I think it might be a good idea to discuss the last sentence of WP:F5: "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article." While I can sort of understand the intent behind it, it seems to contradict WP:NFCC#7 and guidelines given on other pages such as WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and WP:UP#Non-free files (as it pertains to WP:USD). I'm not sure exactly when that particlular sentence was added, but it looks like it goes all the way back to 2005. F5 deletions are non-controversial deletions, so files can easily be restored and in fact are often restored per WP:REFUND or by the deleting admin when the orphan issue is addressed. "Reasonable exception" seems too open-ended and subjective since it's not clear how such a thing is determined. Moreover, it's also not clear how long such an exception can granted for. WP:NFEXMP does allow exceptions to the NFCC, but these tend to be for maintenance pages only and have nothing to do with orphans. If there was something like c:Template:OTRS pending used on Commons which could be used for orphaned images where an F5 exemption can be claimed but after a designated period of time automatically reverts back to {{Orfud}}, then I could perhaps see a way for this to work. I don't think, however, that there's anything currently like this for orphans. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Who added that text to WP:F5? Non-free files may not be used outside the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, so the file is subject to immediate removal from the page and then there's no point in keeping it on Wikipedia as the user could just go to WP:REFUND if the article later is finished. Furthermore, if the file is used in an article draft, then you could alternatively tag the file with {{subst:dfu|concern=Invalid FUR: Doesn't contain a valid rationale for [[WP:NFCC#7]] or [[WP:NFCC#9]].}} and then delete it under WP:F7 instead of WP:F5. Also, per WP:NFCCE, violating files are to be deleted.

See also Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Proposed addition: Use in draft articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thirteen years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That text was added 13 years ago(!) and was apparently approved by Jimbo himself (all hail Jimbo!). For future reference, WikiBlame is a very useful tool to find such changes. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading through the archived WT:NFC discussion linked to by Stefan2, it doesn't appear as if a consensus was established to allow non-free use drafts, which kind of makes the "reasonable exception" sentence pointless. I'm not sure why it wasn't removed at that time, but it probably needs to be removed because it gives the impression that orphaned non-free images are allowed under certain cases. As I posted above, this is not currently how orphans are treated and it contradicts content about acceptable non-free use on other guideline pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I read the "reasonable expectations" that if you take the 7 day period, that if the article is to be moved from draft space to main space within 7 days, uploading the image for use there in that time is reasonable, as during that time we'd see it as an orphaned image but with a likely use. If the draft doesn't get moved to main space, then after 7 days, the image can be deleted per F5. --Masem (t) 14:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense after reading your post and knowing a bit about NFCC, but it might not be so obvious from just what is written to someone who knows nothing about NFCC. Maybe it would be helpful to add an efn which clarifies that; so that others at least know that reasonable means at most 7 days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The cleanup of Neelix redirects covered by the X1 criteria is complete. A thread has been opened at the Administrator's Noticeboard here to discuss any audit that the community may wish to perform. By design, the criterion will automatically lapse at the conclusion of that audit. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• May I very politely add to this Yeeeeeeee hawwwwwwwwwwwww! Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  Definitely have a close eye on the very last of the RfDs so we can completely, definitely put this mess to rest. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is probably a perennial discussion that goes nowhere, but on the other hand it wouldn't be the first time I started one of those and it ended up going somewhere. But there does seem to be a disconnect between G4, which rules on (as practiced) article content, and AfD, which rules on article subject. I'm sure there's quite a few of us who've opened an AfD only a few weeks after the last one to get the same results. But it does seem like there should be some way of strengthening the pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies rationale of G4 so that it supersedes in some way in some cases the not substantially identical rationale. Currently the former is almost entirely subservient to the latter in a way that... well... just wastes time really if we have to have another AfD only a short while after the last one. In fact, as currently widely interpreted, the former is entirely superfluous as far as I can tell, so that we should probably either strengthen it or remove it as entirely useless. GMG^talk 00:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There are still quite a few G4 deletions going on, so it is not entirely useless. Perhaps it could be reworded to say that it does not address the issue in the AFD. But if the re-created is by someone else many years later, then really G4 is not really suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that sentence in particular, it makes no sense to me to have those two criteria connected by an "and", and would make more sense to reword somehow to an "or". Being "substantially identical" and "addressing the reason for deletion" are mutually exclusive. A substantially identical article of course can't very well do that, being identical in a substantial way. That's not even getting into the whole conflation of subject with content thing. GMG^talk 11:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe something like (in clunky hypothetical wording) ...or an article recreated shortly following deletion at AfD that does not address the reason for deletion. Leave it to admin discretion what "shortly" means in context. For someone who was marginal before, but is suddenly the subject of intense news coverage due to unforeseen events, "shortly" might be a matter of days before another discussion might be warranted. On the other hand for, say, a college freshman basketball player who's never played professionally and has received no substantial coverage, a matter of days is almost certainly not going to justify a new discussion. GMG^talk 11:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 

We regularly find U5 "not a webhost" material in Draft space. Expanding it to a G criteria would save time at MfD and AfD. The "A" CSDs cover this miscellaneous junk in Article Space so it would not be used there but Draft (and template, Project etc) lacks the criteria to deal with what U5 does now. There is no "Draft & Userspace except Article space" group of CSD so just making it a G seems appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples? The point of U5 is not to removed "junk", it's to remove user pages that someone set up who is otherwise not interested in editing Wikipedia. Drafts are usually created by people who want their pages in Mainspace, so they are not using WIkipedia "as a webhost" but merely as it is intended to, just not the way you might want them to. That's still not the same as U5 though. Regards SoWhy 09:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've handled 1000s of Drafts - I assure there are plenty of Drafts that fit U5 except for their location. Draft:Remote_Neural_Monitoring now at MfD. There is no specific U5 decline reason in AfC but we find plenty of page that would be U5 in userspace. Some of the pages at Category:AfC_submissions_declined_as_an_essay, a lot of the non-English resumes and other nonsense here Category:AfC submissions declined as not in English and many of the pages that end up here.Category:AfC submissions declined as not suitable for Wikipedia. Some slice of he "not notable" declines are just social media style pages that would be U5 in userspace. Only about 1/2 of Draft pages end up in AfC and the ones outside AfC have similar issues. Draft:Antisepticeye, Draft:Full Steve, Draft:Haryana was never under british rule, Draft:How to Sell Embarrassing Products in market and more. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you and I often disagree when it comes to speedy deletion, you have to forgive me that I am looking for more than your assurances. Speaking of which, of the five pages you listed, none would meet actually U5 if they were in userspace. Draft:Remote Neural Monitoring might be a fringe theory but the creator clearly wanted it to be an article, not just a personal website. Same goes for Draft:Antisepticeye and Draft:How to Sell Embarrassing Products in market, heck, even Draft:Full Steve. Judging from that, your interpretation of U5 basically seems to be "anything that meets WP:NOT". In reality, it's limited to pages that people would otherwise host somewhere else, not pages they want to have in Wikipedia but shouldn't. That's why WP:NOTWEBHOST mentions stuff like "résumé" or "personal webpage". Regards SoWhy 18:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed you oppose any expansion of any CSD - like G13 even when there is very wide support. I doubt anyone could provide any page as an example you would agree is a good example that should be deleted. For discussion purposes, please identify what CSD criteria does apply to the listed Draft pages or if you feel they are valid Drafts. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of middle ground between speedyable pages and valid content, that's why we have all the other deletion processes. U5 is frequently abused to delete acceptable userpages or article drafts, I don't think it's a very good idea to have it at all, much less expand it. Hut 8.5 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's not get personal. SoWhy and I have very different views on what the CSD criteria should be, but he's also deleted thousands of pages and I actually have somewhat similar views to him on the CSD criteria in practice (i.e. we should read them strictly unless there is a strong reason not too). I think there is growing consensus that deletion of drafts needs reform, but I think the best way forward there is draft PROD, not expanding the U-criteria. I'd also suggest getting rid of things like WP:NMFD, which we currently have to go through mental gymnastics to get around ("No improvement and little chance of being in mainspace. NOTWEBHOST." being the typical workaround for "Not notable and never will be.") There are all improvements that can be done without changing the CSD criteria, and would also be likely to get through. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft PROD always gets rejected because the argument is no one is watching the page. Its a Slow CSD. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is truly stupid to have to decline a page like Draft:Full Steve and wait 6 months or maybe much longer due to multiple submissions or random cleanup edits before deleting it and even offering a no contest REFUND. If there is no CSD applicable now we need one. If this page was in userspace very few Admins would refuse a U5 tag on it. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As Tony and Hut pointed out already, just because something is not speedyable, does not mean it ought to be kept. MFD exists and works well and Tony has offerered an alternative idea with Draft-PROD that we could consider. You appear to be obsessed with speedy deletion as the only possible solution to such pages which is too narrow a view to take. Regards SoWhy 20:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not true and not nice. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not say you are, I said that it appears that way. I know from own experience that good faith actions might appear differently to other people and I merely pointed this out to you. I do apologize if you perceived this as an insult. It was not meant that way. Regards SoWhy 07:05, 29 March

A non-apology that appears to blame me for misunderstanding. Taken with prior negitive interactions against me, this is very inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I can only explain what I meant and apologize if this has been perceived as an insult. That is what I have done. If you continue to feel insulted, there is nothing I can do against that, Regards SoWhy 10:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose broadening U5 to DraftSpace. Although I originally proposed U5 as G, it was clearly the case that the blatant rife NOTEEBHOSTING was only happening in userspace. I see very little DraftSpace NOTWEBHOSTing incompatible with AGF intention for an article, once the G11-able stuff is removed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This proposal would shift some unquestionably unsuitable pages from MfD to CSD. My "assurances" of the need for this based on my draft handling and MfD experience carry no weight with SoWhy who says "MFD exists and works well". With 3 experiences at MfD in 5 years how much weight should we give that assessment? We are each entitled to do what we want and state an opinion, but we are not entitled to belittle experienced editors and should refrain from making pronouncements on things we know nothing about. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

One does not have to actively participate in an area to know about it although I do admit that my involvement in MFD was larger in ancient times (with multiple closes that the tool incorrectly lists as deletion !votes, such as this or this). However, I, like any other observer, can plainly see that MFD is not overwhelmed at the moment. There are 31 active discussions for the last 8 days (or 3,875 pages per day). But again, the question here was not whether MFD is overrun with nominations but whether there is a frequent influx of pages that objectively and uncontestably are attempts to use Wikipedia as a webhost. I'm happy to be persuaded but as SmokeyJoe says above, there seems to be no evidence that this is actually the case. Regards SoWhy 11:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

People who use the comma as the decimal separator should be hung until death. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Sorry, I sometimes forget that some countries are weird that way and don't understand that commas are way better than separating numbers than points SoWhy 18:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that G6 and G7 have lately been used to delete redirects left behind after a move (by someone other than the only substantial author) as "pagemove cleanup." This seems to be an issue for movers/taggers and sysops alike, although the latter can move without leaving a redirect, a potential loophole. I'm sure I'm guilty of this myself, but we should all be better. G7 explicitly bars such behavior, but G6 is less obvious: it mentions redirects only in the context of blocking pagemoves. Per G7 and R3, however, deletions of redirects left behind after a pagemove are not uncontroversial unless they were unambiguously made in error.

With that in mind, I would like to propose adding to G6 something like what the first half of R3 states: This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move. I'm not sure where, but perhaps bullet four could be amended to read (added text in italics): Deleting pages or redirects unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move unless made in error. Regardless, I think some additional clarity would be helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I follow where it is necessary; the only two G6 examples are: 1) involving redirects is when the redirect blocks another legitimate page move; and it ALREADY notes that admins should follow a proper procedure in doing so, AND in checking for nontrivial page history before deleting the redirect. 2) involving redirects created by moving pages across namespaces because of an error. If there wasn't an error, it doesn't apply! --Jayron32 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's exactly right. My worry is G6 being used inappropriately because such deletions are not explicitly prohibited in the text of G6. G6 is somewhat unique in that, while it provides examples, it is intentionally left open-ended for "uncontroversial" deletions. We've had to leave notes in G7 and R3 to clarify the history, and an editor should not need to read G7 or R3 to know what isn't controversial under G6. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Adding caveats to G6 is futile, because as written, it's seven different unrelated criteria (C4. empty dated maintenance categories; A12. disambigs to one-with-(disambiguation)/zero pages; R4. trivial-history redirects blocking page moves; R5. certain cross-namespace redirects created by page moves; T5. TFD consensus, which isn't a speedy deletion criterion anyway; R5. file redirects shadowing Commons; U6. default article wizard userpages by inactive users) with a misleading synopsis that's functionally equivalent to "whatever the admin pushing the button thinks he can get away with without anybody raising a fuss". Many, many taggers and plenty of admins already think they can get away with R3ing move-created redirects anyway, and by and large they do get away with it. —Cryptic 18:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  You seem to have a specific example where an article should not have been deleted that was. If you have a specific example, can you share it and show what you did to correct the problem? --Jayron32 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  I really don't. But they're not hard to find. Post Oak Middle School, Virinia and File:Ponmuttayidunna Tharavu Poster.jpg show up in the most recent few dozen deletions marked as "R3", for example. (Or did you want examples of admins treating "speedy delete because it's uncontroversial maintenance" as the tautology it is?) —Cryptic 19:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  But as you say, those are both R3 taggins; how is G6 bein overly broad the problem there? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  It wasn't clear whether Jayron32 was asking for lax R3s or lax G6s. I'll dig up some examples of the latter either tomorrow or later tonight - I only have a few minutes right now, and the overwhelming majority of G6s fall into the listed examples (particularly page moves, TFD, and monthly maintenance categories). —Cryptic 00:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well, those are also correctly applied R3 deletions. Uncontroversial deletions of redirects created by an obvious misspelling are exactly what R3 was created for. So you have the problem that 1) you can't produce a single example of a G6 deletion that occurred incorrectly (i.e. a deleted article that should have been kept) and 2) when trying to find examples of a different criteria that was used, you give two examples of it being used exactly as intended. Look, if its such a problem, it should be trivial for you to have examples of abuse. If there are zero examples of it being abused, then it isn't a problem and doesn't need fixing. --Jayron32 15:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • They're both redirects created from page moves, which are explicitly excluded from R3; and one's not recently created by any interpretation, which is also explicitly excluded. How in the world is that "correctly applied"?
  • How many do you want? Here's a representative sample of five:
    • Draft:Young2-SwiTch - A7 applied to a draft article
    • Ronald P. Schaefer - article by an undisclosed paid editor, now restored
    • Draft:DR. RAMAN SINGH - (terrible) draft with an article already existing in mainspace (Raman Singh)
    • User:தமிழன்டா/sandbox/life - user sandbox deleted for not being in English
    • C10H15N5O5 - redirect to Vidarabine, too old to delete as an R3 (created in 2009), so labelled G6 instead
  • There's been explicit consensus against each of these sorts of deletions. Whether you or I agree with that (I don't, for any of them) is immaterial. Mostly I just wish people ignoring all rules with their delete buttons to stop pretending that they aren't by picking "G6" from the dropdown menu. —Cryptic 19:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• G6 is often used as a kind of catch-all wildcard criterion when none of the other criteria fit.
  This is not its purpose.
  If a person (admin or otherwise) believes that a page (redirect or otherwise) should be deleted, and they cannot find a CSD criterion that is directly suitable, they should file a discussion at the relevant WP:XFD department. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I'd be in favour of repealing G6 entirely and replacing it with a set of clearly defined criteria similar to those suggested by Cryptic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think G6 should be restricted to pages with zero or trivially small histories, G6 should never be used to delete something that could be required for attribution, for example. Page move G6's seem to fit that. G6 being used for pages with histories should be broken out into other criteria. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've always taken the unifying spirit of G6 (insofar as it has any at all) as there being zero permanent loss of information, which is similar but a bit stricter. —Cryptic 00:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Perhaps by clearing up or replacing "noncontroversial?" Cryptic's list is essentially the examples listed by G6, but the rest is overbroad. Per myself and Redrose64, people are misusing G6; I think it's because what folks think is obviously noncontroversial is not necessarily so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've proposed a complete replacement set, mainly duplicating the examples, below. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • G6 is often used as a wildcard criterion, I would support repealing it. This is why we have PROD. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You may have a point, provided that PROD is expanded to include templates, categories, and redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I would support expanding PRODs into other namespaces *cough*draftspace*cough*.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
• @Amorymeltzer: G6 is currently necessary for page movers to justify deleting titles like BDS/holding which come about through WP:PM/C#4 (and other steps in the process). Because page movers cannot delete page history, they by definition always appropriately preserve it when properly implementing round-robin page moves. I have noticed that some administrators, improperly in my opinion, outright delete former redirects (both titles and history) then recreate them as new (I have also seen them leave reasonable old titles deleted altogether, but not as often). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this proposal isn't suggesting anything that would affect that; it is a narrow proposal to clarify that redirects as a result of regular, good-faith page moves are not subject to G6. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose using G6 to "no fault" remove redirects. Conceivably, at some point there was a good usage for the redirect (i.e. something pointed at it) and if we remove the redirect, we break history and then have to go through a rigmarole to figure out what historically did the title point at so we can reconstruct context. Redirects are cheap (also taking into consideration the collary: Redirects are costly). I have no problem with using G6 to remove redirects to fix page move failures (or for cause issues). I do agree that removing the "kitchen sink" concept of G6 would fix much of the percieved issues. Hasteur (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarify confusion

This sort of stalled following submission of the below, but with that proposal's closure, I'd like to see if there's any appetite for this. It seems there was a fair amount of confusion about what I was proposing, so allow me to state clearly: I am not proposing any change whatsoever in the criteria for G6. Rather, I hope to merely state what is already policy: G6 cannot be used to delete redirects left as a result of routine pagemoves, except those resulting from unambiguous error. Unlike G7/R3, this is implied but not explicitly noted in the G6 criteria, and for someone tagging or deleting it can be easy not to think about that prohibition. Cryptic gave some good examples above (the chemical formula one in particular), and I'll add two I've personally come across and declined since opening this: Toyota Crown (S220) and Draft:Thomas Mor Alexandrios. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Another example: Draft:National Judicial College ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that splitting this out into half a dozen new criteria is probably overkill. What I think might work better is putting an explicit provision in G6 that any admin may undelete at any time (or that any user may require a G6-ed page or revision to be restored), on the understanding that if it is undeleted it is not "uncontroversial". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC).

Use of G5 for ToU violation is an interpretation put forward by TonyBallioni, DGG, Doc James and others: "Mass sock farms can reasonably be assumed to have previous blocked accounts. That a sock farm knows how to game CU should not prevent us from protecting Wikipedia" (TonyBallioni). It was unanimously upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4. IMO, this shouldn't be treated as controversial anymore, and I feel free to use G5/G11 deletions in case of apparent sockfarms when the master is not definitively known. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's a change to the actual policy, e.g., the criterion itself, this is simply an application of WP:IAR. Also, Bri omits the fact that in the instances at issue, he tagged the article before the creator was even blocked. If we want to take the position that UPE's creations can be deleted per a violation of the TOU, then we shouldn't specify a criterion in the deletion (or the tag) but say that in the deletion "log".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not for TOU violations: that has been repeatedly declined by the community. What is the common interpretation is that large sock farms are covered already by G5, as we can reasonably assume that someone running 20 throwaway accounts on proxies has been blocked already. This was put forward in the previous RfC last summer as a reason why a G14 might not be needed, and has been a pretty standard practice both before and after that. I'd also note that I would highly prefer any discussion of a future any future CSD criteria not take place on this talk page, which is pretty biased towards inclusionists in terms of discussion, and that it would take place at a more neutral ground like VPP. Also, just as a note, the two times this interpretation has been tested at DRV that I am aware of, it has been endorsed (both the August 4 example and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 3).TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this talk page biased towards deletionists, but rather biased towards those who like to follow process, leaving disputed issues to AfD. But I am of the opinion that there is no real practical difference between deleting based on the TOU for undeclared paid editing and deleting on the basis of an implied G5. They have essentially the same criteria and yield the same result. And, as Tony says, tthat result has been upheld at DRV. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In general, the worst offenders of undisclosed paid editing have been doing it for a while, were blocked in the past, and are continuing to do so with socks. Most paid articles end up being deleted under G5 or G11. We haven't really needed to factor in ToU violations, as it is very rare when we can't manage the issue under the existing CSD criteria. In the odd chance that it can't be managed using CSD as things stand, I'd be very wary of expanding CSD to include ToU violations, in part because a large portion of the community has always been opposed to deletions based on contributors instead of content (and thus only G5 focuses on the creator - everything else is about the content or the creator's request), and in part because the preferred solution is to talk to the editor and see if we can get them to disclose and start meeting the ToU, rather than deleting first. - Bilby (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In the specific case that led Bri to post here, the reason I said that they would be elibible for G5 was because there are certain patterns in those editor's contribs that make it 100 % certain that they are experienced UPEs. I would have blocked them myself, but (as confirmed by CU) I wasn't sure they were related to that particular master so didn't want to tag them as such. If we follow G5 strictly, then we are essentially rewarding UPEs who have found ways to avoid getting caught by CU. I don't think it should be necessary to prove that an account has been is a sock in order to determine that they have already been blocked. The difficulty is that we can't discuss in public what it is that makes accounts like these stand out as being DUCKs or else they will learn to change their behaviour. Deleting via G5 without a master is IAR, but in the use common sense way, rather than going against established community norms. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

G5 does not actually state that the sock's master has to be known for it to apply. Of course, usually you need to know it to determine whether a creation was really in violation of a ban or block but strictly speaking, it is not necessary, if (and only if) other evidence exists that makes it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that this user is a sock. Such evidence might be the user admitting that they previously edited under other accounts (without disclosing them) or the user recreating pages verbatim that were previously created by socks and where the text is not found anywhere else. Of course, any such G5 application needs to be performed very very carefully and only in the most obvious cases. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Good point about not needing to know the master. With UPE those examples you give will never happen, but I and others look for specific patterns in contribs that are nigh on impossible for real new users to have, combined with creating articles on subjects that attract UPE. Happy to give examples of these via email. Increasingly often CU comes back negative and CUs note that the technical evidence is odd, which is another again incriminating factor IMO, since if they have learnt how to avoid it, they must have been blocked before. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally will not G5 without an SPI or a CU finding, even if it is obvious. It's a check I put on myself. My rule of thumb is that if there are 5 or more accounts, they've likely done this before. I believe Smartse (correct me if I'm thinking of someone else) and others are of the view that if we know a proxy has been used, we are safe to assume that there are other accounts that have been blocked regardless of the amount. I haven't yet taken that approach myself, but I also don't fault those who do. Those of us who devote our time to working this area are up against the frustrating task of working against people who know our rules and how to use them to game the system. As Bri mentioned in my quote above, I don't think we should reward those who are obviously gaming the system by helping them do it. I also think there is a fine line between using common sense here and ignoring the protections we put in place for a reason. It's a balance and each of us deals with it differently. Eventually, practice will sort it out and we'll have some form of uniform standard. We're moving in that direction already, but aren't there yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the "master" is not an account, the "master" is a person. If one person is creating massive numbers of multiple accounts in violation of clear standards here at Wikipedia, and doing so for nefarious purposes, then G5 applies. We don't have to tag a first known account to invoke it here. It is sufficient to know that there's some human, who has been asked to leave before, who is now using sockpuppetry to avoid having to stay away. Evidence that they should know better is their behavior. --Jayron32 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would extend that to say person or firm. I'm of the belief that if your freelancers or entry-level PR people have been blocked, and you're working for the same firm, it's covered by WP:PROXYING, so G5 would apply even if the person behind the keyboard isn't the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, "corporate personhood" too. The point is, per WP:NOTBURO, WP:IAR, we do what we need to do when we need to do so for whatever is best for the encyclopedia. If we're getting bogged down in rules for rules sake, we're missing the point. If it is clear that a person is creating articles in violation of their being asked to leave, we can delete the article as needed. --Jayron32 15:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I agree we need to be cautious and I rarely act unilaterally, but I think that if there is a consensus amongst experienced users that the articles are UPE and that the accounts are not new, then G5 should apply. That's because of them being blocked already, not for ToU violations. The difficulty is in getting that consensus, not in terms of people disagreeing, but often nobody comments either way. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reene 23 for a current example of where I think G5 should be applied, regardless of CU, likewise with the accounts we are discussing via email. SmartSE (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I usually delete acoording to all the criteria that reasonably apply. If A7 and G11 apply, I specify both, and similarly with G11 and G12. Practical proceedings here are basically similar. An essential factor is is that deletions here if challenged will be supported at AfD, and , between the general realization of the danger of Undeclared paid editors, and with the new NCORP specifications, that has become much more likely. There is really not all that much to gain from converting an UPE into a declared editor, unless it also increases the quality of their work. There are so few successful examples of this that I think the next step will be banning paid editing altogether. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We've convinced a large number of editors to declare - the problem is that the ones who do large scale paid editing tend not to do so, as the way their editing is treated makes undeclared paid editing more likely to get through and earn a profit. I'm sure we'll get to a point where we'll ban paid editing - which will make no significant difference to the volume of paid editing, while making undeclared paid editing the only option for the thousands of businesses and individuals that currently are desperate for articles.

Otherwise, I agree that we don't lack tools - G5, G11 and A7, NOTHERE blocks and spam-only blocks. The tools to combat undeclared paid editing are fine. What is missing is the ability to detect it. - Bilby (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Benefits of getting a UPE to disclose are minimal. As long as people can just create another account(s) for every article we can't track. One person-one account (say Email verification of accounts and only one account per verified email) would go a long ways to identifying paid editors but as long as anyone can start a new account every week it is a losing battle. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Throw-away email addresses are very very cheap, and very easy if you are organised. One account per SMS-receiving phone number is a much more reliable proxy of one-per-person. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately, we may have to modify even one of our basic principles, and require secure but confidential identification of people contributing articles in certain fields. There might not be consensus for this ever, as some WPedians think that the principle of anonymous contribution is more important than the principle of reliability/ DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

May people seem to think this, but the earliest statements of principles spoke to editing, not to page creation, and the time of these statements was when the encyclopedia was mostly empty. IPs, newcomers, drive-by readers, should always be able to fix things, remove inaccuracies, add missing information. It is said that most of the content comes from IPs adding little bits, that established editors are more editors, curators, than content creators, in comparison with unregistered editors. That is great, and should continue.

Asking for a phone number for registration doesn't need to mean "securing" that information, although there would need to be trust that the WMF doesn't record it. They would have to have a mechanism to prevent reuse of the same phone number for repeated registrations, but there are ways to do this that don't involve an accessible record of the phone number. Compare with Renren, Chinese facebook, which requires a cell phone number to register. https://accounts.wmflabs.org/ requires you to provide an email to proceed, you need the email to receive the password, it says. How about it require a cell phone, and limits the number of activated accounts by cellphone. How many people wanting to add a page to Wikipedia do not have a cell phone? For the few people without cell phones but wanting to add pages to Wikipedia, they can use {{help me}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I had a couple of discussions today where other editors seemed to feel that a G7 tag was a mandatory deletion when placed in good faith with no other significant edits. My understanding is that any speedy deletion tag can be challenged by any editor (except the creator, of course) and that even if it's not challenged, it's still admin discretion. Who's more correct here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• My understanding is that G7 is a courtesy and it isn't mandatory at all, per WP:OWN. Hut 8.5 19:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Concur with Sarek and Hut.And, good faith is a keyword. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 19:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy tags give us permission to delete something, they don't mandate it. Even F9: the policy that mandates deletion is WP:C. So, we're allowed, even encouraged, to use our discretion. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• I don't need permission to delete an article. Administrators are not required to use their tools in any circumstances. A speedy tag simply means that the user who tagged it believes it meets the criterion and should be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• What all the others said. No speedy request has to be fulfilled and if you believe the page should be kept, no editor is entitled to have their pages deleted. After all, when you create something, you release it under a license that says anyone can use it for everything. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Agree with the above. Speedy tags are a way to alert sysops to something actionable, and in an ideal world should all be uncontroversial. As this is not always the case, if a sysop gets there and believes it is not actionable, they need not act on it. The system is not one of compelling admin action, if only because the admins are the ones entrusted to delete pages, not taggers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not to be a contrarian, but I mean, what's the justification for not deleting it? I mean, yes, everything people above say is true, but as a matter of common courtesy, I would expect a fairly solid reason for declining an otherwise-valid G7. You're of course perfectly allowed to not act on a G7 regardless. But while nobody has an absolute right to have their pages deleted on a whim, I would interpret actually removing a valid G7 tag as kind of a dick move unless there was some convincing reason not to delete it. A case-by-case thing, for sure, but removing a valid G7 tag isn't something that I personally would do lightly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sure, but that's somewhat tautological — if there's no justification to not delete it, then there'd be no contest in the first place. The way I read Sarek's situation is if a user makes a good-faith G7 tag but the reviewing sysop feels that there is indeed a reason to decline. No harm no foul on the part of the tagger, just something they were (in the sysop's mind anyway) mistaken about, which should be explained in the decline. Without knowing the specific discussion it's hard to say, but I took the question to be more about whether someone can still decline or contest a G7. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• This ^^^.- MrX 🖋 20:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• If there's a valid speedy tag (G7 or anything else) which may be controversial, then I'd prefer if the admin takes the matter to XfD or some other discussion venue instead of deleting the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• No CSD tagging should be seen as a mandatory deletion. After all, there are malicious taggings; what if some logged-out user were to put {{db-user}} at the top of this page? No, when an admin finds a page that is tagged for CSD the first thing that they should do is decide if the criteria enumerated at WP:CSD are met (if not, remove the tag and drop a note on the tagger's user talk page). But even when the criteria are satisfied, deletion is not mandatory. For a WP:CSD#G7 request, the admin may hold the opinion that the tagged page is useful, an overall enhancement to the encyclopedia, and the world would be worse off without it. They are not bound to delete, and may instead de-tag (with an explanation to the tagger). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• This has been discussed a few times before - here and here for example. I think we have to go back to the reason why this user-requested deletion was introduced in the first place. My understanding was that it was for tests, or incomplete content that someone may decide not to continue working on, rather than for complete articles or useful content - the GFDL is explicit that the contributors of that material are submitting it to the public from the moment they save it to the Wiki, even if they later change their minds or wish to vanish. At one time there was a condition that the content must have been "mistakenly created", but this was removed in 2007, for reasons that aren't completely obvious. Anyway, it seems clear to me that G7 is eligible for challenge, and I think it should automatically be denied if there's even one other user who disputes the deletion (and the material is not complete junk, of course, which would render it speediable under other criteria). It might be worth making this explicit in the text, so we don't run into this confusion again.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I have more than once recently seen a draft or article page deleted as G6 because it contained unnecessary personal information about a minor. This isn't really housekeeping or technical. It was a situation where an administrator chose to ignore the rules to find a reason to do something that needed doing. I submit that we need a criterion G14, which is pages containing personal information about minors for whom there is no credible claim of significance. I am willing to see some tweaking of the wording, but we really need a new criterion, because it clearly isn't G6, but it clearly has to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read the above, and will comment further, but I still think that minors really are a case that requires a criterion, because G6 really is not applicable, and one can almost hear the chalk squeaking on the slate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Minors absolutely do not need a criterion, and should not really be speedied. See The OS FAQ for the proper procedures. Nominating something for speedy deletion increases the number of eyes who will be seeing the page - trim it down if necessary, contact oversight/an oversighter, and let us deal with it. Primefac (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As Primefac said, this is a textbook example of content that should be WP:OVERSIGHTed. If there's no CCS, then just tag it with A7 (or some other criteria) if the oversighter keeps the article up. Iffy★Chat -- 12:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we need to include some bit of text on the page as to when to use oversight instead of speedy deletion? Seems like some people might be unclear on this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with an admin using G6 in this situation as long as Oversight is notified. This would be similar to the provision in Revision deletion about revision deletion prior to oversight. ~ GB fan 13:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Usually, A7 will apply to such articles anyway (or U5 if it's a userpage), so admins seeing this on patrol can delete it (G6 is fine if something else really doesn't fit). The problem with having a criterion, as Primefac points out, is that this will lead to people tagging the page, thus increasing the number of people seeing it. Non-admins finding such pages should remove the personal information and contact oversight immediately. They usually react quickly anyway. Regards SoWhy 13:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per the above, after removal our chief goal is to not draw attention to this sort of thing; a speedy category would be a very easy way to find material that nobody should see. This is a case where the more opaque, the better; having a category would be counterproductive at best. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not needed - an admin finding revisions containing personal information about a minor should revdelete the revisions (WP:RD4). If revdeleting this info leaves no visible revisions, this already falls under WP:G10 or WP:G6. As SoWhy said it's recommended in the revision deletion guideline to avoid revealing information about edits requiring this treatment, which is possibly why you see G6 being used (it's a catch-all for uncontroversial deletions). Creating a new criterion works against that guidance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

O hell no! Such privacy violations need to disappear as quickly and quietly as possible. Planting any kind of flag designed to attract attention on such a page is absolutely the stone-cold least desirable thing to do to such a page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are some entities out there that are actively patrolling Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and are automatically copying down the contents of nominated articles before they are deleted. Sometimes, they even get posted to an external website. As others have mentioned, when removing personal information in general, we should take care to do it discreetly, and since "non-public personal information" in general is already a criterion for oversight, it would be redundant as a criterion for speedy deletion. Mz7 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth explicitly noting that any page where all versions of the page would be subject to WP:REVDEL can be deleted G6? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think G12 covers RD1, G10 covers RD2, and G3 covers RD3. I would say RD4 and RD5 would be better off as WP:IAR-type deletions rather than something explicitly enumerated. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to say it's not even really WP:IAR since proper use of RD (or OS) in these cases is following the rules to a T. Perhaps it is in the case of deleting the page rather than revdeling, but even so, it's more of a non-CSD deletion than an IAR-deletion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Recently, I came across an editor (no names) who had added a phone number, email address and their date of birth (which was not earlier than 2002) to several talk pages, one of which did not previously exist. I reverted all these edits (except the page creation) and applied WP:REVDEL (except to the page creation) and then sent the lot to Special:EmailUser/Oversight per WP:OVERSIGHT. When doing the job, they blanked the page that did not previously exist before suppressing the edit that created the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A seperate criterion is a terrible idea. The last thing we should do is wave a big flag pointing out material that needs to be suppressed. Use whatever existing criterion seems best, use revdel, contact the oversight team. This is how we’ve been doing it for some time and I don’t see a problem with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some guidance in §Non-criteria along the lines of Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight - i.e., admins shouldn't use a "Personal info on a nine-year-old" delete log, non-admins shouldn't tag for speedy deletion at all, and both should mail oversight instead of just walking away afterward, thinking they made things better instead of worse. —Cryptic 00:17, 14 March 2018(UTC)

I'm working with drafts a lot, so maybe it's different there but when I find oversightable material it is usually in a page that contains zero useful content. Removing a birthday does not solve the overall problem the page should be gone. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove the information with no edit summary or an edit summary of “x” if the whole page needs deleted I’ll either unilaterally G10 or A7 (both are often applicable) or failing anything else, G6, and then contact oversight. The best thing for non-admins to do is remove what is possible discreetly and contact oversight. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blank. Suppress. Delete like normal. No specific CSD needed here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I mentioned an idea very similar to this (specifically for drafts) in a recent AN kerfuffle, and the consensus appeared to be that the existing guidelines are sufficient. I do feel that, if an expansion is necessary, it should be phrased as allowing A7 deletions in other namespaces (specifically draft space). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a pre-proposal; I won't support or propose this formally until ACTRIAL is permanent.

I think there's a reasonable argument that A7/A9 (the two somewhat notability-based deletion reasons) should be limited to new articles. Now that there is a reasonable amount of review and control on newly-created articles through NPP and ACTRIAL, having an article that was not proposed for deletion for a significant period of time (something between a month and a year) is enough of an indicator of notability/importance/significance that something with more review than a CSD should be used. Any thoughts? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirects get turned into NN articles all the time. How would you handle a 5 year old redirect that might have been an article at some point (or not) turned into an article? Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I would support this, but if it is considered, the time should be longer than a month. NPP often has a backlog of longer than a month. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, an old redirect recently converted to an article would be always recognised as a recently created article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

In general, a redirect turned into a non-notable article should be restored as a redirect, not deleted outright. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that’s right power. Sometimes I muse, all old mainspace redirects should be soft-protected. It is more tedious dealing with bad new articles created on top of them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I doubt it would pass, but it is in the spirit of ACPERM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would not support this at all. An A7 is an A7 regardless of the age of the article. We can make no assumptions about the quality or appropriateness of an article based on its age. Jbh ^Talk 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If anything we should expand these criteria to cover AfC submitted drafts. The editor submitting the Draft intends for it to be included in mainspace. HAd they moved it to mainspace themselves we would A7 it. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • Support CSD#A criteria applied to any submitted draft, even if still in either draftspace or userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find all kinds of A7'able garbage in the depths of the orphaned articles categories from as far back as 2009 (and actually farther, since that's the earliest those things were tagged, many were created earlier). Just because we didn't have a review process back in the day doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to tag those things when we find them now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of crap; based on my experience with the "Random article" button I'd estimate 10000 old pages that could be speedy-deleted, and significantly more that don't meet any CSD but would certainly be deleted at AFD. A good portion of the CSD articles are G11. I don't think an extra 10 PRODs per day for 2 years would be an excessive burden. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support. While I agree with PMC's comment above in general, WP:SILENCE teaches us that for articles that have existed for years the assumption is generally in favor of keeping the article. So while a hard-and-fast rule makes no sense considering that some articles might actually have not received any edits for years, in most cases admins should decline speedy requests for old articles except in the most obvious cases. We still don't need an AFD for a 2008 article about some teenager's high school band though. In the end, I would suggest adding some advisory language to the policy that admins should consider an article's age in their decision and send all but the most obvious cases to AFD instead. On a side note, please do not make this discussion about applying A-criteria to drafts again. This has been rejected multiple times now and if you really want this, start a separate RFC. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For another thread, yes, but A* criteria to apply to *submitted* drafts is a new idea that I think has strong merit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy - your extremely narrow reading of CSDs and inexperience in Draft management strain the credibility of your statements. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, that is all of rude, unfair, and inaccurate. SoWhy is a very experienced old Wikipedian with interests more wider than yours. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC). Maybe “old” is not literally correct, he claims to be a jurist, which explains his long term considering wise-style commenting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) WP:SILENCE states that silence is the weakest form of consensus, and that it can be interpreted in a number of different, contradictory ways. The fact that nobody speedy-tagged a given junk article doesn't mean that a consensus exists to keep it. It could mean that nobody ever saw it in the recent changes queue, nobody cared to look at it, nobody knew enough to decide, or any number of other things. Per WP:SILENCE, "Wikipedia is huge and our editors' time is limited." A lack of prior attention does not automatically mean that something passes our notability criteria - it just means that the project is so big that things fly under the radar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

    Actually, we agree on that. Often such old articles will have had edits by multiple experienced editors and if all of them did not consider the article speedy-worthy, then it might be better to err on the side of caution. Examples from my own experience include Confederación Empresarial de Sociedades Laborales de España (kept at the AFD that followed), C2 Education (PROD that followed was contested by experienced editor, Softlavender), Sheffield One (multiple edits by experienced editors, including three current admins) and Andrew Cope (multiple edits by experienced editors, including five current admins). Of course, if the article has not received such edits, time is irrelevant. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A number of those edits are automated edits like DAB fixing or category adjustments, meaning the editor in question likely wasn't even looking at the article or judging its quality. And, sorry, but nowhere in our CSD criteria is there an exception for "articles which have been edited by experienced editors" anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

My point is that (non-automated) edits by multiple experienced editors usually indicates that they read the article and did not consider it worthy of speedy deletion, thus also indicating that speedy deletion is not the "obvious" path to take. Per the actual wording of the policy, speedy deletion should only occur "in the most obvious cases" though. The examples I mentioned above have actual content-based edits by experienced editors, indicating that they (at the time) felt the article is worth existing. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose basically per PMC. I don't see why it should be harder to deal with obvious trash just because it has hung around undetected for a long time. Reyk _YO! 10:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any narrowing of A7/A9 based on time. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• The problem with old articles isn't the time they've existed; it's the number of revisions they've had. For an article with many revisions, it's often better to take to AfD anyway, for a somewhat more permanent result, rather than spend 20 minutes digging through diffs to see if there's something keep-able, when you may have to just turn right around and spend another 20 minutes on BEFORE anyway. But these criteria already set such an exceedingly low bar that I don't see an obvious reason to lower it further. If it can be easily verified that every revision of an article meets A7/9, then we're still saving community time by getting rid of if with only one or two people in involved, rather than potentially dozens. GMG^talk 12:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment as a separate point not in response to any specific comment, while PROD of newly-created articles often doesn't work because a POV-promoting editor that created the article can decline it, this is much less frequent for old crap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as it just seems to cause more work. An old article with prod on it will probably get no attention from anyone, so there won't really be a benefit. However I would not support admins unilaterally deleting pages under A7 or A9 without nominations, as it reduces the chance for revision old checking or just ignoring claims of importance that were there. Are there any examples of old articles eligible for A7 that should better have been AFD'd or prodded? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per PMC, nothing else to add. Still, I trust SoWhy, particularly when it comes to A7, and would heartily endorse adding a line to the effect of Old articles with significant history should probably be considered through AfD instead. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Old articles that meet speedy deletion criteria are not that uncommon. We should not give extra privileges to articles that have managed to fly under the radar. However, Amory's suggested text would be a reasonable addition (and probably consistent with common practice already). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• My initial suggestion clearly isn't happening any time soon; if the volume of old crap feels substantially lower in 2020 I may float the idea again then. The suggestion of adding a comment to A7 Old articles with significant history should probably be considered through AfD instead. may still find a consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the status of the content translation tool cleanup? Anecdotally I haven't seen this used in quite some time (maybe a year or so ago I deleted a few pages tagged with this), but I'm not sure what the people most involved in this think. I'm pinging the two users I can think of as most active in this cleanup, @S Marshall: and @DGG:. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I remember it well – this discussion was taking up a lot of space on the Administrators' Noticeboard for a long time: first all the articles on this list were going to be deleted straight off, then they were going to be converted to drafts and then deleted... Various deadlines came and went, and in the end no mass action was taken. I think No such user's comment at the very end of the thread had it about right, and I wouldn't want to see the issue raked up again at this stage. Happy to see X2 go: Noyster (talk), 16:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have nothing to add to that comment, except that I'm happy that the matter silently went archived from AN without action (it was poorly thought out from the outset), and that I'm also happy to see X2 go. No such user (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• My main activity was in trying to rescue the 20% or so pages that seemed notable, and were translated from a language I could attempt to deal with or which could be easily corrected from readily available English source, & trying to at least indicate the even greater number which seemed worth working on but for which I had not the ability. There are some topics and languages where aa WP article is in such a stereotyped format that a machine translation is a reasonable start, but this has to be judged by actually looking at the translation and the original, and atthe sources. The situation was not an emergency, and should not have been treated as one. We should remove X2 also, and I thik we know nbetter than to try again a project that involves deleting articles without reading them. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Mathglot: as another major contributor to the cleanup. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering what you all thinkb about applying CSD A9 to podcasts. I think blatantly non-notable podcasts fall under the spirit of A9, but I can see how from a different perspective someone might say A9 applies only to musical content. What do you think, and maybe A9 should be rewritten to apply to all video and audio recordings? --Pstanton (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you ask me, A7 and A9 are redundant, but I think the spirit of them covers podcasts. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. Why are all the other specifications of no indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) deleted under A7, but musical recordings deleted under A9? Natureium (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A9 has the additional specification that the artist doesn't have an article, which isn't found in any of the A7 categories. I suppose we could fit that into A7 but the wording might be a bit awkward. Hut 8.5 10:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the criteria. A9 specifically does not apply to other forms of creative media, so no, it doesn't apply to podcasts. However, if you read the material linked by webcontent, aka Wikipedia:Notability (web), you'll find that [w]eb content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Emphasis mine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd summarize podcasts under A7 (web) as well, although like with A9, if the podcast is made by someone who has an article, WP:ATD tells us to merge/redirect there instead. That's the reason A9 exists separately, to avoid people tagging recordings by notable artists which can and should be redirected/merged instead. Regards SoWhy 12:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes podcasts would all fall under A7, and so could be deleted if that applies. Many podcasts will have notability independent of their creators though, so A9 seems quite wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, does a page need to be tagged G13 tag before it can be deleted or can an admin just delete it outright if it's eligible? I ask because I've been tagging and waiting for others to delete but I've noticed some admins just delete them instantly. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: This page should probably say it explicitly, but if admins are sure that a page qualifies for any criterion, then there is no need to tag it - see "How to do this" at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion Administrators can delete such pages on sight. In practice, I know we often do tag the more subjectove one's for a second opinion, but if we are sure, then there is no need to add an extra level of bureaucracy. SmartSE (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to note Anarchyte, in AFAIK all cases of CSD, the tag doesn't actually have anything to do with the deletion itself. It's just categorizing pages by eligibility so that they're easier to find by reviewing admins. This is in contrast to PROD and BLPPROD, where the tag is itself material to the deletion process. The only exception to this would be G7 where the only request from the author is a tag, but any request would do. It just happens to come in the form of a CSD template. GMG^talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree if an admin had a good reason to believe that a page is eligible for speedy deletion I see no reason for them to need to wait for someone to tag it first. Also, G13 seems to be a fairly straightforward criteria so it should not be difficult for an admin to know if it applies.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone! I always thought a page had to be tagged before it could be deleted (except G3, G11, G12, and similar). I'll continue to tag A7s and such because I think a page's author should know why and how to fix notability issues but I won't bother tagging G13s in the future. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: If you find a page that is G13 eligible and you're not an admin, go ahead and nominate it. The worst that could happen is you push the date for re-nomination down the road 6 months because you acted hastily. Some editors believe that "trivial" edits don't reset the G13 clock, however as the operator of the primary mover of G13 nominations I tend to take the more conservative view "6 months unedited means 6 months unedited". I would also note that the templates for AFC also bear out the more conservative view of the rule. There's nothing preventing an admin from stumbling into a page and deleting it outright. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support people leaving all normal cases of G13 deletions, which are housekeeping regardless of content, for User:HasteurBot. That bot does the checks, and posts well worded notifications. Individuals tagging and deleting G13 manually are not saving anyone time or improving on any process. If HasteurBot has problems or room for improvement, tell its owner. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy for the bot to do nominations but when a human does them the Admin knows the human looked at them. When reviewing G13able I tag G2, G11 etc where applicable to close off the REFUND of inappropriate pages. I also tag non-saveable Drafts I find that had a bot edit or DAB fix or non-free file removal automated stuff that did not improve the page but pushed off the date from HaseurBot's point of view. That is allowed by the G13 wording and has never been declined. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's possibly OK, but when you do a manual G13 tagging due to a preceding bot edit, does the author get the pre-G13 warning notification? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot does not notify many page creators and there would be no month ahead nomination in the case I describe. The creator gets notification of the nomination. Presumably the bot notofies some creators and then the page gets a nominal edit and not deleted. So nothing is perfect. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: In the typical case, bot drops a "Your draft will soon be eligible for CSD:G13" notice at approimately 5 months unedited. The task only runs over pages that are in the Articles for Creation based on memership in Category:AfC submissions by date (and it's subcategories) that are in Old Draft space (Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/) or Draft Namespace. Pages that are in the Draft namespace that don't have even one AFC submission banner are never considered by HasteurBot. Hasteur (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It is annoying for admins to just delete pages with G13 without notifying or having the page tagged for others to see if it is worth rescuing. When these pages are undeleted on request, it is then not clear that it went through G13, and extra dummy edits are needed to avoid it being redeleted immediately. So I agree that User:HasteurBot should handle it, or failing that another user nominates it, at least that gets an extra eye on whether the page is worth preservation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• In all normal cases doing single-handed CSD deletions is a very dangerous practice. I've been doing over a thousand deletions a year for many years, and I have a 2 or 3% error rate at speedy--I think there are a few admins who are somewhat more accurate, but 1% is about the human limit. Two people looking at a deletion is much better. Some admins have been known to have biases or not-standard views, and requiring 2 people is a necessary check which has the merit of reducing conflict and confrontation. There are sometimes emergency cases, there are sometimes utterly trivial errors to fix. But for anything substantive there should be two people.

I would especially apply this to G13s. Whether a G13 is appropriate is not mechanical--I have come across G13s where the draft can instead be immediately accepted as an article. Relying on undeletion on request doesn't deal with the possibility that someone other than the original editor may want to rescue it. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone termed a disambig Cosmic energy (disambiguation) to a redirct to and copied the disambig material to Cosmic energy (disambiguation).

Does that qualify as an a3? Or any other kind of speedy delete? TantraYum (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Decided to AfD it, if it meets speedy delete, please come along and do it TantraYum (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ask at WT:RM. It’s the RM people who care about DAB pages. It looks to me like an attempt at a WP:CONCEPTDAB. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Draft:Eyu Kassa for example. Already G11-ed twice, recreated again. I notice because I auto-watchlist what I tag. It has been created by a registered user, but recreations are by an IP. What should I do to alert admins to the repeated recreations post G11? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  When you tag it, also add {{salt}}. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Question from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Captain-tucker/Emma Hunton.

Does the {{userspace draft}} tag make a userpage an AfC page? Should it? User:Hasteur? I think if not, the tag should not create the AfC big blue “submit” button. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not. The criterion is clear ... any rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages with the {{AFC submission}} template in userspace .... {{userspace draft}} is not equivalent to {{AFC submission}}. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you please stop with this bloody annoying unreadable minimum contrast failing font colour. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

On a review of the many pages in categories of userpage drafts dating back many years, I think they need to be cleared. Either by expanding G13, or applying {{Inactive userpage blanked}} to the lot, subject to the same age and activity criteria of G13. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

{{userspace draft}} merely designates something as a draft in the userspace. Either all "drafts" in the userspace should be eligible for deletion, or not; doing it based on which arbitrarily bear a purely descriptive template (as opposed to one that explicitly places it within the AfC process and thereby its regulation) is inappropriate. Furthermore, the distinction between a userspace and a draftspace draft would also largely be lost. I would oppose such an expansion of the criteria and I believe such a widening has been shot down at least once in the past. That aside, the button in question makes it convenient for authors to induct pages into the AfC process, if they desire, so I would oppose removing it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I would call that a !vote for blanking most of them using {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Most of them being forgotten drafts of very dubious notability. I would recommend every reviewer to decide between (1) Any applicable CSD criteria, starting with G11 then U5; (2) blanking; (3) moving to mainspace if OK; or (4) leave it alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral in regard to such pages remaining as is or being blanked then tagged with {{inactive userpage blanked}} (the pros and cons of obfuscating the content are finer points I don't desire to address). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Few items: CSD is a bypass that we have agreed that given certain circumstances a MFD nomination succeeding is a foregone conclusion. Usersapce drafts are not currently in scope for G13. Displaying the "Submit for AFC review" button when a user uses the Userspace draft is a good thing as it potentially makes userspace work have a path that could lead to mainspace. The perenial argument of "Something needs to be done with the reams of stale content in draft space" is a good one and when a widely sourced crystal clear consensus (preferably hosted at Village Pump) that has sollicited WT:UP, WT:CSD, WT:DRAFT to get feedback then something could be done. Until then any consensus discussions here run the risk of being violently overturned when someone gets upset about it. Hasteur (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why we should waste our time cleaning up such pages? They are not indexed and no normal reader will ever see them. WIth the backlogs, especially at AFC, as huge as they are, should we really add more work to the backlogs? On a side note, I myself have a couple of userspace drafts on my to-do list that I have been meaning to finish for 8-9 years now. They never bothered anyone but me. And I'm sure I will get to them soon... Regards SoWhy 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the maxim that volunteers should not tell other volunteers how to choose to volunteer their time. I agree that fiddling with the never viewed old userspace drafts of inactive users is a low value task. If others really want to look for rough gems there, and bury the dust while at it, I much prefer that they use {{inactive userpage blanked}}, because there is far less harm done if done with error, than if done with deletion, and because deletion is a high cost process not justified by the low value of the task. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. Also ditto SoWhy. I guess they can be blanked with {{inactive userpage blanked}} -- but what's the point if there's no way someone can find it without searching userspace? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @SoWhy: Some people like writing FAs, some people like resolving copyright issues, some people like trolling the DramaBoards for the misery and suffering of other wikipeidans, and some people like crossing off backlogs. The collective wiki-We don't have to do anything. Either the pages will be actioned or they won't. If it offends you that much, don't think about it. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC) PS: Don't edit under the unfluence of a tasty adult beverage kids. It' makes your witty remarks less.... witty
• If someone is inactive (never coming back), why would we keep their content in that state at all? Either promote it to draftspace if it's at least somewhat workable, or if its total trash CSD it and be done with it. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Disruptive attitude. How do you know they are not coming back? Will your deletion of their notes be unwelcoming to them when they do return? If they meet WP:RIP we do not delete their subpages, we archive at most. Promoting to mainspace without a champion who actually cares is detrimental to mainspace. Sending to draftspace is just a slow route to deletion, draftspace has no advantages except in keeping the inept out of mainspace. Total trash CSD-worthy should be CSD-ed per applicable criteria regardless of author activity. In your real life workplace, do you make a habit of cleaning up others' desks? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying, if it's good enough for mainspace, there's no reason to not put it there, caretaker or not. In Draftspace, if it's at least not trash, it can be worked on easier than in some random user's userspace. If they come back, they see a redirect to their original content/topic, if we could salvage it. If it's totally unsalvageable, they possibly were WP:NOTHERE to begin with. As for "cleaning up others' desks", we are not a webhost. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We already have P1 so we may extend it to redirects. R3 already covers the Portal namespace, but R2 is only for redirects from the (Main) namespace. I propose that we extend R2 criterion to redirects from the Portal namespace. This would avoid unnecessary MfD bureaucracy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So change to read: Cross Namespace Redirects: This applies to redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main and Portal namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. "See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and Category:Cross-namespace redirects." ?

• Support Portals, which are linked from mainspace, should not link into Draft space, which is likely going to happen quite a bit as the Portal clean up continues (assuming the whole name space survives). Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, not frequent, and portal pages are sometimes redirected cross-space to article space. I generally oppose moving portals to draft space, as they require their entire subpage structure to be moved around. It is much better to use Category:Portals under construction instead of moving to draft space. —Kusma (t·c) 21:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Kusma. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - A portal may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike a WikiProject, however, it is meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution (from Wikipedia:Portal). Thus, a case may be able to be made for redirects from the portal space to the projectspace. Also per Kusma. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: what is projectspace? wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

​ The "Wikipedia" namespace, see Wikipedia:Project namespace. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: the criterion actually explicitly forbids tagging redirects to projectspace. wumbolo ^^^ 13:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Amorymeltzer is correct, however, on this occasion it was my intention to convey that redirecting a portal to the draft or userspace (i.e. any space outside the mainspace or portalspace) would be arguable under the current description provided about portals (whereas it is not for mainspace pages which are intended, in essence, solely for readers). SoWhy alludes to another good point that, currently, the userfication or draftification of portals without the consensus of a deletion venue is deleting a title out-of-process. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes the wording I posted would preclude a Portal->mainspace redirect. We need better wording than. Category:Portals under construction does nothing to hide the Portal from public view, unless I'm missing something, its basically a maintenance tag. Now if the page was tagged at the top with a big UNFINISHED DRAFT box that would be better. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have no problem with having a box on top of portals under construction. That could also include warning against linking to the unfinished portal from mainspace and portal space. —Kusma (t·c) 08:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. Such a change makes only sense iff the Portal namespace survives at all and there is consensus that portals should be moved to Draft-space to be worked on. At this time, there is consensus for neither. If this changes, a change of CSD to address redirects left by legitimate moves to Draft-space can be considered. Regards SoWhy 14:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Though *most* XNR to Portals aren't *good*, this is not the realm of speedy deletion to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

[1]. Just a FYI at this time, but I have personally opposed the this request as there appears to have been no consensus for this and think this is a very bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)