Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Spitballing - get rid of T3?

I've been mulling this idea over in my head for quite a while now, moreso since the deprecation of T2 a short while ago. I keep fairly consistent tabs on its tracking category and I would say that I decline probably 80-90% of the pages that have been tagged with {{db-t3}}. Some are mistakes about what T3 represents (I most recently declined the T3s of a /sandbox and /testcases), others are reasonable alternate names that could easily be converted to redirects (different dash types, alternate caps, etc), a small number being improper copy/pastes. WP:TFD is rarely overrun with nominations so an extra dozen nominations a week isn't the end of the world for the handful of actually-duplicated-but-not-redirectable cases. This isn't necessarily a formal proposal, as I'm mainly curious to see what others' have to say about the matter, though if there's reasonable support it would be easy enough to do so. Thanks for the input. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like an effective T3 preferably (as I expressed in Template talk:Db-meta#T3 and C1 categories already, ofc; readers should review). Or full replacement with a template-PROD (maybe with some listing of prodded templates a la CFDS). (Or both tools would be nice. :D) --Izno (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That does remind me of an additional point/reason to get rid of T3 - there's already a seven-day waiting period, so it's just as easy to kick it to TFD as nominate it. I'm on the fence about dropping the 7 day period and making it immediate, but even if we removed that "holding time" I would still likely be declining the same number of requests. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's just a weak template-PROD today. It has the restrictions on it which make it not-speedy but which also make it not-PRODy. Let's drop the restrictions and let anyone tag anything with T3 if we don't do away with it. (And see if the world breaks.) --Izno (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, re there's already a seven-day waiting period it is surprising the number of TfDs I see where people respond "Speedy delete T3" or similar. Since a TfD is already created, going through the TfD process is faster than now nominating for T3. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a TfD regular, but I don't have a strong feeling it needs to be kept (I note Izno's points as somewhat (IMO) for and against). It'd be weird not to have any T categories, though? As you point out, arguably we don't since T3 is speedy in process not time, but, still. Weird. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that not having any T categories would be a little strange, but having watched the multitudes of debates about expanding the cat get shot down, I honestly don't think there are any reasons to speedily-delete a template that isn't already covered by G2 and/or G3. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that T3 isn't immediate is not a reason to remove it. Many of the F criteria also have a grace period. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that (I mean, I'm not). Primefac (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I might have said something that could be construed as rationalizing removal because it takes a delay, but that was not my intent. I am arguing it makes the criterion effectively useless as a speedy criterion. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been considering making this myself and the main reason why I haven't started an RfC is that I wanted some admin who works in the area on board. If a criteria gets denied 80-90% of the time (which seems reasonable from my experience having the category on my watchlist) it isn't a good criteria. TFD is a suitable replacement and I see no significant inconvenience caused by removing it. In fact most TFD regulars seem to prefer not to since theres a decent likelihood that it will be denied and taken to TFD anyway. I think it would be simpler just removing the criteria. --Trialpears (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC: should WP:T3 be deprecated?

Non standard deletion processes

Is there a simple explanation for, as being revealed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1, WP:GAN running its own deletion process?

Is it appropriate that GAN admins may delete per G6 a review that they don't like?

It's occasionally been said that CSD#G6 is a catch all that is easily abused. Is this an example? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance - no more, no less. It is a catch-all, and that's a good thing, but it's also one that should never be used if there's a reasonable objection that could be made. I can totally see that "deleting clearly unhelpful GA reviews" is potentially uncontroversial in that project's context, and if it's genuinely uncontroversial outside of people demanding process for process's sake, then I wouldn't have any particular objection to it. This is probably an example of a poor use of it: it was a low-quality GA review, but well above the threshold of "unambiguously unhelpful". :Ultimately, I'm not seeing a systematic problem here - if a terrible GA review does get shuffled off because it's clearly uncontroversial, then that's a valid G6 to me, but if there's uncertainty, it ending up at MfD is correct. If there's a pattern of certain GA-active admins aggressively deleting stuff in this way, this might be something worth clarifying, but this particular incident doesn't look like one. ~ mazca ^talk 00:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, A similar thing happens at WP:SPI. Sometimes there's a case opened which is clearly not worth archiving. These routinely get deleted under G6. For example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/73.97.254.42. Deleting obviously bogus GA reviews (i.e. Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1) seems like the same concept. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Roy, I have long wondered whether that is the case. Bogus SPI and LTA cases disappear, and only weird cases come to MfD, nominated by non-SPI people. I think these deletions are decidely contrary to the wording, spirit and intention of G6. These deletions are being used to for tidying, quiet suppression of trolls, arguably good deletions, but they are not G6. SPI is probably quite competent handling their own deletions of subpages of WP:SPI, and LTA, but they should not be doing it under G6. SPI freedom to delete outside of deletion policy would appear to be providing an example to other groups that they too may delete outside of deletion policy. I see good reason to create a CSD criterion to cover SPI cases, but I do not see a good reason for GAN admins to have near-arbitrary authority to speedy delete substandard GA reviews. Deleting obviously bogus GA reviews is the same concept, that concept being that some groups of people are not bound by deletion policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Um, people actually nominate SPIs for deletion at MfD? I'll get the popcorn. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

On occasion, yes. Usually, ill-advised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Hmmm. I found Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danielipforsecretary, but that's the only one I can see. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

[1] Random MfDs are not the problem or the point. The problem is Speedy Deletion "per G6" for cases where WP:CSD is lacking a line, and for this setting precedent for others to delete broadly "per G6". I think G6 should never be used for a page with a non-trivial history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, G6 is also routinely used to delete talk pages of deleted pages, regardless of the history of the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be a mistake. WP:CSD#G8 should be used. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Ah, my mistake on the talk page thing. You are correct on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think these deletions of pages with non-trivial histories, including signed comments by other editors, should be invalid under G6.

Past practice, eg Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stonemason89

speedy delete. CSD G6, uncontroversial maintenance for SPI. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

implies that these deletions have consensus in practice, and so to make WP:CSD catch up with practice, "Checkuser or SPI clerk maintenance of SPI subpages should be assigned its own CSD criterion.

I am not sure that "uncontroversial maintenance for GAN" would be as easily justified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

To note I and other clerks have deleted IP only sockpuppet investigations under G6 in lieu of archiving the case. These IP only cases have always (from my understanding) been deleted when there are no other archived cases for this case page and where its not a deliberate sockpuppetry by the person behind the IPs (i.e. dynamic IP addresses being dynamic). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. WP:CSD should catch up with accepted practice. A new CSD criterion for SPI business. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Also I more often delete empty sockpuppet categories under G6 too. The idea for both is that they both are uncontroversial actions. For the deleting of case pages, if it meets another criteria (like due to G5, G10 etc.) I will delete under that criteria instead. Sockpuppet categories are deleted early because they are only filled when they have tagged userpages. If the tags have been removed / changed such that the category is empty it is very unlikely that the category will be re-filled with socks.

However, creating a separate criterion for SPI deletion of cases and/or sockpuppet categories seems unnecessary. G6 works well for cases where the deletion is uncontroversial and does not meet any other criteria. If the deletion is questioned and there is good reason for the question, then the case request should be restored as its not controversial. Such a criteria would still be used, but I just think as long as G6 can cover the cases where no other criteria apply it should be fine without an extra one. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

G6 should not be used to delete others’ non-trivial contributions. It is an abuse of G6. SPI doing it has provided poor example for admins in other areas where they too take a liberal interpretation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I referred Talk:Sarah Cooper/GA1 to MfD because I felt it wasn't an obvious G6. Given the number of conflicting opinions above, I think there should be an RfC to determine whether such pages are actually eligible for G6. -FASTILY 00:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily: If there are any reasonable objections that a page meets a CSD criterion then by definition it does not and cannot, no RfC needed. If there is a desire that these SPI pages be speedily deleted then there needs to be a specific criterion added to allow that as they do not meet any of the existing ones. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

New criterion proposed, for creations that avoid WP:SALT

Frequently in the draftspace (less frequently in articlespace) we see pages created with an incorrect title when the correct title in that namespace is WP:SALTed; a current example is Draft:Ramy Khodeir (2), where the correctly titled Draft:Ramy Khodeir is salted. My feeling is, if the creator cannot (or will not) convince an administrator to unsalt the correctly titled page, the wrongly titled one should be subject to speedy deletion. This would not apply to creation of a correctly titled and otherwise non-problematic draft when its manspace equivalent is salted: the editor could defer the mainspace unsalt request for after the draft is complete. I believe this comes up frequently enough, and is clear-cut enough, that a new speedy criterion is warranted and appropriate. Thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I would be opposed to it being a G criteria but could see it, perhaps, as an A criteria, in other words only in article space. One effective way to convince an administrator to unsalt would be to have a promising draft. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Salting is largely a legacy feature. Typically, some incident of spam or vandalism from 15 years ago would have rendered a given title protected for perpetuity, and when anyone, at whatever point in the near or distant future, tries to create anything at this title (whether it be an article about an unrelated subject with the same name, or a redirect, or a dab page), they will have to jump through completely unnecessary hoops. I don't think the solution here is to add further hoops to jump through. If something truly terrible has been created, then there will almost always be a relevant CSD. The problem with Draft:Ramy Khodeir (2) is not that it was created at a title similar to one previously salted, the problem is that it's spam. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Redundant. Either the new page is already deleteable for the same reason it would have been at the correct title, or the salting was incorrect. —Cryptic 00:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

and B-I-N-G-O was his name-o. If another criterion applies (remembering, especially G4 exists if it wasn't speedily deleted the first time), then it wouldn't be necessary. If nothing applies, then not unSALTing and moving the page to the correct place is just a BATTLEGROUND mentality causing you to pointless BITE the new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia bureaucracy and accelerate declining participation. WilyD 05:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Stop overquick SALTing of draftspace titles. There is SALT policy documented at WP:SALT, and a formal process at WP:RfPP, that seems to be overlooked unilaterally by admins annoyed by draftspace recreations. As in mainspace, SALTing too easily has the side effect of re-creations under an variant title, which is a bigger problem. Wait for repeated recreations be multiple accounts before resorting to SALT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I would add that the edit-confirmed salt, rather than the absolute salt, probably meets nearly all salt requirements that arise in in draftspace, and should be used more. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Twinkle has ECP salt as standard for a while now, so people should just use that. As for the proposal, I largely agree with WilyD's comment above. Regards SoWhy 19:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• For salted name changes, Draft:Ramy Khodeir (2) wil confuse no reviewer. The problem is with a hypothetical Draft Ramy A. Khodier, which is likely to confuse any reviewer who does not remember the original, and might well slip though when it shouldn't , or at least take more work than it warrants. I am not quite sure how to handle them. If they are better than the original version, they do need to be considered; if they are not, they don't. Unfortunately, they are sometimes tagged without adequate checking for this--and I must admit that I've done this without sufficient care a few times myself.

There is also a more general disagreement among the AfC reviewers--some us us, including myself, wan tto get rid of the really hopeless stuff as soon as possible, to decreae the workload and apparent backlog--others would rather just rely of the 6 month deletion at G13. It has a connection with a similar disagreement on how carefully and patiently G13s ought to be checked,. I don't like to rely on refund, and will save anything I think potentially savable in those areas I can tell; some equally experienced reviewers think that not worth the trouble. (and this is turn depends somewhat on those disagreement about whether to accept drafts that show notability and are free from promotionalism and copyvio but which have major style erorrs, or to decline them for improvmeent without concern for whether the contirbtor is still around). DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Going back to basics, there are two reasons for using special criteria rather than G6. One is so that there are some clearly defined conditions of when to use them is frequently occurring definable situations, rather than just the vague IAR, which is usually, but not quite always, used appropriates. The second is so the special situations can be isolated and identified so those involved or interested can look at them and nobody else need to --this would be the reason for a special criterion for SPI, or one for GA. As I work in neither, I will be able ignore both just as I do files and categories. If we came up with a suitable one for drafts, similarly: I could focus on them, while those who want to check what I do could focus on them also. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder/explanatory text for templates

Should there be a placeholder section with explanatory text that explains that all template (T) criteria have been deprecated, similar to what we already have for exceptional (X) criteria? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question. I agree that T and X should be handled the same. However, X is not handled well, IMHO. It is currently covered in two (sub)sections: Exceptional circumstances and Obsolete criteria, of which each has its shortcomings. The first can't be found by searching for “X1” or “X2”, and the second one has no mention of the common topic, the meaning of “X”. My suggestion therefore:

1. Change “Exceptional circumstances” to “Obsolete groups” (actually, the name “groups” is ad-hoc; we never gave a name to the groupings introduced with the letters), mention both X and T there, and refer to Obsolete criteria for details.
2. Obsolete criteria: Put a link under each first occurrence of a letter to the corresponding subsection.

◅ Sebastian 10:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I like this plan. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thumbs up. So I'll just go ahead and do it. ◅ Sebastian 16:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I like the new setup. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC on the scope of G2

I thought that you may be interested in an ongoing RfC regarding if G2 should apply for duplicate templates following the deprecation of T3. You can find the RfC here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should G2 now apply to duplicate templates?. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has concluded with "There is a strong consensus against applying G2 to unusued duplicate templates, unless the duplicate was obviously created as a test edit." [2]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Do redirects avoiding double redirects to deleted redirects fall under G8?

Say A is a redirect to B, and C is an alternative spelling of A. C is redirected to B to avoid the double redirect to A. If A is deleted via an RfD discussion, I expect that C should fall under G8 as a redirect that's supposed to point to deleted page A, even if it wasn't listed in the RfD. Is this the case, and if so, can this be clarified in the policy? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it depends on the rationale at the RFD.

• In scenario X, page A is nominated because it's an unlikely alternate spelling, but happened to be created first which is why C originally pointed there; I would argue C should not be deleted without its own RFD.
• In scenario Y, A is nominated because the term doesn't appear at B, and thus is an improper redirect; in this case, C should probably be deleted with {{db-xfd}} (i.e. WP:G6) as essentially-the-same rationale.

You could probably make the argument that G8 would also apply for Y, since C used to redirect there, and I don't think anyone would argue that point, but I think it would be improper to do so for X. Because of this I don't think we should be pigeon-holing ourselves into problematic scenarios. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt a G8 tag is likely to be honoured, even in the more obvious cases. That's why when sending a redirect to RfD, it's best practice to also include in the nomination any derived redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the implication is that C was somehow missed. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• No. As Primefac says, it depends on the relationship between all three pages and the reason why page A was deleted. Given that this is not going to be clear without reading the RfD and making a subjective judgement about how similar the redirects are it is not suitable for speedy deletion. This is especially true as there are many other reasons for avoided double redirects than just alternative spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the responses. Yes, I was pretty much thinking of scenario Y where a redirect was missed in a previous RfD. Maybe {{db-xfd}} would indeed be a better choice. I guess it's going to have to be a common-sense judgment call. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless the redirect was explicitly mentioned in an RfD discussion and that discussion came to a clear consensus to delete the redirect {{db-xfd}} would be incorrect. Common sense judgement calls are, by definition, subjective and so not suitable as a basis for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft speedy deletion criteria (D#)

In order to help deal with getting rid of drafts that are pretty much never going to be approved no matter how much effort is expended on them, I am suggesting we adopt a new set of speedy criteria. These criteria would fall into a new general category, D# (for draft) and should apply only to pages actually in the draft namespace (userspace drafts falling under U# criteria). Here are the criteria I propose.

• D1: Business profile/cirriculum vitae drafts for which no reliable sources exist. This would apply to drafts that are written more like a business profile as one would see on Bloomberg or a cirriculum vitae, but are not so obviously promotional G11 applies. The sourcing requirement serves as both a WP:BEFORE check and as a bright line between "unsalvageable" and "Needs a lot of work but could be made acceptable."
• D2: Drafts about living people which would fail basic biographical requirements if they were articles and have remained unsourced for seven days. A large number of drafts we deal with in -en-help are of people who are not notable and whose articles have no sources and no chance of being sourced due to being virtually unknown. The seven-day requirement is for parity with WP:BLPPROD.
• D3: Drafts which have not been edited for six months. This would basically be renaming G13 to D3. Whether or not this is a good idea is dependent on how we want to treat userspace drafts. This should be refundable, as G13s are.
• D4: Drafts primarily written by undisclosed paid editors with no significant edits by other editors. Note that this criteria can, and should, be contestable at WP:Requests for undeletion provided the editor(s) disclose(s) and is unblocked. The key here is undisclosed; disclosure should instantly negate the criterion. We should not be making undisclosed paid editors' efforts at getting work anything but impossible.
• D5: Drafts that have been repeatedly resubmitted and declined/rejected (3+ times) without any significant work being done to improve them. At present a draft that has been constantly resubmitted without improvement is usually rejected and (often) sent to MfD where they get deleted; this would allow us to get rid of drafts whose writers aren't taking any criticism on board and are just blindly resubmitting in hopes of getting a credulous reviewer. The key here is repeatedly resubmitted and declined/rejected...without any significant work; a summary rejection as the first one or evidence the author(s) are trying to improve the draft should negate a D5.

Opinions? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• What problem is this trying to solve? Why is it necessary to delete these drafts before they are eligible for G13? Do you have evidence that MfD is overloaded? How is D4 compatible with editor privacy and with editors who are incorrectly accused of UPE (note that a speedy deletion criterion for UPE has been rejected multiple times previously)? How do you propose to make D1, D2 and D5 objective (they are not currently)? How is D2 compatible with WP:NODEADLINE, especially as the purpose of draft space is to allow articles to be developed over time without needing to meet all the sourcing requirements immediately? Do these proposals meet all the WP:NEWCSD requirements (note at least three of them fail the objectivity requirement as written)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• As per Thryduulf; also, you should not choose CSD codes until a criterion is approved for use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh. If someone's proposing multiple new criteria at a time, it makes it easier to discuss them individually. —Cryptic 23:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• D2 is misplaced; it should be discussed instead at WT:BLPPROD. (As, as it happens, it already is.) —Cryptic 23:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• These are either unsuitable for speedy deletion or miss the point of draft space. Draft space is intended for articles which aren't up to scratch yet, the fact a draft is badly written or doesn't meet mainspace standards doesn't mean it should be deleted.
  • D1: "more like a business profile" isn't a very objective standard, and processes which require people to search for references should not be done through speedy deletion. Editors disagree about what constitutes a reliable source all the time. The fact that a draft is written like a business profile is also not a good reason to delete it in itself, as it's a content issue which could be addressed.
  • D2: if you really want to do that then it should be an expansion of BLP PROD, but as I said when this was proposed there it also misses the point of draft space. It's perfectly reasonable to start a draft without putting the references on straightaway. Drafts are vastly less visible than mainspace articles.
  • D3: this expands G13 to include userspace drafts which aren't AfC submissions, which is a huge expansion which goes against previous consensus.
  • D4: this is asking the reviewing admin to judge whether a draft was created by an undisclosed paid editor, which is difficult to judge accurately. Previous proposals to delete all content added by undisclosed paid editors haven't gained consensus so the fact that a draft was written by an undisclosed paid editor doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted.
  • D5: I don't think this is much of a problem. If someone stops working on a draft for six months then it will be deleted under G13 anyway. If they keep working on it then then the draft may come up to scratch. The fact that an AfC reviewer has declined something doesn't mean the draft is unviable, and deleting something after the third decline would be very harsh to the editor who worked on it as they would have any chance to address the third decline (they might not even see the reason before the draft gets deleted). There don't seem to be many cases like this at MfD.
• Hut 8.5 08:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with all of what Hut 8.5 says. The whole point of draft space is to avoid overzealous deletions that might otherwise happen in article space. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think we need to consider this, and I am not sure that some of the objections are valid.
  • D1: the distinction should be whether there is any conceivable chance that the article might be improvable. For drafts meeting criteria D!, some of them are conceivable sourceable and notable, and I have even seen some which can be expanded into decent articles, eithe by the contributor of someone else. But some are so clearly not that we might want to have a deletion criterion of this sort. But unless we can devise clear-cut criteria for this, this is not something for speedy. If we do anything of the sort, it would need a time delay, and be refundable.
  • D2 is worth discussing. Quite a few of these are just names, and will remain so forever. But , as for D1, unless we can devise clear-cut criteria for this, this is not something for speedy. If we do anything of the sort, it would need a time delay, and be refundable. This could be either part of BLP PROD or as Draft -- there are existing speedy criteria with a time delay.
  • D3 I personally would include userspace drafts, but I do not think there is consensus. If we do establish a separate Draft section, there would be a point of moving G13 to it.
  • D4 Although previous proposals to delete all material by undeclared paid editors have not been approved, a great many of them are covered by provision G5, editing by previous blocked editors and their sockpuppets. This applies only to edits made after the principal or one of the sock accounts was blocked, but some admins have interpreted it more liberally, on the basis that this is an technical distinction (it is not just a technical artificial distinction, but a good and real one for people blocked for most other reasons) . I haven't done it, but some have, and I would not blame any who did.
  • D5. I think this is valuable and ought to be included, with some cautions. The primary caution as I see it is that about 10% of drafts are still being wrongly declined--for reasons of style or slightly inadequate sourcing or incompleteness that could be fixed in mainspace, and for which an article would never be deleted. (There's a much higher percentage of drafts being declined for the wrong reasons) There's some real benefits in doing this: repeated submission afddd to the backlog and the work, for those articles which in general simply aren;t worth the effort. It is extremely rare that someone after repeated declines will suddenly start wmaking sensible improbvements. I've seen it, but very seldom. However I would use a more restrictive level than the suggested criterion: 4 or more times, including declines by at least 2 different reviewers, and without any attempt to address the problem.
• I'm one of the very few people who try seriously to rescue drafts at G13. If something is not done to remove the large percentage of hopeless ones at an early stage, I am likely stop working in that area altogether. It's difficult to screen a large number with any degree of accuracy, and if my colleagues will not even indirectly assist, that's not something likely to encourage me to continue DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally support development here. NB. First preference is to delete draftspace and to tell new editors to edit mainspace before creating drafts. Newcomers should not be directed into AfC, but should be directed to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D1. D1: Business profile/curriculum vitae drafts for which no reliable sources exist.

  Support but reword to "D1: Business profile/curriculum vitae drafts for which no independent reliable source is provided.

  This should be Sticky PROD style, 7 days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• D2. Support, BLPPROD should apply to drafts. In the meantime, send all unsourced BLPs straight to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D3. G13 -> D3. OK, no opposition. Assuming that this covers AfC drafts in userspace? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D4. Oppose in favour of Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. Many UPEs are socks of experienced editors. Deleting their work clears the slate for them to try again better. Rapid deletion prevents non-admins from joining the dots, and so it a losing strategy. Content-blanked archived UPE product titles will make it very easy to spot the next paid attempt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• D5. Oppose. Continue to send these to MfD. The numbers are not so great. Repeated declines often are cases of bad decline comments. Repeated Rejects are rare, which I attribute to the clarity of the Reject message. "Repeated" implies an active disagreement, and all active disagreements are worth an attempt at discussion. Often these are well held at MfD. Often they are better held at user_talk as a editor behavioural issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Why not blank? It seems that simply blanking such pages would solve the problem here, maybe with some kind of notice template. Then, after 6 months, the abandoned draft criteria kicks in. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Given that we appear to be !voting now, for the record I strongly oppose all the criteria as proposed (and at most of them in principal too). As this has been open a couple of weeks without any attempt by anybody to rectify any of the insurmountable problems identified with the proposals as written I'm not sure why this section hasn't been closed as a waste of everybody's time yet? Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  because people are continuing to comment and add suggestions . Since my posting just yesterday there have been two new ones, both worth considering. Dealing with drafts is a problem, and the way to fix it is not to give up on. it. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  As I noted out of band to SoWhy, this forum tends to the bold-oppose-support rather than lending itself to idea-level discussion. I do not think it fruitful to perpetuate the former and certainly do not think the latter should be chased away. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• D1, D2 and D5 are all good rationales for deletion. Anything fitting these can and should be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD. A large number of cases resulting in SNOW deletions per an objective rationale is probably well considered to be a pre-requisite for a D* WP:NEWCSD. MfD is not seeing a lot of these, so NEWCSD#3 ("frequent") is lacking evidence. D4 fails on multiple points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do and/or should the R criteria apply to soft redirects?

Currently the policy page is silent about whether soft redirects qualify for speedy deletion under the R criteria for redirects. This rarely comes up, but did in part at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#SP:Random. Personally, I do not think they should apply as most of the reasons hard redirects to other namespaces, implausible typos and those shadowing Commons files either do not apply or cause significantly less harm for soft redirects. They are also far less common and so would fail the frequency requirement if proposed as a new criterion. Soft redirects are currently elligble for deletion under any G criteria that apply and I do not propose to change that.

If consensus here agrees with me, I propose to add the sentence "These criteria do not apply to soft redirects." at the end of the first paragraph at WP:CSD#Redirects. Alternatively, if consensus is that some but not all criteria do/should apply, the sentence "These criteria do not apply to soft redirects unless explicitly noted." would be added instead, with "including soft redirects" after "this applies to redirects" in the relevant criterion/criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the logged-in users who contributed to the linked RfD: @Fastily, PorkchopGMX, Seventyfiveyears, LaundryPizza03, Uanfala, Soumya-8974, Godsy, and HotdogPi:. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have an opinion on this, but noting for the record that SP:Random was deleted under CSD criterion R2 by Fastily. After I closed the RFD, they re-deleted it under CSD criterion G7. GMXping! 15:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have queried the R2 deletion on Fastily's talk page (given the time of day they normally contribute to Wikipedia it is likely they have not yet seen the message) as the discussion clearly showed a consensus against speedy deletion under R2. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

...Wait, actually, SP:Random (I think) actually was eligible for G4 because SP:RANDOM (which differs only in capitalization) was deleted nearly 11 years ago at RFD. GMXping! 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Fastily’s response GMXping! 23:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose a change in that manner. For example: redirects covered by R2, e.g. from the mainspace to draftspace, should be deleted regardless of whether they are hard or soft. Furthermore, the plain soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace (specialized templates are used, see WP:SSRT). Such unclarified wording would almost implicitly condone the presence of the plain template in the mainspace. The only way to remedy this particular case simply and without unintended consequences would be to add the special namespace to the list of namespace exemptions. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue I have with that statement is the assumption that all uses of the plain soft redirect template in mainspace should be deleted. In some cases they should be converted to a hard redirect, a specialised soft redirect, retargeted, or moved to a different namespace rather than deleted (and it is not always clear which) so it fails the uncontestable requirement of speedy deletion criteria. I also disagree that not speedy deleting something condones its presence. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Putting the larger issue on hold for a moment, the recent deletion per R2 and subsequent deletion per G7 were sloppy. It should have been deleted per the rfd discussion. A G4 deletion per a 10-year old discussion, setting aside that capitalization differences make quite a difference in regard to redirection, of something that is clearly controversial would not have been a good idea either; the criteria for speedy deletion are for uncontroversial cases, which this clearly is not given all this discussion surrounding it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge U1 with G7?