason is not required, or at least you are not asked to substantiate the reason. The reason is supposed to be obvious, but not defined. Accordingly, anyone may dePROD, for any reason, and they are not required to substantiate their reason. Completely subjective, not objective. If there is any disagreement, it goes to AfD. A critical premise for PROD to work is watchlisting. This fails for Drafts, no one watches drafts. DraftProd therefore devolves to a pseudo CSD.

BLPPROD? I am perfectly happy for BLPPROD to be extended to draftspace, if it is not already.

People proposing a new DRAFTPROD deletion process need to at least get to the details of how it would works, which they are not doing. What is the duration? What is the need? What tracking and notifications would be involved. So far, I have seen no such details, nor any reason why G13 doesn't suffice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, thanks for the reply. It's helpful. I think you disagree with the need but it has been presented directly to you before and let me try again: articles that people are actively monitoring should not be deleted without warning. Deletion of drafts no one cares about should be uncontroversial. If someone cares enough to remove a notice they shouldn't have to go fill out REFUND paperwork. I had this happen to me recently. I knew I was about to RfA so I just waited and made it my first action with the toolkit but that door is not open to everyone. It also meant I moved another draft I've been slowly chipping away with from Draft space, where I'd have loved help, to my user space, where others might not feel comfortable jumping in.

My criteria for DRAFTPROD would be G13 criteria except that it runs for 7 days - like PROD and BLPPROD. Removal of the DRAFTPROD notice is enough to reset the six month clock, but unlike PROD, a draft may be tagged an unlimited number of times with DRAFTPROD. So it's G13 but done slower. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I definitely oppose that. To the extent that DraftSpace is justified in existing, it exists for leasurely drafting by IPs. One week is way too short to expect them to be checking in. 6 months is OK. that's why G13 is six months.

"Deletion of drafts no one cares about" is a contradiction. Someone has to care to tag it.

We already have way too many poor MfD nominations of drafts. Often, too often, someone nominates for deletion a draft that is worthy of mainspace. The standard of MfD nominations of drafts is so poor that DraftProd fails for that reason alone. A reason for PROD is overload of AfD with obvious cases. There is no case here. I suggest you spend more time at MfD before suggesting this relief valve for drafts at MfD. Currently, MfD receives masses of Portals, so you might like to try Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals.

Do you have some examples of pages that belong in a DraftProd process? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that draftspace should only be used by IPs/COIs so that's probably where we see things differently. I think draftspace should be used by them but also by any editor that wants to craft their article before plopping it into mainspace and would welcome collaboration in doing so. Glad we had this discussion because I think we'll continue to see differently but I feel like I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "only". It is sufficient that an occasionally checking-in IP uses draftspace for it to be unreasonable that drafts can be deleted with just a week's notice, no discussion, not objective criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, now I'm confused again. An IP makes no edits to a draft for six months. Currently it can be deleted at anytime instantly. I suggest it should be deleted after having a notice for a week. How is that not more reasonable for an occasional editor? And that's not even the use case I care about. I care about active Wikipedians who are trying to use draft space. They're the ones I honestly think will decline DRAFTPRODs not an IP or non-confirmed editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, your DRAFTPROD would only be an option after six months no edits? You are proposing to replace G13 with DRAFTPROD? This is an unexpected feature of the proposal. Terrible idea. There are way too many. Abandoned drafts will build up again into the tens of thousands, including the scattered BLP and copyright infringing drafts.

You don't care about infrequent IP editors? I think you should.

You care about active Wikipedians who are trying to use draft space? I don't. Active Wikipedians should draft in userspace or in WikiProject subpages. Are you a supporter of User:TakuyaMurata's draftspace practices? Comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I, an active Wikipedia, do all my drafting in Draftspace. I am currently working on Draft:Judy Sullivan, which was started at an edit-a-thon this week. When I work with new editors, either at an edit-a-thon/editing workshop, or at the Teahouse or other on-wiki venues, i normally advise them to start all new articles in draft space. When I restore a deleted article on the plea that an editor wishes to improve it to readiness for mainspace, I always restore it to draft space with an AFC tag. Many drafts are created by active Wikipedians. None of which is to say that an MfD closed as "wrong venue" or "not bad enough to delete, leave for further work or G13" should be exempt from G13, but Active Wikipedians should draft in userspace or in WikiProject subpages simply does not cover current practice, nor in my view should it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread something I wrote, Smokey. I didn't say I didn't care about IP editors in draftspace. I do. A lot. I said protecting them from deletion wasn't the use case for why I think G13 should be supplanted by DRAFTPROD. It is the kind of cases I laid out or DES laid out. If an article is abandoned then DRAFTPROD will function identically to G13. If it's not abandoned, which we would know because someone would remove the DRAFTPROD label, then the presumption goes to saving content rather than deleting it. If there are BLP or COPYVIO issues well we can deal with those - and do - in all namespaces now, that's not what G13 is for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- XfDs closed for WP:WRONGVENUE reasons should not be immune to an otherwise legitimate speedy. Reyk _YO! 13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: does not take into account that the draft may have been abandoned after discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Draft should not go to MfD or AfD for it is WP:WRONGVENUE and in AfC we have decline (leave reasons/what is needed) or reject. In addition, G13 drafts are checked by admin prior deletion and can always get a WP:REFUND. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Obvious process creep, and folks can just use WP:REFUND if it's important. Also if it's worth going to REFUND for, then perhaps it'll encourage the requestor to work on it and move it into the mainspace :) -FASTILY 07:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A draft that is kept on promise of improvement should still be deleted if abandoned, especially since WP:REFUND is not a difficult process to use. –Darkwind (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I use draftspace, and I would've liked a notification before, not after, my draft had been deleted as abandoned. Clovermoss (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Clovermoss: Because I am confused (and I suspect the Closing admin might be confused). What I'm asking is "Pages that have survived their most recent deletion attempt (XFD) are exempt from G13 deletion." I don't think your vote is on that topic. There is a bot that goes around AFC drafts and reminds at 5 months unedited that the draft could be in danger of G13, but that's not in scope of this RFC/Clarification. Hasteur (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hasteur: I apologize, I think I meant to comment this on a seperate thread. As for notifications, I did not get one until my draft had already been deleted by G13. Had to go through WP:Refund. The article is currently at Danielle Younge-Ullman if you're interested. I struck my support vote since it isn't relevant. Clovermoss (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Just because a draft survives a MfD doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted if it becomes stale. In response to the support !voter above, that's a separate discussion, but I like the idea. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per most of the above objections, which have already gotten to every point I would have raised. The main one to me is that XfDs are "survived" for any number of reasons, many of them venue-related and other technicalities. That said, various admins' declines in particular cases are valid, when they've looked at the XfD in question, and seen a consensus to retain the material on its merits. Remember WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, "WP is not a suicide pact", WP:Common sense, WP:IAR, WP:CLOSE, etc.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 05:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, in many cases I've seen, an AfD/MfD closed as "keep" was because someone has said that the article can be moved to or retained as a draft and be fixed. If that doesn't actually happen, draft space is still not for things to sit around indefinitely. If someone later wants to work on it, doing so is a simple WP:REFUND request away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposal.

I think it is a bad idea to propose WP:CSD changes in places other than WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with SmokeyJoe, although the proposal itself is interesting. Can the discussion be moved here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad idea (moving discussions in general is a bad idea). Just participate in the discussion where it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When nominating templates for deletion per T3 I've had them deleted before the 7 day holding period and think this could be resolved by adopting the categorization scheme of C1. C1 nomination are categorized as Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion during the hold and as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories after the hold while T3 nominations are categorized as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates both during and after the holding period. I suggest that this is changed so they're categorized as Category:Redundant templates awaiting deletion during the hold to prevent premature deletions in the future.

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unused redundant templates should also be renamed to remove the unused part as it isn't mentioned in the actual criteria. I think this could be done without a CfD as it misrepresent policy and consensus for such changes were shown at #T3 and unused, but since I don't have the technical ability to do it I haven't. --Trialpears (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_14 --Trialpears (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sugrammr (talk · contribs) has recently created four categories:

• Category:840s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:930s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:950s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:990s books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apart from the error that all of these are inside themselves (and so show up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories), each contains just one or two articles, so is against WP:SMALLCAT so I could send all of them to WP:CFD on that basis. However, I see that two of them (930s and 950s) have been deleted via CFD before, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 4#Early medieval works and books (open up the "more books" collapsy thing). This makes those two eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, but are the other two also eligible? That is, can the 2017 CFD be considered an umbrella decision? Notifying Explicit (talk · contribs) who closed that CFD and deleted the two cats, also Fastily (talk · contribs) who deleted the 990s one under WP:CSD#C1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Book categories

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While working on several wiki-pages on 9th/10th century literature the requirement to create/extend book date categories arises. Much scholarship has yet to be digitized/wikipedia-ized and it is expected that single items (books) may initiate categories, viz., non-standard categories, where usual criteria are irrelevant. The "Book Year" is a necessary category for research in this field. Sugrammr (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sugrammr: As noted above, some of the categories which you created had previously been deleted under the WP:CFD process. Until there are sufficient articles to justify a finer division, please use the existing century categories, such as Category:10th-century books.

When you do create a category, you must not put it inside itself (see WP:SUPERCAT, the part about closed loops): categories belong inside one or more appropriate parent categories. For example, Category:2019 books is categorised in Category:2019 works, Category:Books by year, Category:2010s books and Category:2019 in literature; similarly Category:2010s books is categorised in Category:21st-century books, Category:2010s works, Category:Books by decade, Category:2010s in literature, and Category:2010s in media. The templates {{book year}} and {{bookdecade}} exist to facilitate this categorisation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The placement error was a simple error. The book decades category is a requirement. Sugrammr (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it stated that it "is a requirement"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'd like some clarification on this as well. I was recently informed that {{Colts2018DraftPicks}} and a few related templates had been recreated, but I left {{Colts2019DraftPicks}} alone because it had not yet been created when the original TFD closed. It's clearly in the same scope as the other templates, so I likely would have been within my rights (and a little bit of IAR) to delete the 2019 template, but I left it out of an overabundance of caution. Would I be justified in deleting it? Primefac (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me a reasonable interpretation of a deletion discussion when carrying out G4 is appropriate given WP:NOTBURO. I think G4 deleting the 2019 template would be well with-in your discretion in the same way that a recreated article deleted under G4 after an AfD can differ to some degree in content. The idea of G4, to me, is that community consensus has been established and absent something to suggest that consensus has changed (e.g. passage of time, new precedent or RfC, new sourcing) then requiring further community consensus is not needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the direction I was leaning, but I figured erring on the side of caution until a 2O was given wouldn't hurt. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: My question is not so much about the 2019 recreations of the two that were deleted in 2017; it is whether the 2017 CfD may be used to justify a G4 speedy of similar categories that didn't exist prior to their recent creation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, yes I understood but found it easier to express an opinion about a template than categories. I don't dabble enough in categories to know all the ins and outs. That said I do think a category that didn't exist, but if it had would have been part of the same deletion discussion, can be G4 deleted at an administrator's discretion. However, at some point enough time has passed that consensus might have changed. It's this last part especially that I am ill-equipped to give an intelligent answer about here. So my answer to you is yes in theory and I'm not sure in reality for this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The case against G13:
Why Wikipedia should consider getting rid of Rule G13.

I believe that abandoned draft articles should be kept indefinitely instead of being deleted for the sole reason of being currently abandoned.

Having to ask an administrator for the undeletion (WP:REFUND) of draft articles might be discouraging and even intimidating to very junior editors.

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

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

If that article is deleted, it does not show up in any search. Not the article name search, nor the text search.

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

Keeping a draft article indefinitely appears much more logical to me for these reasons.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's assume I died tomorrow in a plane crash, and the draft article Draft:Comparison_of_mobile_phone_cameras will be only discovered by 2024.

If an administrator decided to delete that article due to G13 in the meantime, that compiled information in that article would be buried and possibly withheld from future readers who find it useful, forever.

Draft articles can also be a potential source of information, especially if sourced properly.

Even an abandoned but still existing draft article can encourage an encountering user to keep working on it.

For these reasons, the rule G13 appears purely counter-productive to me.

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

Also see:

• Wikipedia:Give_an_article_a_chance
• Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

I hope I could help you and future editors.

 –– Handroid7  【talk】 04:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC) - Note: Proposal author is Ceckuser blocked as a sock. Alsee (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The critical problem was that amongst the thousands per year new abandoned drafts were WP:BLP and copyrights violating material. More than can be reasonably expected of volunteers to review. It is hard enough to review every submitted draft, let alone every page created and abandoned. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to see how that is an argument for G13. If a draft is a serious BLP or copyvio violation, it should be removed immediately, not languish around for another six months. Regards SoWhy 20:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 02:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  User:SoWhy, in the absence of reliable volunteers who will review drafts, to separate minimally into unacceptable and unacceptable (G10, G11, G12) for long term live storage, who is going to remove them immediately or ever? NB. I consider this to have been the one compelling argument for the creation of G13. We’re young involved in the discussions, this page, from 2013?

Personally, I was content for all old unedited drafts to be blanked, forever available in the history but not live at a standard url, but that argument of mine didn’t gather support. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

That said, old (seemingly abandoned) drafts in USER space should be kept all but indefinitely (the user might come back and work on it). Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to both User:SoWhy and User:Blueboar here, there is an apparent inconsistency here, draftspace pages must be be allowed to live forever, but userspace pages may. The answer is that in draftspace, there is a tendency for driveby contributors to write an dump offensive material that is far less the case in userspace. Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another. People tend to not do this so much in userspace, as userspace is the users personal space. People tend not to write graffiti inside their homes, they instead go to a sort of public place to do it, starting from inside storm water drains and under bridges. Draftspace is kind of like open space under a bridge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Then just move it to that user's name space instead of deleting it. Also, promoting anything on the draft namespace is ineffective anyway. It does not benefit the promoted thing. If they really intended to promote something, they could spam Twitter with it, not the Wikipedia draft name space.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 22:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, “Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another.” are already covered by the other rules, not G13 itself.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 22:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not presenting a workable solution to Who will do the discrimination. Many drafts are made by IPs, and many by new accounts that become inactive. It is no OK to blindly userfy all drafts without checking whether they are “Pseudo articles, blatantly inappropriate, spam-promoting something, or divulging personal information on another”, and it is not practical to ask someone to check them. For a time, some were trying to put all through MfD, which was completely ridiculous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft articles aren't as searchable as you think, as the Draft space is NOINDEXed by default, meaning the only way to search it is using Wikipedia's own search function. This is by design, for the reasons SmokeyJoe spells out above and because, for the most part, a good chunk of these drafts are written with a promotional bent which in turn makes Wikipedia and the editor(s) working on the draft look bad. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 18:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: If the draft article is written like a promotion, it does hardly benefit the promoted thing at all anyway, and can still be used as a head start for the new editor. Also, draft articles show up in search suggestions and from uncreated articles in the article namespace with the same name. e.g. Comparison_of_mobile_phone_camcorders → “ There is a draft for this article at Draft:Comparison of mobile phone camcorders.”

That's Wikipedia's internal search function. Usually when people complain about "showing up in search" they're usually meaning via Google or other search engines. And the reason for it showing up in the article namespace as it does is because it's common for articles that aren't up to par to be moved back to the draftspace. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the topic is truly worthy of an article here someone will eventually create an article on it, with or without a specific draft; this negates the need to keep a stale draft on here for eternity, and possible upsides of doing so are more than outweighed by the hidden policy violations that would be incurred on what are the hidden and less-watched crevices of Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @John M Wolfson: Policy violations are supposed to be removed immediately. But getting rid of a draft article solely because it is abandoned does not make sense to me. Also, information compilation articles such as Draft:Comparison_of_mobile_phone_camcorders are exempt from eventualism. I doubt that if that article got swallowed by the black hole of G13, it would ever be recreated in that unique form anytime soon. Also, as much as there can be hidden policy violations, there can also be hidden gems, waiting to be discovered.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 02:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The only thing exempt from eventualism would be BLP and other assorted policy violations that you mention. While it's unfortunate that time-sensitive material like that might be irretrievably deleted in that particular form, it doesn't really matter what form it assumes when it does eventually get created. (And if the particular form was so unique, it might likely be original research or synthesis, although I'll withhold judgment on that.) Notability is not temporary; if something was so time-sensitive that once deleted it could never be recreated, it probably didn't belong on here anyway. I also think you're overstating the perceived threat of REFUND; I see IP addresses there fairly frequently.

  Having said all that, I do see where you are coming from with regards to the utility of G13. I still see arguments of its de facto convenience and keeping junk out in the long run, even though it does seem a bit against the spirit of WP:FINISH. I'll reserve judgment on this question pending comments and insights from other editors. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @John M Wolfson: Even if there is some “junk”, it does not disrupt any Wikipedia reader, because they don't randomly stumble upon it. Also, that page I have mentioned is not original research. Show me one other person that recreates these tables in that sophisticated manner. (Sorry for that arrogant language, but how else do I express it?). All the work I put into that could potentially be erased by WP:G13.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect @Handroid7:, I don't think you've actually ever sorted through any of the draft pages. If you had you'd see that editors frequently review content and give the author an opportunity to fix the page. If the author doesn't take that opportunity (by editing it at least once every 6 months) Wikipedia shouldn't be bothered to keep the page around. Also many of the submitters to Draft space usually come in for one day, drop a load of questionable material, and walk away. No less than any other Spam trap. Because of Wikipedia's good Google score, we're targeted as one of the percieved best paces to get copy on. We don't reach for any of the CSD rules unless it's completely unredeemable. Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: Yes, I have. I found draft:List of commercial failures in video hosting. But even if I did not, does not mean everybody else doesn't.

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

Also, like I said, questionable material is already covered by the other rules, not G13.

Also, Wikipedia's good Google ranking is for the main namespace. Draft articles are not indexed by default.  –– Handroid7  【talk】 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support completely. G13 simply buries too much useful content. To deal with the inevitable deluge of garbage, however, a draftprod should be instituted to summarily delete bad drafts. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The inevitable deluge”. What editor is going to do the DraftProdding? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who's looking around draftspace that day. PrussianOwl (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe review untouched drafts at 6 months. (Yes but who is going to do it? The same people that do the deletion, perhaps?) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Oppose disruptive Checkuser-blocked-sock. Also oppose per WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because draft space being intended as a productive-workspace with virtually non-existent inclusion criteria. Essentially unlimited quantities of worthless crap can frivolously be dropped in draft, and we require a comparably lightweight cleaned up process for abandoned pages. Human labor is a limited resource, and an infinitely expanding draft space has on-going and expanding maintenance costs. Alsee (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New suggestion: Separate namespace

I just found May's discussion regarding a 7-day G13 delay (Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 74#Proposal: Apply a 7-day hold to G13). It seems there's general consensus that, given that G13 currently exists, having some form of advance warning when drafts are about to be G13 deleted (or reach G13 eligibility) would be a good thing. (Most of the oppose !votes in that debate were based on technicalities or otherwise irrelevant to the proposal.) Is there any reason (or discussion elsewhere) that we shouldn't be further ironing out a specific approach? --Paul_012 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: If we can gain consensus for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14, I can have it start warning page creators at 5 months stale (i.e. 1 month before it becomes eligible for G13). This would mean users get warnings (at least for drafts enrolled in AFC) that their draft will soon be eligible for G13, but not require any policy changes. I'm personally opposed to a 7 day hold as it's an exception to the rule. Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there isn't a holding period for most criteria I don't see that as a good argument to dismiss a hold. There are already two where a hold is standard (C1, WP:T3), that said notifying at 5 months would be a step up from the status quo. --Trialpears (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor focused on a WikiProject, I would appreciate if such warnings could also be delivered to a draft's tagged WikiProjects. A common situation I'd like to avoid is where a one-time editor creates a draft, submits it to be declined, and no one else sees it until it's deleted in six months. Rescuing a draft can sometimes be as trivial as adding a few easily located references. Delivering the warning to potentially interested experienced editors would be more useful than to the creator who has long since given up, IMO. This doesn't appear to be within the scope of the BRFA (or the bot's previous functions), though.

Alternatively, the tagging-to-deletion delay scheme would also allow implementation of such warnings through Article Alerts, which would avoid cluttering a project's talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every draft gets wikiproject-tagged, so I'm not sure how much utility that would be. I wonder about configuring the bot to also post the upcoming G13s to a noticeboard... It would create a log of G13'd titles that people could poke through if they really wanted to see what had been G13'd, and people interested in draft rescue could watchlist the page and check the list all in one spot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul_012, you are active in WP:WikiProject Thailand? What would you say to the suggestion that any Thailand-related articles tagged as being worthy should be moved to subpages of WP:WikiProject Thailand? There, they are not subject to G13, they will be better organised, and hopefully at least someone in the WikiProject will routinely review them.

This is the opposite approach to User:Barkeep49's DRAFTPROD idea that drafts are to be patrolled for marking junk; instead WikiProject members patrol draftspace for things that are not junk.

Unfortunately, WikiProject taggings are near useless, because the tagging is done not by WikiProject members. It kind of devalues the meaning of the tag. However, they do make it easy for WikiProject members to patrol just these drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I don't mean a WikiProject-specific noticeboard, I mean a general noticeboard for everyone to look at. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO project-specific notifications would be much more useful (at least to me, working on Thailand-related articles). I do patrol the new articles feed for WikiProject Thailand and tag relevant drafts, but I'm probably the only one doing this for the project (which is admittedly not very active, collaboration-wise, so moving pages under the project might create a workload with no one to manage). I don't know how many projects have someone actively tagging new drafts (presumably relatively few), but notifications should benefit those that do, while not affecting the others. For region-specific WikiProjects at least, having a filtered notification would be very helpful in bringing drafts to the attention of editors with foreign-language skills who could much more easily identify and assess sources than the regular AFC reviewer.--Paul_012 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd certainly support notification at 5 months, I don't think a hold would do any damage, but the notification is preferable and easier Nosebagbear (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good news (Nosebagbear—Paul_012—Premeditated Chaos—SmokeyJoe) The bot is back in action and nagging editors whose page is at least 5 months unedited by anything. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed Hasteurbot14 at the top of this section is a very good thing, and a improvement over the someone unpredictable earlier versions --Hasteur, is that the one you are running now?

But we also do need subject based notifications. The problem here is that projects are not generally assigned until the drafts are accepted--I do not think there is any real mechanism for doing this otherwise. I'm sure we could figure one out--it would be a matter of adding a project-labelling to the draft-review, when the draft is declined or rejected. review. (we can't really expect it to be added before it gets reviewed by the contributors, who are mostly new editors. We could possibly find a way of adding it optionally when someone comments) We can use keyword-based labelling; I think we have the facility at them moment, if any project wants to use it. it works, but very roughly. ).

The Thailand example is easy. But most of the assigned projects will be no more specific than living people, or companies. each of them is about 40% of the overall number of drafts, biut even geting it down that far will help. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hasteurbot Task 14 is just the procedural "May I resume running Tasks (Nominate for Deletion), Task 2 (Remind people before the G13 eligibility date), and Task 9 (Inform editors who have edited a page who opt in that a page is coming eligible soon) Hasteur (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G13 word quantity on this discussion page

Would U5 be appropriate for userspace autobiographies or resumes/CVs, in cases where an editor's only edits are to those pages? Obviously, one should take care to not bite a newbie, but I am thinking of inactive user accounts (no edits for ~1 year or more) that contributed nothing other than an autobiography or resume/CV. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We removed that exclusion.

WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#Remove the résumé exclusion from U5 —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, Black Falcon, limited autobiographical information is specifically permitted by Wikipedia:User page#What may I have in my user pages?, and user pages (particularly a user's main user page) should not be deleted for holding information about a user that is not excessively promotional nor excessively long. Particular care should be used on relatively new contributors who may be planning to edit more generally, even if they have not yet done so. Users who created a user page and nothing more long ago, and have (almost) never edited elsewhere, are a bit different, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for the exclusion in the original U5. What if someone were to start their Wikipedian contributions by introducing themselves? So all the non-contributors’ CV userpages came to MfD. It was plainly obvious that they were all drive-by CV drops. Can you point to any valued contributor who began editing by posting their CV? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DES, I take your point. I am curious—what period of inactivity do you consider to be sufficiently "long ago"? I was thinking a year but am curious to hear others perspectives. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor creates a sock puppet investigation page, at the proper place and in the proper form, nbut later changes his or her mind and places {{db-self}} (or any similar template that invokes WP:CSD#G7, should the deletion be done (assuming no substantial edits by other users) or should tha tbe considerd a page of administrative value to the project, like a user's primary user talk page, and not subject to G7 speedy deletion. I declined a speedy today on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navawnatherat, but another admin accepted it later, p[erhaps without noticing the earlier decline. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Navawnatherat for more info on the instance. I am looking for clearer policy guidance in such cases for the future, not to do a DR on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair enough to honor the G7 if no actions relating to it have happened. After all it could be a mistake, or based on wrong information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#SPI subpage deletions. I think SPI subpage deletions should be left for SPI clerks and above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have once/twice misfilled usernames leading to botched stuff; before I had my pagemover flag, I used to tag them with G7. Policy ain't a substitute for common sense. ∯WBG^converse 03:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Once it appears at MfD, I think it is a sure sign that someone needs help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Who needed help? Nom G7-ed the SPI page and DES declined, pending which nom MFD-ed the page, as a natural re-course and ST47 speedy-deleted. What's the issue? ∯WBG^converse 03:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:WikiWarrior9919 needed help (help, euphemism for attention). SPI page nominated for deletion is a red flag. The username includes "warrior" is a red flag. The user is six weeks old and dabbling with SPI subpages, is a red flag. I count three red flags for potential WP:GAME playing. I did not notice a declined G7 tagging, the nomination did not mention it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• G6 applies when any admin decides that the SPI subpage has no administrative value to the project ("unambiguously created in error" in G6's wording). Honoring G7 here really equals G6. We don't need any more instruction creep for trivial project administration tasks like getting rid of premature or aborted SPI requests. G3 applies to clearly bad faith SPI requests. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 07:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree in entirety. ∯WBG^converse 08:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. SPI subpages do not need to come to MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed changes

Merges into new criteria

• G1, A1 → G15 - Pages lacking a clear subject
• F1, A10, T3 → G16 - Redundant
• A3, F2, C1, G14 → G17 - No content

Merges into already existing criteria

• F9 - Unambiguous copyright infringement → G12 - Unambiguous copyright infringement
• U1 - User Request → G7 - Author requests deletion

I believe these changes will make the criteria easier for new users to learn, allowing them to use the criteria better. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Merges into new criteria

G15 - Pages lacking a clear subject

• G1 can probably be deprecated but it shouldn't be combined with A1 because G1 carries the connotation of "nonsense" which would be inappropriate to apply to good faith article creations. Also, the proposed G15 would expand the applicability into namespaces where it does not belong, such as drafts. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Expanding A1 to other namespaces is definitely a bad idea, it would open the door to, say, userspace pages being deleted if they don't make it clear what the subject is. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G16 - Redundant

• A10, F1 and T3 have too many specifics to handle for a combined criterion. A10 only applies to recent creations that cannot be turned into viable redirects. F1 requires a different file to exist but does not care which was there first. T3 has a 7-day-wait-period before a template can be deleted and requires deprecation. Regards SoWhy 15:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with SoWhy, there would be too many caveats. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G17 - No content

• These all have caveats e.g. A3 lays out explicitly what the criterion applies to and we'd lose that clarity if we merged them. Also this would make A3 applicable to other namespaces, which isn't a good idea because it could be used to delete drafts in progress for having too little content. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merges into already existing criteria

F9 → G12

• The major reason for the existence of F9 is the bit which says Most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis will not be released under such a license. This would be possible if that was merged into the G12 wording. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1 → G7

• See my comment below. U1 and G7 have different requirements. Anyone can block a G7 request by contributed significantly to the page but not an U1 request. Regards SoWhy 15:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. G7 applies if the author of the page (the one who wrote it) requests deletion, and U1 applies of the userspace owner (the user with the eponymous user page and its subpages) makes the request. These may be two distinct persons (anyone can create a page in anyone else's userspace), so a merge of the criteria would only make things more confusing. Geolodus (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• These are fundamentally different. At the moment you can request the deletion of pages in your userspace even if other people have contributed to them. This would get rid of that. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Discussion

• Thanks for taking the time to create a proposal but I must respectfully oppose these proposed changes. The criteria need to be "objective" and "uncontestable" which necessitates that some have similar purposes but for different uses. For example, G7 is to request a page to be deleted that you created while U1 is to request a page to be deleted that is in your userspace, regardless of who created it. Oftentimes U1 will be about pages you created yourself but not always and merging G7 and U1 thus conflates two different concepts. Regards SoWhy 15:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I will join SoWhy in thanking Invalid for bringing these forward but must also oppose all of these changes for largely the same reasons. While there is overlap in general ideas for each of the proposed merges, there are enough nuances and differences to merit each remaining distinct. SoWhy's U1 and G7 is a great such example of these. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Many of these crtieria are already routinely misapplied (even now, people only read half of the description, e.g. a large percentage of pages tagged for A10 would pass RFD as a redirect), and merging several into "redundant" will lead to a wide extension of speedy deletion to anything considered "redundant". Having many small criteria is a feature, not a bug. —Kusma (t·c) 16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all as a solution in search of a problem. The current criteria are not really confusing, citing the existing numbers with a link like WP:CSD#G1 is easy for users to read the criteria and understand them. Creating a whole new list of criteria with new numbers disrupts existing users more than it helps any future users. Criteria that need rewriting because they don't work or are frequently mis-applied are one thing, but this kind of rearranging of the furniture strikes me as pointless. --Jayron32 16:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the proposal shows a failure to understand the nuance of the different criteria. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging criteria only makes sense if they really are the same thing in different incarnations, if the criteria have caveats, explanations, special cases etc then a merge no longer makes sense. To take an extreme example we could merge all the criteria into one mega-criterion, with all the others as special cases, but it would be a lot less useful. Most of these proposals have a similar problem. Some of then would also make major changes to the applicability of the criteria, and not in a good way. Hut 8.5 17:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose solution in search of a problem. The maximal elimination of redundancy isn't a desirable goal here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Another reason to oppose changes like this is the tremendous confusion that would result. The people who deal with speedy deletion (either by requesting it or implementing it) are reasonably familiar with the current situation and a compelling benefit would be needed to justify the turmoil of changing labels. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - while there is good rational reasoning behind these changes, I find both the justifications for the status quo provided by others to be sufficient, as well as a major disruption as we adjust to the change. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Broadly opposing. The small arguable benefits are heavily outweighed by the cost of breaking long term consistency in practices and logs. CSD criteria do not need to be easily understood in a general audience presentation, they need to consistently understood and respect in the fine details. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On any Wikipedia article, editors are allowed (even encouraged) to remove any unverified statements (or, preferably, to verify them if they can), and also to remove unreliable sources (which may leave a statement as unverified, and thus free to remove, as per above), and in the case of a statement that is not supported, or even contradicted, by the source cited, to remove both statement and source (or, preferably, to replace the statement with one that reflects the source, if the source is reliable, and the statement useful/notable for the article)
...but what happens when the whole article, consists of nothing but statements that are unverified, "verified" by unreliable source, contradicts the cited source, etc? When it is clearly obvious, that there is absolutely nothing in the article that is verified by a reliable source? Should editors blank the article? WP:BLANK makes it clear, that the answer to that is "no" ...but why is it not included, as a criteria for Speedy Deletion?--85.228.52.251 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:STUB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are those, in any way, relevant? I'm not talking about removing topics. I'm talking about removing completely unverified and counter-factual misinformation.--85.228.52.251 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's spreading clearly incorrect information, I would think that G3 (hoax/pure vandalism) might apply. Otherwise, a delay of a week for AfD probably isn't the end of the world. creffett (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article consists of only misinformation, then it is a hoax and covered by WP:G3. If it is just unverified content, then you could tag as {{unreferenced}}. If you don't believe it can be referenced, then you can take it to WP:AFD. I'd be very much surprised if we are getting lots of articles that cannot be referenced and cannot be deleted by one of the other speedy criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 85.228.52.251 (talk · contribs), you need to be conversant with Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Verifiability", not "verified" is the policy. The phrase "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" is subjective, what is a "challenge". It being subjective means it is not suitable for speedy deletion, because speedy deletion must be uncontestably objective. If you contest the venerability of some content, then (1) WP:FIXIT and if you can't then consider (2) WP:AfD; or (3) if AfD-deletion is obvious, use WP:PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of what you say (and what Whpq said) is fine and all, and I guess I'll just accept that, but...

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

Here are some bits from Wikipedia:Verifiability (emphasis mine): The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]/.../Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced./.../Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source./.../Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups ...and, from a ref (more like a footnote) used there, this quote from Jimmy Wales (titled "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" ...which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with): "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."--85.228.52.251 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article that consists solely of unverified negative information about living persons is already subject to speedy deletion via WP:G10. For other topics, the policy says "may be removed", not has to be removed. While WP:V is an important policy, it does not exist in a vacuum. The editing policy complements it by mandating that surmountable problems in sourcing should be handled by fixing the problems, not removing the material. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is terrible for speedy deletion. Articles that are true but do not have any citations can be fixed, and should be fixed. If you want to clean up Wikipedia's first couple of years of growth where citations were optional, you shouldn't do that by deleting everything. You'd end up deleting a lot of articles on mathematics, many of which are written from a mathematician's point of view on verification (which is that directly giving a mathematical proof is preferable to a citation of some "reliable source" containing the statement), not from the accepted standard for most articles on Wikipedia. In practice, this is not usually a problem, unlike statements about living people, currently operating companies, or involving ethnic feuds. Most importantly, when pages that are true and about notable subjects end up at WP:AFD for lack of references, it is not true that the vast majority end up deleted: many of them have sources added, which improves Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 10:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The only case where that criteria makes sense is for BLPPROD, and even then is for a proposed deletion, not a speedy deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]