Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

G8 conflict?[edit]

Imagine that I create User talk:Nyttend/subpage. Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because User:Nyttend/subpage doesn't exist. Now, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam. Someone comes around and deletes it. Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?

Also, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with the content #REDIRECT ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect. G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?

This just now came to mind as I was deleting spam in userspace; I deleted User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox after deleting User:BassettHousePic/sandbox, and I'm not sure this is always right. Here it was (the user's been spamblocked and has no other edits), but that won't always be the case, especially if the userpage is deleted via U1. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually end up deleting the user talk subpages, and mostly consider it a bug that the "G8: Talk page of a deleted page" option doesn't appear in the deletion dropdown and that there isn't a link to the talk page from the post-deletion screen. I guess the distinction is that User talk:Nyttend/Archive 42 is primarily a subpage of User talk:Nyttend; while User talk:Nyttend/spam sandbox, which typically consists of wikiproject templates from the article creation wizard, would primarily be the talk page of User:Nyttend/spam sandbox.
For a U1, or other ambiguous cases where the deletion would be unobjectionable to the page owner, I'd probably leave a note on their talk page or maybe in the deletion log to ask for deletion of the user talk subpage separately if desired. It hasn't come up. —Cryptic 00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd perhaps say user talk pages should be an exception (as opposed to only archives of talk pages) to G8. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my impression has always been that "User talk pages" in the "not eligible for G8" list only applies to the main user talk page and equivalents, i.e User talk:Nyttend, but not automatically every talk page of a page in the user namespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's always been my impression too. Obviously there will be some exceptions (e.g. a theoretical user talk:Thryduulf/Subpage/Archive 1) that require admin discretion. The easiest (but non-ideal) ways to resolve this are probably using the {{G8-exempt}} template proactively, and having a very low bar to restoration when asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for rejected draftified articles and declined/rejected AfC submissions improperly moved or copies to mainspace[edit]

So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed. First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.

The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think straight to AfD is usually the right choice. If it has already been moved to mainspace after a decline, there's strong reason to believe a prod would be contested. And as a contested deletion, it's not really a good candidate for a speedy deletion. That said, AfD is not mandatory. It happens that the draft reviewer can be wrong. Only take to AfD if you still believe it is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate since AfD takes up a lot more editor time than CSD. Quick question on that. At which point does contesting a deletion count? Since I've seen plenty of authors go for the "contest deletion" option on G11, U5, and at least one A7 but it's ignored by the deleting admin. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to delete as much stuff in as little editor time as we can, but to make proper decisions on whether something is or is not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. G11 and A7 are also possible speedies for some drafts moved to mainspace, but not valid for many of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I thought that a draft that has been declined or rejected (especially multiple times) might be sufficiently unsuitable for mainspace to be speedily deleted. I had been tentatively floating the idea of whether a new CSD criterion might be established for this instance, though it seems like that sort of criterion wouldn't work at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected is just the opinion of one editor. On occasion I have moved such pages to mainspace, as clearly the rejection was not appropriate. A speedy delete in the situation you say is controversial, so AFD or other existing speedy delete (eg advertising or no claim of importance) is best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Draftspace and AfC are optional. If someone moves a page from draft to article space that doesn't meet an existing speedy deletion criterion, but you believe should be deleted then PROD and AfD are your only options. AfC rejections represent the opinion of the reviewer(s), not consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that if a copy/paste has been performed, unless the original editor is the only content editor a {{histmerge}} will be necessary. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A small update to U1[edit]

Currently, if I want to delete Module:Sandbox/Nickps or one of its subpages, I have to use G7, which means that if another editor edits it, I will have to go to MFD to get it deleted. However, those pages are user sandboxes (see Module:Module sandbox for the communal sandbox) and are only placed in the Module namespace for technical reasons, so U1 should apply instead. So, I propose that the first sentence of U1 is changed into Personal user pages, subpages as well as Module:Sandbox/<the user's name> and its subpages (but not their corresponding talk pages) upon request by their user. Nickps (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider updating U2 in a similar way. Nickps (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has this ever actually happened? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no way of knowing. I didn't find anything in TfD or MfD but there might be IAR deletions that admins have done over the years. That probably means rejection on the grounds of NEWCSD#3 anyway, but I still think my suggestion is correct, even if IAR ends up being the justification. Nickps (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a criterion for UPE creations[edit]

I'd like to revisit the idea of creating a new speedy deletion for criterion for articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use's prohibition of undisclosed paid editing. This was previously proposed in 2017 but narrowly failed to achieve consensus. However, I think that many of the assumptions made in that discussion are no longer valid in 2024, due to the changing nature of undisclosed paid editing. Specifically, the closer wrote the objection to the proposed criterion was based on the following:

  • the relative vagueness and/or subjectivity of its definition and/or applicability in practice due to frequency of edge cases – we have become much more organised about handling undisclosed paid editing cases since 2017. There is now an off-wiki reporting mechanism and a group of trusted functionaries actively monitoring it. Blocks for UPE based on nonpublic evidence are documented on-wiki using a process set by ArbCom, similar to checkuser blocks. Adding a clarifying bullet to the new criterion saying that it is only applicable if UPE is demonstrated by solid evidence on-wiki (rare in practice) or endorsed by a functionary should therefore be sufficient to overcome this objection. It wouldn't be any more vague or subjective than G5.
  • other criteria already cover most cases (e.g., WP:A7, WP:G11) – UPE operations are smarter than they were seven years ago (or if they didn't get smarter, they couldn't survive). They don't write articles that without a claim of significance, they create the appearance of notability by WP:REFBOMBing citations to articles they have paid to be placed in superficially reliable sources. They don't write blatant advertisements, they just only write positive things and neglect to include anything their client doesn't want mentioned. I cannot remember the last time I came across a UPE creation that was so clear-cut as to meet these criteria.
  • the normal, slower deletion processes are sufficient given a purportedly low incidence of pages that would meet the proposed criteria – the functionaries receive reports of undisclosed paid editing almost daily, and it is not unusual for them to reveal dozens of paid creations. Sending them en masse to AfD would flood it, and discussion there is in any case complicated by the nonpublic nature of the grounds for deletion.

Another approach suggested in the past was to expand G5 to cover these. And it is true that the vast majority of the regular UPErs we see were blocked long ago. But I don't think this is a good approach for two reasons. First, we frequently can't link them to a specific blocked account. Second, the more successful UPErs have moved away from sockfarms and instead hire one-off freelancers to post articles for them. This technically doesn't preclude G5 but does make it a lot less clear cut and in practice I think it has become less and less useful for UPE.

I'm not proposing this criterion right now. I'd like to hear whether others think it is viable and workshop the wording a bit first (so please hold the support/opposes). – Joe (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get UPE listed as a WP:DEL#REASON first.
Show that these lead to SNOW deletions second. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 48#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments SmokeyJoe. Just as an aside, you might want to consider how structuring them as a series of terse commands comes across. The first WP:DEL#REASON is "content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion", so in a way trying to get UPE listed there is exactly what I'm doing now :). But I understand that your broader point is that there should be an existing consensus that a CSD is a deletion reason. I believe that already exists for UPE creations. First and foremost, they are explicitly forbidden by the WMF Terms of Use, and that pre-empts local policy. We can also look at practice: in my experience, UPE creations only survive the unmasking of their creator if they have been significantly rewritten by other, uninvolved editors. Otherwise, they are deleted under G5, G11, at AfD, or G13 after being moved to draftspace. These are all long-standing, accepted practices but, as I explained above, they are inconvenient, and a more specific criterion would make combatting paid-for spam much easier. A final point of evidence is the discussion I linked above, where there was nearly consensus for precisely this criterion, and little doubt that it was a valid reason for deletion, just a series of (well-placed) concerns that I believe are now either no longer relevant or can be overcome.
Thanks for pointing out the 2019 DELPOL discussion – I didn't know about it, but I'm familiar with the arguments there. I think TonyBallioni's view, that a combination of WP:SOCK/CheckUser and WP:NOTPROMO/G11 is sufficient to deal with UPE, has long been influential and reflects his firsthand experience in countering the first wave of UPE outfits in the late 2010s. However, I think I remember even Tony himself saying that things it's no longer the case. The big UPE sockfarms were all blocked, they adopted new tactics, and we need to adapt too. Ivanvector and Thryduulf's argument, that we should only delete content for what it is and not where it came from, is more a point of principle, but ultimately I'm more interested in how the deletion process works in practice, i.e. does it do enough to support overstretched volunteer editors in dealing with people who try to spam our encyclopaedia for a living. As the late great DGG put it in that discussion: In practice, over my 12 years here, I have seen almost no satisfactory articles from people who are writing an article for money. – Joe (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smokeyjoe is right. Before we can even consider making this a speedy deletion criterion you need to show that every time a page is nominated for deletion solely for being a UPE creation by someone G5 does not apply to the consensus is to delete. Unless and until you can do that then any criterion will fail WP:NEWCSD point 2. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1232761378"