I was wondering if a "baseless claim" extension to either G3 or G10, leaning G3, can be added. It's already partially covered by G6, but I think some additional parameters can be added in order for pages to qualify under the extension:

• The extension would apply to WP:ARBREQ, WP:LTA, WP:RFC, and WP:SPI, to name a few.
• To qualify, the filing user must have had little or no prior experience in the given administrative area, or have had a generally bad reputation there.
• To qualify, practically everything presented by the filing user must be baseless, subject to a few exceptions.
• To qualify, the targeted user (if there is one) must have a generally good reputation on Wikipedia.

Administrators can check out Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Oshwah, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeilN, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oshwah as a few examples. ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G6 is fine for the links you posted. G3 also covers it. G5 probably also covers these particular ones. G6 is already kind of the catch-all for "this should obviously be deleted but none of the criteria fit exactly". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Ivanvector that G6 covers all this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think G3 covers it since WP:Vandalism is defined as "intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia" and creating obviously baseless SPI reports surely can be considered abusive. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 and G10 cover this well. Delete, block and WP:DENY are the correct answer here, not any changes to our criteria. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that criterion A11 be replaced with a new criterion, G14. This is because the criterion (that the subject was obviously made up) can be reasonably applied to spaces such as template: and draft:. The proposed new text is similar to the existing A11 text, and would be:

This applies to any nominally encyclopedic content that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note: This is not intended for hoaxes (see CSD G3).^[1]

Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems sensible. "Obviously made up" should be speediable in any namespace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite reasonable. Support. J947^{( c ) (m)} 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written. Doesn't seem to be solving an actual problem, while causing some new ones. Draft space may be a good place for such topics in borderline cases, even when they are speediable in main space. User space should be left alone. I haven't seen any cases where this could have been applied in other spaces. —Kusma (t·c) 06:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: the idea was prompted by the discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Republic of Myhös. VQuakr (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that this happens, but I don't think this happens frequently enough to be a CSD. —Kusma (t·c) 08:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We should not have to go to MfD or wait six months for G13 to kick in in order to delete something that we could speedy as clearly made up if it were in mainspace. Kusma, I recognize that userspace is traditionally given more leeway for borderline or even personal topics but we already have U5 for WEBHOST violations, so I think your concern is somewhat misplaced as there's clearly a precedent for getting rid of inappropriate content from userspace. That being said, I don't have an objection to carving out a "no userspace" exception for this one if we really have to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  U5 has an important exception for real long-term contributors, who are allowed to keep otherwise inappropriate stuff in their userspace. —Kusma (t·c) 09:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose--Unless and until user-space is left out of it's purview.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:U5 is used to delete such material in userspace now, but this crieria would be easier for new users to understand. There is no reason any page should be hosting stuff a user made up one day. We need this for Drafts for sure and we should being CSDing such Drafts instead of rejecting them at AfC. Legacypac (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:--Well, will the new expanded criterion cover User:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine Bonkbuster?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It makes a lot of sense to extend this beyond just article space.- MrX 12:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - First, I think it's important to remember that deleting something doesn't actually do anything other than hiding it, and most of the content in draft or user space is pretty well hidden already. Second, drafts and user pages aren't just areas for creating future articles (although ideally they are primarily for that and that alone). For a lot of new users, it's also a safe space to more or less tinker with the software and figure out how it works, which is not an easy thing to sort out. Even though those of us who use it every day are want to forget the steep learning curve. It's also in many ways a space to tinker with policies, and figure out exactly why a draft or a subject isn't acceptable. Third, most editors, especially new ones, don't actually fire up Wikipedia before they've had their morning coffee, and check their watchlist before they go to bed. That's why six months is six months: because it's realistic that a good faith editor might only return to work on a draft after several weeks of absence.

Overall, I think it's a recipe for WP:BITE, and while it might solve a problem from our perspective, it seems doubtful that most readers will ever at all notice any difference, and I don't think that's a level of potential improvement that justifies really much of any level of acceptable risk. GMG^talk 12:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Draft space is where such articles could be drafted to eventually indicate why they are significant, and there is no requirement for them to immediately do so. In fact, draft space is exactly where such a thing should be done when it was created/invented by someone the author knows personally, or themselves. Smartyllama (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Draft space and userspace is NOT where people should be writing about the drinking game or micronation they invented last week. Facebook or their own blog or nowhere are better places. No such page is ever kept a MfD. Also note the page must not assert notability.Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are obvious cases. Sometimes it may not be so obvious. That's why we have drafts and MfD. An article may not assert notability at the moment, but if it can be edited so it does, it shouldn't be deleted from draft space, yet alone speedied. If it were ready to be put in mainspace, it would be there. Articles in draft space don't have to indicate significance the moment they're created, only when they're moved to mainspace. There are two reasons we have that criterion, to prevent articles from being created about topics without any indication of significance and to prevent people from creating articles where they have a conflict of interest. Neither of those policies apply in draftspace. Users with a conflict of interest are explicitly told to create the article in draftspace rather than mainspace, and articles in draftspace are not, and never have been, required to indicate significance the moment they were created. Smartyllama (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we shouldn't be using significance-related standards to delete things in draft space. A page in draft space shouldn't have to indicate how the subject is notable from the moment it is created, which is why A7 doesn't apply there. I am also concerned this might be used to delete jokes in project or user space. Hut 8.5 17:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: in user space the analogous deletion criterion is WP:U5; I do not think an existing problem of applying this criterion to wikihumor exists or would be exacerbated by the proposed change. The proposed criterion is substantially narrower than A7, in that it requires the candidate material to both make no claim of significance and to state that it was invented/made up by the author. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U5 is widely misused to delete harmless material in userspace, that doesn't really inspire much confidence in me. A11 is effectively an expansion of A7 to include pages which were obviously coined by the creator or an associate, as it imposes a significance test. I'm also not a fan of writing speedy deletion criteria based on a single example. Hut 8.5 06:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak support: Make sure there's an exception for drafts. Even then, I'd wonder if this would work as an extension of G3 instead. ToThAc (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ToThAc: as noted in WP:A11, G3 implies an assumption of bad faith (vandalism) while A11 (and by extension G14) does not. G3's generally are identified by the implausibility of their claims (ie, "Joe McMiddleschooler was the first person to walk on the moon"). A11's generally make mundane but plausible claims (ie, "Joe McMiddleschoolball is a game I invented last week"). Draftspace is the primary space this proposed change would apply to, since similar candidates can often be deleted per WP:U5 in user space and are covered by A11 in mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support. Let me present an example that I think this new criterion is intended for: Draft:Spangclanism. As it stands, we have to wait for G13, or waste time at MfD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously created in wrong namespace, and could have been moved to mainspace instead of draftspace and deleted as an A11. I would also delete this as a G3 hoax at its current location. —Kusma (t·c) 07:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not understanding why you feel that page was “obviously created in the wrong namespace”. Saying anything that could be taken as a suggestion of moving drafts to mainspace to seek deletion will get you in serious hot water. That is very unpopular. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "feel" it was created in the wrong namespace, I looked at the page history and noticed that it was created in the Wikipedia namespace. Someone then moved it to the draft namespace instead of article space. I assume it was intended for article space, as many newbies think that "Wikipedia" is a space for articles. —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I have "abused" my powers to delete it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It would have been easier to mfD than to start this discussion. In general, in draft space we give more tolerance for things that may appear unjustified, as the purpose of draft space is for drafts that arestill unsatisfactory is for articles to get improved into articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is hardly a problem. Very few pages fall into this category. MFD will do fine, or if it does go to an article it can then be speedily deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Currently leaning oppose but can someone supporting this proposal demonstrate that such pages are created frequently enough that MFD can't handle it? After all, convenience is not really a reason to create a new criterion. Regards SoWhyMobile 00:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_and_copyright_law, it was pointed out to me by Adam9007 that while we do list G12 as a reason to delete a page regardless of the outcome of an XfD, F9 is not listed here. Is there a reason why it isn't? I'd also highly suggest that we go ahead and add it: consensus cannot override copyright law, and this is already acknowledge in the policy by having G12 listed as a reason to delete a page that has survived an XfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it's rather queer that we must technically go to FfD if a file has survived FfD and it later turns out to be an obvious copyright violation. Copyright is something that the participants at the first FfD may not have considered. Adam9007 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've gone ahead and added F9 to that list: [1]. No objections raised here and G12 is already listed and also applies to the file namespace, so logically F9 does as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a non-admin, and having just been chastised for tagging an article with G4 wrongly, I think the guidance for its use should be expanded as follows:

Non-administrators do not have access to articles that have been deleted as a result of an Articles for Deletion discussion. They should therefore only nominate an article for speedy deletion under the G4 criteria if there is certainty that the new article is substantially identical, for example through familiarity with the article prior to its deletion.

See also archived discussion here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty well assumed most of the time. Usually the best course of action is to reach out to your friendly neighborhood admin and get them to do a quick check to see if they are sufficiently identical. GMG^talk 20:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion could also feature in the guidance. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shifting perspective to the editing flow when a new instance is created by the name of a previously deleted page, the red-highlighted instructions are clear: ”If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.” If contributors follow those instructions, a repost susceptible to CSD G4 should never arise. But it does.

The proposed definition combines “certainty” with “substantially identical” in a responsibility on the tagger. That remains interpretive and easily gamed against non-admin editors. I see no virtue in constructing another situation which can result in negative feedback on the judgment of reviewers seeking to deal honestly with reposts which are often system-gaming by people with a direct interest in achieving a published article.

If non-admins are going to be susceptible to negative comments after proposing CSD G4, then I suggest the second sentence of the proposed guidance should instead become ”Instead of nominating the new article for speedy deletion under the G4 criteria, they should open a new Articles for Deletion discussion, with a rationale which suggests that it may be a repost of the article previously deleted under this or a variant name.” The downside is an(other) uplift in AfD workload, but the merit is that it provides the non-admin with a decisive above-board process. AllyD (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC),[reply]

• If a new page patroller believes in good faith that something is a recreation (standard case: something that was deleted just minutes ago), they should tag the new page for G4. The reviewing admin should also assume good faith, and either delete or un-tag without making the tagger feel bad about it. It is not reasonable to expect perfection from the tagger here, and it is explicitly an admin job to check whether something is or is not a G4. (There are cases when it is clearly wrong to tag something previously deleted as G4: say, something was deleted as lacking sources in 2006, and there are reliable sources from 2017 about something the subject did in the past ten years cited in the article). —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, I think Nyttend is wrong about the general principle that you should only tag when you are sure that it is a repost (i.e. only when you are an admin and don't need to tag). However, I don't think the grumpy reply Curb Safe Charmer received necessitates any change in procedures. They tagged something in good faith, they were wrong, the page was not deleted, no harm done. In any case, the main mistake Curb Safe Charmer made here is the following: The existence of an AFD for a person does not mean we should have to delete a draft about the same person. If any "abuse" of process occurred here, it is in the fact that drafts are not usually covered by a previous AFD, only by a previous MFD. —Kusma (t·c) 10:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  not sure this worked, so pinging @Nyttend: with my apologies for any double pings. —Kusma (t·c) 10:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be a very good addition. The policy is clear, and should remain clear, that this is for reposts, not different pages on the same topic, let alone different pages on a different topic with the same name, as I've periodically seen. If someone comes to me and says "Would you compare Page X against the deleted version, and let me know if they're identical", I'll happily look into the situation and answer; sometimes this doesn't require admin rights, since a page with more than a few major edits has no chance of being a repost, but I'll always be happy to answer the question. I am not at all happy to see people abusing the criterion by tagging without a shred of evidence, as was done here (you might as well just tag a music article for A9 without checking to see whether the musician has an article), but if you're asking, I'll always be happy to help, whether it's "here's the answer" or "please glance at the article history; it's changed too much to be a repost". I would make some changes to the proposal, also: first, G4 is for everything, so it should refer to XFD not AFD. Non-admins sometimes can find deleted content; you can find pages on archive.org, and the last "you shouldn't have speedied this" objection I received came from someone who based his argument on a Google-cached version. Perhaps the proposal should say something like "for example through familiarity with the article prior to its deletion, or through viewing an archived version, or by virtue of in-article evidence such as maintenance tags that predate its creation." Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, this would be a very bad addition. Nyttend's proposal undermines G4 whichever way it plays out.

Nominator leaves a note on Admin's talk page suggesting Article may be a G4 recreation. Admin investigates & confirms.

At this point what happens? Does Admin, knowing the article is a recreation, officiously confirm this to Nominator and insist that Nominator tags the article with a G4 notice, which Admin then responds to by deleting the article? A two step process has now become a five step process.

Or does Admin delete Article? A public, open process has now become a private deletion-on-request process which is prone to WP:ADMINSHOPping.

Far better that Admin accepts that, in the two-handed process which all CSD nominations are, the balance falls more heavily on the Admin than the Nominator when assessment of G4 is concerned.

So long as the material in the article still has the flaws mentioned in the AFD discussion which led to the original deletion G4 is appropriate. Only where the new article is obviously different to the article discussed in the AFD is any admonishment appropriate.

The guidance proposed fundamentally changes the nature of G4. For that reason, I oppose it. Cabayi (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The specific example given (Draft:Jeffrey Guterman) was a draft tagged for G4 because an article on the subject was deleted in mainspace, which isn't an appropriate use of the criterion. Even if the content was identical to the deleted version it still likely wouldn't qualify for G4. If some content isn't considered suitable for mainspace then it's perfectly OK for someone to work on it in draftspace to bring it up to standards, and the wording of G4 says that drafts don't qualify for G4 unless the material was moved there in order to evade deletion. I don't think the suggested change is a good idea, I think a better course of action is for admins to be aware that non-admin taggers haven't got all the evidence in front of them. Hut 8.5 19:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree, also with what Cabayi said above. Tagging for G4 basically means "I think this is a recreation, could you check please?" which is a good idea imho if done in good faith. After all, all taggings are merely a user asking for an admin to check whether the page meets a certain criterion and if so, act accordingly. Restricting non-admins in the proposed way makes NPP harder, not easier, without any real benefit. Regards SoWhy 19:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could change the SD-G4 text to make it sound less certain. or even add a SD-G4? template to say the tagger thinks it might apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It already says "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion" (emphasis mine). No speedy deletion template is a definite claim, they are all potential. Whether a page meets the CSD or not is always ultimately decided by the admin working through CAT:CSD, not by the tagger. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must not tag a page for any sort of speedy if you can't provide evidence that it qualifies, and I'm routinely encountering tags that are placed with no evidence whatsoever. That's not good faith: it's recklessness at best and deception at worst. We need to make a firmer statement that this is inappropriate and give some examples of what a good-faith user does. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as strict when it comes to speedy deletion as they come but even I think that's a too strict interpretation of policy. As Kusma points out, the speedy templates use the wording "may meet" since 2005, so I think it's pretty clear that the community has always considered tagging a request to check applicability of the speedy criteria. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: You must not tag a page for any sort of speedy unless you can't provide evidence for why you believe it qualifies. Evidence, in this case, is the link to the previous AfD. What is reckless is not non-admins tagging pages without definite proof (just based on the best of their knowledge), it is admins deleting tagged pages without checking the evidence and page history. —Kusma (t·c) 17:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of CSD tagging but G4 is essentially useless to a non-Admin as we can't check the deleted page and I perceive the stand to be "identical" to the deleted page based on Admin's actions when I tried to use G4 in the past. I've had too many Admins come down on me for alleged "incorrect tagging" even though my CSD accept track record is extremely high. Therefore I don't even use G4. I never see an Admin sanctioned for bad accepts or declines on CSDs yet I've seen Admins make such mistakes. This discussion shows there is a wide range of Admin opinion on how to treat G4 anyway. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there's a power differential here. The "substantially identical" wording applies to the admin making the deletion decision, not to the editor tagging it. Tagging a draft as G4 is already wrong, per the current wording of G4, but we shouldn't expect editors to compare articles to Deletionpedia before placing a G4 tag. Good faith on the part of the tagger should be enough; the admin has the tools, and the buck stops with them. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my pre-admin days I sometimes applied G4 on the basis of archived copies of the deleted page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:C2

Hi, this page should mention WP:C2 (speedy rename), which is currently available only in a section of WP:CFD. 165.91.12.213 (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7

Maybe explicitly state that fictional characters, organizations, etc. (besides hoaxes) do not qualify for A7? The same would also be true for A9. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New criterion: C4

I’m proposing a new criterion for:

recently created categories that unambiguously duplicate the scope of an existing category and where all members unambiguously fail the inclusion criteria, are already in the other category, are themselves nominated for speedy deletion, or can be uncontroversially added to the other category.

Categories like these sometimes come up in WP:CfD, and this criterion could mitigate some of the trivial nominations. The case where addition to the category would be uncontroversial is called speedy merge. It would also be in line with WP:A10. I’m open to suggestions. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This page, for the most part, is set in stone. I've been here for years and I bet if I made these changes without getting consensus, they'd be reverted by the very first admin who happened by. You're an ostensibly new user and you're trying to get a wide range of unprecedented changes via edit requests. Maybe instead, would you mind creating an account then starting a discussion here? CityOfSilver 06:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]