Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria

WP:NEWCSD

Contributors frequently propose new (or expansions of existing) criteria for speedy deletion. Please bear in mind that CSD criteria require careful wording, and in particular, need to be

Objective: Most reasonable people should be able to agree whether a page meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific.
Uncontestable: It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully.
Frequent: Speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. These processes are more discriminating because they treat articles case-by-case, and involve many points of view; CSD sacrifices these advantages in favor of speed and efficiency. If a situation arises only rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and fairer to delete it with one of the other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible, and avoids instruction creep.
Nonredundant: If the deletion can be accomplished using a reasonable interpretation of an existing rule, just use that. If this application of that rule is contested, consider discussing and/or clarifying it. New rules should be proposed only to cover situations that cannot be speedily deleted otherwise.

If you do have a proposal that you believe passes these guidelines, please feel free to propose it on this discussion page. Be prepared to offer evidence of these points and to refine your criterion if necessary. Consider explaining how it meets these criteria when you propose it. Do not, on the other hand, add it unilaterally to the CSD page.

this header: view • edit

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speedy deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:CSD

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90: 30 days

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/Criteria was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion with this edit on 20:38, 4 December 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy with this edit on 16 November 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

On 19 January 2025, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. The result of the discussion was moved.

Proposal to rename G1 from 'patent nonsense' to 'incoherent page'

G1 is known for being misused as a catch-all. I think this is partially because it is called 'nonsense', which people may be interpreting as 'does not belong here'. I propose changing its name on the Speedy Deletion page and its template to 'incoherent page', which I think describes its purpose better and may clear up confusion. This proposal does not involve actuall changing what does and does not fall under G1. QwertyForest (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will help, as there still will be a misinterpretation in the same sorts of ways, such as an incoherent rambling essay, or non-English writings, or a template that is not understood or contains an error. However I agree that "patent nonsense" is a strange wording. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "unintelligible page" instead of "incoherent page"? I agree that patent nonsense is strange wording to me at least. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe "gibberish" or "random characters" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support "unintelligible page" and "gibberish" as good choices. I don't think "random characters" would work because 'patent nonsense' also includes word salads. QwertyForest (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because "nonsense" is ambiguous. "Tigers live on Mars" is patent nonsense (sense 2) but coherent, so not G1. (G3 still applies.) Certes (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. I'm quite fond of 'patent nonsense' although it's very English and slightly grumpy. Perhaps why I'm fond of it. 'Patent' in this context means 'clearly' or 'self-evidently' and that sort of fits the bill to me. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. People who are going to misinterpret this as "does not belong here" are going to do that no matter what we call it (and G1 isn't even close to the worst in this regard). "Patent nonsense" looks enough like jargon that it encourages reading the the text of the criterion to find out exactly what's meant, in a way that "technical deletion" or "unnecessary disambiguation page" or "obviously invented" or "misuses of Wikipedia as a web host" do not. The plainer-worded summaries get misused much, much more, because it's not the summaries that are important. —Cryptic 10:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose speedy deletion nomination timeframe

As someone at New Page Patrol, I follow NPPHOUR guidelines regarding nominating articles for deletion. In brief, this recommendation states that articles should be nominated for deletion within one hour of being meaningfully edited unless they have a serious content issue (i.e., copyright, harassment, or pure vandalism). We have a similar recommendation at DRAFTNO, and I figured we would have an explicit statement with deletion. However, the only thing the CSD page says is contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. I propose that, in line with other recommendations on Wikipedia, we explicitly state that articles shouldn't be nominated for speedy deletion within an hour of being actively edited unless there are serious content issues. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we should delay G5 speedies. Those are about serious contributor issues, not so much about content. (Of course, this usually goes hand-in-hand with re-blocking the contributor.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G5 makes sense, too. The main concern is biting newbies (or anyone really) because they decided to create an article in mainspace instead of in draftspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could recommend a waiting time of an hour for A criteria, but not for G criteria. —Kusma (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G14 works on pages that have survived deletion discussions

I have added G14 as a criterion that works on pages that have survived deletion discussions, provided that something has changed since the discussion causing G14 to be met, when previously it wasn't. For example, a (disambiguation) dab listing three pages at the time of its AfD lists one extant page because the other two have been deleted. —Alalch E. 16:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New bullet point for "Other issues with redirects"

"For redirects that don't have any correlation to the page it links to, see G1."

This is also stated in rule 5 of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting, and the topic is frequent enough to be included here. I think a redirect that doesn't mean anything like "fjewif923fjwvidsjjwj" linking to the Magna Carta should uncontestably be speedily deleted. Senomo Drines (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such verbiage being added. It's extremely subjective and, as I've learned over the course of hundreds of RfD nominations, there's sometimes a relation that you had no idea about which makes the redirect valid. That's why a discussion can be a very helpful thing. As for your example, that'd be R3 eligible based on the current criteria we have. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

I placed a G14 Tag on Angus Taylor (disambiguation) which was declined. I talked to that user who declined it and I was suggested to come here to see if the page I was talking about meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under G14. Thank you everyone Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. G14 only applies to disambiguation pages with zero or one valid entry. This disambiguation page has two valid entries. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page disambiguates two extant entries. In order to qualify for deletion under G14, it is necessary that the page disambiguates either zero or one extant entries. The page can still be PRODDED or sent to AfD, however. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian If there are 2 with one as primary topic, does one have to end in (disambiguation)? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you restate the question? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian. What I meant is, in order to meet the criteria for speedy deletion under G14 for an unnecessary disambiguation page in which one is primary topic and it only has one other article it might refer to, does the other one have to end in (disambiguation) in order to meet the G14 criteria for speedy deletion? Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) G14 applies in only the following scenarios:

A disambiguation page has zero entries in it.
A disambiguation page ends in (disambiguation) and has one entry in it.

Entries that don't link to an article at all, or where the article in question was deleted, can be discounted. What you described, disambiguation page in which one is primary topic and it only has one other article, has two entries so G14 never applies, regardless of its title. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery Luckily, I copied the disambiguation page of Hilary Knight (disambiguation) before it was deleted and put it on my user page. There are two there. It is the one that has after on it. With the one that mentions the primary topic above. To be more specific, this is the link. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin and can see deleted content, so that copy wasn't necessary. Anyway the speedy deletion of Hilary Knight (disambiguation) was clearly incorrect, and I would have declined it if I had seen it. Ditto Dylan Cozens (disambiguation). If you keep pushing this point the result will be me undeleting those pages too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery Oh. I didn't know you can see deleted content. Others editors like User:BusterD thought Hilary Knight (disambiguation) was an unnecessary disambiguation page. Also, I won't be bothered if they do get undeleted. I honestly don't think having unnecessary pages or information (In this case we exclude vandalism or false information, we are mainly talking about Trivia) is a big problem. And yes I am aware that it is says Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But what I am saying is; there are worse things than Trivia and Unnecessary pages. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion as an unnecessary disambiguation, for topics with two articles one of which is primary, is allowed but not as a speedy deletion. It was a reasonable outcome for Hilary Knight (disambiguation), but it was achieved through the wrong process. It needs to go through WP:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick: DABs go to WP:Articles for deletion, not Redirects for discussion, although I've long thought DAB deletion should be merged into RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for the correction. I don't know what I was thinking. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's two topics, then whether or not title include the phrase "(disambiguation)" doesn't matter. The inclusion of "(disambiguation)" in the title only matters when dealing with redirects to non-disambiguation-like pages, or if the dab page itself only lists one valid entry. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who declined. I'll admit that, every time I interact with G14, I have to go check the wording to see how it applies in this kind of case, and every time, I find the wording a bit tough to parse. On my usertalk, Servite et contribuere identified two previous cases where admins did G14-delete comparable articles that they had tagged, and I'm not surprised to learn that this confusion is common. Perhaps, in the wording of WP:G14, we should add a footnote after both instances of "extant Wikipedia page(s)" saying This includes any boldfaced links at the start of the page. or something like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should hold my speedy in this case up as a model for perfect behavior. I have entered into the realm of performing lots of speedy deletions this year, and I'm likely to get in a hurry from time to time (and in so doing over-rely on the good faith request). On re-looking at my action, my first reaction is "by what criteria did the hockey player become primary topic?" I know this comment is outside this discussion. BusterD (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did have pause for thought with the one I deleted, but did make sure that there was a disambiguation hatnote on the now primary topic article. I agree that clarifying the wording of WP:G14 would be helpful. --Canley (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]