Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 6 December 2023 (→RfC: Does CSD:G4 apply to a page deleted in AfD and immediately recreated as a redirect page?: reformat so that closed discussion is boxed together). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggestion: Expansion of G5

I want to suggest the expansion of G5 to include articles created in violation of community or arbitration contentious topics procedures. For example, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been designated as a contentious topic by the community, as is the Arab-Israeli conflict by ArbCom. I would propose a new template "as a page created in violation of a contentious topic remedy" with support for both community and arbitration contentious topics. Awesome Aasim 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesome Aasim: How often have such pages been taken to XfD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about take a look at the enforcement logs for those. For example, WP:GS/RUSUKR has a few page deletions listed there, as does Wikipedia:AELOG. This kind of deletion has already been enforced, but it is not mentioned in the CSD, nor is there a template that an editor can use to request speedy deletion under this. Awesome Aasim 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken WP:G5 as already covering this kind of deletion, since non-ECP editors who edit those topic areas are in effect violating a ban, but not opposed to clarifying this.
Note that the actual restriction in effect is WP:ARBECR which is technically separate from the contentious topic system, so the wording would have to be more general/clearer than what you propose. Galobtter (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe amend wording to something like "in violation of their ban or block, or a topic-wide remedy". Galobtter (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already spun up a draft in User:Awesome Aasim/Template:Db-ct. Feel free to tweak the wording. Right now, the only two topics subject to WP:ARBECR as far as I am aware are WP:CT/A-I (by ArbCom) and Wikipedia:GS/RUSUKR (by the community). Awesome Aasim 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter If you want to be bold and add "or a general sanction" that would be wonderful. You can also move my template out of user space and into template space. Awesome Aasim 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-Galobtter comment) I've boldly added wording about GS violations. Happy to BRD but this seems pretty common-sense, and is how a number of admins have been treating these deletions for a while. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Thanks :D
I'll see if I can finish spinning the template up so it can be listed on the page. Awesome Aasim 21:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Mostly done I just need to do the documentation pages and then update the speedy criteria category box. Awesome Aasim 22:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions? When did this get decided? In past years, I have proposed new criteria for speedy deletion that evolved into long discussions and I don't see anything like that here. There is not even anything in the CSD G5 criteria that specifies this specification as falling under the CSD G5 criteria or explains when it applies. Only the category is listed under CSD G5, there is nothing in the description about general sanctions.
How come other editors proposals to change or add new CSD criteria go through days or weeks of discusion and this one just appeared out of nowhere? That's not how the process works. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this didn't need discussion is because deletion is already allowed by WP:ARBECR. This basically clarifies that "violation of a ban" includes automatic topic-wide restrictions which are in essence automatic topic bans for users with less than a certain number of edits, rather than actually changing policy/practice. Galobtter (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not an "expansion" of G5, just updating its wording to reflect reality. Non-extended-confirmed users are banned from some topics, and G5 applies to the violations of bans. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if there's a substantive objection to the change I made, I'm happy to be reverted or to self-revert. But if this is just a procedural issue, the point of policy is to reflect standard practice, not the other way around, and this is not the first time WP:CSD has been amended in such a way, nor will it be the last. (Among other things, last December HouseBlaster boldly removed CSD A5 based on a 5–0 !vote. a far cry from a megabytes-long debate.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the recent changes to the policy as I think we should discuss the wording a bit more carefully. In particular, "by any user in violation of a general sanction" leaves too much room for interpretation IMO. G5 should not be a general tool to enforce sanctions, but should be restricted to when the sanction specifies that all pages in a topic area should undergo a certain level of protection and a user whom that protection is meant to exclude creates a new article which is unambiguously in that topic area. If that is your intended meaning, then we should make that more clear. If you intend for a more expansive reading, then I view that as a substantial change to policy that requires consensus to make. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: Hmm, I see your point. Writing it, I did consider whether it could be mistaken as meaning that, say, admins can use G5 as a CTOP action, but concluded that's not a valid reading of "in violation of a general sanction"... But we do want wording that can't easily be mistaken. So, okay, how about "in violation of a general sanction that restricts the creation of articles"? That would cover ECRs, as well as hypothetical future general sanctions that impose some other limitation (e.g. I could imagine a "consensus required to create" or a "1 article per user per day" restriction someday for certain topics). If there's concern that that's still too vague, we could append ", such as an extended confirmed restriction". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 22:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That prohibits the creation of articles, surely?
G5 is already very controversial. Speedy deletion should only be for non-controversial cases. So if we're going to expand the wording to cover this case, we should specify it very carefully to make sure that it covers only cases where deletion is unambiguously the correct outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, the spirit of G5 is to retroactively enforce editing restrictions that we cannot enforce by technical means. For example, if you are blocked, then you (the person) may not edit anywhere. We can't prevent you from creating another account from a different IP, but if we discover the connection we will block your sock and nuke all your creations. Likewise, if you are not EC, then you may not edit or create articles in a restricted area. We can't prevent you from creating articles, but if your new article happens to fall in that restricted area then we can speedy delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well "prohibit" is a complicated word to use, because of course an ECR doesn't prohibit a non-EC user from creating any articles, just from creating certain ones. And one could imagine other GS that are flexible in other ways, like the hypothetical "1 article per user per day" I gave. I think "that prohibits the creation of the article in question" would accomplish the same thing as "that restricts the creation of articles"; I have no real preference between the two. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be a very bad idea to allow G5 deletions for throttling-type rules like "1 article per user per day". G5 should only be used when there is a violation of a clear ban on creations, either because the editor has been banned altogether or because that topic has had creations by certain classes of editors banned. Ambiguous language causes WP:CREEP. We should be unambiguous here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of any wording in CSD allowing ECR deletions didn't stop ArbCom and the community from enacting ECRs, and hasn't stopped admins from enforcing them by deletion. I would probably also oppose that throttling-type rule, but that's beside the point. The point is that sometimes ArbCom or the community enacts general sanctions restricting page creation, and this criterion should reflect that. (If the criterion doesn't reflect that, nothing really changes except making things more confusing. Admins will keep enforcing those general sanctions, and ArbCom definitely isn't going to desysop anyone for carrying out its own bidding.) Yes, we don't want to add ambiguity, but there's nothing ambiguous about either wording I've given. "Restrict[ing] the creation of articles" and "prohibit[ing] the creation of the article in question" are both clear concepts, compatible with WP:NEWCSD #s 1&2. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Restricting the creation of articles" could easily mean allowing creation but restricting certain aspects of the created content, such as requiring it to have inline reliable sources. I don't think we would admins to see that wording, recognize that a created article was constrained in that way, and decide to delete it outright. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree, but I don't want to bikeshed this. Does the "that prohibits the creation of the article in question" wording work for you? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tweak it a little bit: "by any user in violation of a general sanction that prohibits them from creating the page in question". On the second bullet about topic bans, I would add "This also applies to general sanctions imposed on a class of editors across some topic area", since an ECR is essentially a preemptive topic ban on all non-EC editors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ok to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term "general sanction" the best term here? Before I clicked on the wikilink and read more, I thought it meant what we used to call GS, which I think is another word for what that page calls "community-authorised discretionary sanctions" or "community-authorised sanctions" such as Russo-Ukrainian War, Uyghur Genocide, etc. Perhaps we could clarify it by specifying by any user in violation of a contentious topic restriction or community-authorised discretionary sanction restriction that prohibits them from creating the page in question –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of additional words for something we already have a term for. I feel like the link does a good enough job clarifying what "general sanction" means. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems like a lot of additional words. Why isn't the existing "violation" enough? This applies to pages created in violation of a ban, block, or general sanction, and that have no substantial edits by other users. If we really need to clarify that you can't violate a general sanction by creating a page unless it prohibits creating pages, banish it to a bullet point with all the other rules-lawyer fodder. —Cryptic 07:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1, clarifications can be added to the bullet points if people genuinely misinterpret the language, but let's keep the actual text short and to the point. Galobtter (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would this look for the wording:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of community sanctions or remedies and that have no substantial edits by others.

  • To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.
  • For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
  • When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
  • For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction. A page created before the restrictions were imposed or after the restrictions were lifted does not qualify under this criterion. Nor does a page created after a person meets the eligibility criteria for the topic area.
  • G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.
  • {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}} (for banned or blocked users)
  • {{Db-gs|general sanction code}} (for violations of general sanctions)
  • Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users, Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions
I think this fixes some of the ambiguity of the wording per above. If it looks good maybe we can roll it out, so that it can be clearer to other editors that this is a de facto reality. Awesome Aasim 15:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions:
  • "community sanctions or remedies" should be changed because the sanctions could also be coming from ArbCom.
  • "and that have no substantial edits by others" is now grammatically attached only to the sanctions bit, which is incorrect. What we want is for "others" to be attached only to the ban/block bit, and the sanctions bit should really say something like "and that have no substantial edits by editors authorized to edit in the area in question".
  • I think we can be a bit more concise on the clarification bullet. "For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of restrictions preventing the user in question from editing in the topic area at the time of the creation, such as the extended confirmed restriction." (Delete the rest of the bullet.)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that extra comma missing. So...
  • community sanctions or remedies → general sanctions
  • no substantial edits by others → no substantial edits by others not subject to the general sanction
I think it is starting to look much much nicer! Awesome Aasim 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless several such cases are put through XfD and each results in “SNOW Delete” (which is improbable). Otherwise, this amounts to shifting project management further from the community towards oligarchs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on certain things, e.g. if a general sanction says that additions of new content in a subject area must be supported by certain types of reliable sources, I don't consider it within the spirit of G5 to speedy-delete new articles in that area created without the requisite sources. To me, the spirit of G5 is to allow retroactive enforcement of editing restrictions that we cannot implement proactively for technical reasons, and WP:ECR enforcement is definitely part of that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on this as well. The intent I largely think about G5 are page creations in violation of a ban, block, or a page creation prohibition, like WP:ECR. It should also be noted that it is at the discretion of the deleting administrator to decide whether to accept or decline a speedy criterion. A few pages might edge on CSD but if the deletion might be controversial, the admin will prefer sending it through XFD. Awesome Aasim 00:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. CSD criteria must be clear and uncontroversial, and there is far too much discretion given to admins in this proposed new criteria. In order for a change like this to be implemented, we need to see evidence that articles created in these topic areas are regularly, even universally, deleted at AfD. Deleting articles outright is very different from simply reverting edits made by non-ECP editors, for two reasons: (1) In the case of edits, the text remains in the history and can be taken over by another approved editor, and (2), most of the time a warning is visible to the person editing a restricted article.
    Consider 2023 Bitung clashes, which I came across when patrolling CSD. It was tagged for deletion using this criterion, but there is no evidence that the person who created the article was aware of any restrictions, or aware that they may be completely wasting their time. That is just unfair, and I believe contrary to Wikipedia's vision. Accordingly, I have declined the CSD, applied the protection and templates as mandated by the CTOP procedures, and reverted the change to the policy page pending the outcome of a broadly-attended RfC. – bradv 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how we would get evidence that these articles are consistently deleted at AfD when in general admins are going to keep deleting these articles as an AE action, whether or not this text is added to G5. Galobtter (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this is controversial. WP:ARBECR means these deletions are going to happen no matter what we say here: the only question is whether we're going to allocate a code for them or not. I understand why people oppose ARBECR-based deletions, but the solution to that problem is to ask ArbCom to revise its procedures, not to make them slightly harder to implement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the arbitrators who voted in favour of that wording, I never imagined that new articles would be deleted automatically and indiscriminately solely because of that wording. I (rather naively I'll admit) assumed that they would still go through the existing processes. I won't object to obvious POV pushing or disruptive articles shortcutting the processes, but there's a big difference between those and articles obviously created in good faith, such as the example I gave above. Would you agree? – bradv 20:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What would there have to be discussed at a regular AfD, though? Either the article is discussed as a normal article, in which case the restriction is immaterial, or people agree that the article should be deleted because of the restriction, in which case there's nothing to discuss. Putting the responsibility of whether a restriction should be enforced with deletion on people at AfD isn't really reasonable (and would obviously lead to people supporting selective enforcement where it benefits their POV). Galobtter (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear your concerns, but if not at AfD, where is the best place for this discussion? WP:ARBECR states that there is discretion allowed in how to enforce this restriction, and in this case another admin and I disagree in our approach. Where is the best place for us to get broader community input on the existence or deletion of this article? – bradv 21:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is User talk:Pppery#2023 Bitung clashes * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most AE actions involve discretion, so I would think the same as when there is disagreement about whether to impose an AE action, e.g. about imposing a page restriction - through normal discussion among uninvolved admins about what to do, or by getting more input by filing at WP:AE. Of course Pppery if he wanted to push the issue could unilaterally delete as an AE action, and then I'd see it as similar to a page restriction in that it would require appealing that to get that overturned. Galobtter (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No good would come from me doing that - we should come to a consensus on what the exact standards are before I start taking admin actions I know other admins oppose. On the merits, I think Bradv has a point that we should consider setting Special:AbuseFilter/1276 to warn to avoid the lack of awareness problem, but Wikipedia's standards have rightly long been that ignorance is not an excuse. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that taking a unilateral action wouldn't be a good idea. I think 1276 might need to be tuned a bit before a warning can be done, but an edit filter warning could be a reasonable way to make these deletions more fair. Galobtter (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv: Surely the broader community consensus would come in the form of an EC user saying "Hi, Brad, I saw you deleted XYZ. As an extendedconfirmed user I'm willing to take responsibility for that page's content. Could you please restore it?" Or simply taking it to WP:REFUND. Speedy deletion isn't the end of the road. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is blank-and-EC-protect a viable alternative to speedy deletion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally, sure, admins are allowed to use methods other than deletion to enforce the ECR on new pages, per WP:ARBECR point (A)(2). Practically, no, at least not in mainspace, because blank pages in mainspace make no sense. Stubbify-and-EC-protect is a somewhat more viable alternative, and I've done it once. But I'm not sure if any of that's relevant here, since we're talking about the procedural handling of the times admins choose not to use (A)(2)'s discretionary clause. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that. Thanks! I guess my view is that AfD for these articles makes no sense at all, and Galobtter expressed exactly why. I'd favor any clarification that G5 covers such deletions, and most of the above wording options seem fine to me.
    If we have editors determined to revert this change without an RfC, then it's probably best to get the ball rolling. Do you think we're still in the wordsmithing phase? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, I took my shot. Frankly I feel I have better ways to contribute to the sum of human knowledge than argue about whether a specific policy page should include a thing that will continue to happen whether or not that policy page includes it. If it's at the point of an RfC, who cares? Just leave it out. The outcome of an RfC will change nothing other than what precise rationale admins give when deleting under ECRs. Where before some would have said "G5 / ECR" now they'll just say "ECR". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable. I think admins who are less experienced with speedy deletion (I'm one), are a hesitant in the grey areas. We might have better enforcement with clearer guidance, and quicker enforcement might help community members return sooner to more important contributions toward the aforementioned sum.
    Awesome Aasim and King of Hearts, I think you were the last active word-workers. Do you think an RfC is in order using your proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, why not? Start one in the subsection. I think this current discussion provides all the needed context to come to an agreement. Awesome Aasim 04:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since ArbCom is in an "amend WP:ARBECR" mood anyways, maybe if ARBECR was amended to say "When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, non-extended-confirmed editors are automatically topic banned from the topic area", that would make it clear WP:G5 applies with no actual change to the restriction.. Galobtter (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Galobtter, would you like to pursue this option further with someone from ArbCom, or do you think we could start an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking on this and I do think the easiest solution would be for ArbCom to change only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area to all editors who are not extended-confirmed are considered topic-banned from the area. The community could follow up with a thread at WP:AN to sync our own ECRs with that. (I'd already been planning on doing that to sync with the recent talkspace change, once things settled down.) Shall one of us propose this at ARCA? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really accurate to current practice? A topic ban would preclude making edit requests (which is allowed) and would also result in users being blocked for violating the ban (which doesn't appear to be common practice for when people who aren't ECR try to edit in these topic areas, unless they repeatedly refuse to stop or are otherwise disruptive). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin, I don't think such a change in wording is necessary. We can use G5 as a catch-all for articles created as an end-run around the ECR restriction (such as POV-forks), but as a matter of principle speedy deletion criteria should only be used in uncontroversial cases. There are certain articles which are created by non-EC editors, but they were created in good faith, on an encyclopedic topic, and therefore it makes no sense to just bin them in the hopes that someone else will notice and recreate them from scratch. These articles should simply be protected as soon as they are created (this is how we always did it in the past, afaik). Some recent examples: 2023 Bitung clashes (mentioned above), as well as Alex Dancyg.
    ArbCom has already said that we should use discretion in deciding how to deal with these articles – deleting them automatically and indiscriminately is the opposite of that. – bradv 00:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is saying we should delete them automatically and indiscriminately? The clause saying admins have discretion would stay there. I'm not saying to throw the whole thing out. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NEWCSD point 2 It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. It is very clear from this discussion that consensus does not support deleting almost all the pages that could be deleted by this change to the wording, probably not even most such pages. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if G5 as currently written meets that standard—I know I G5 less than 50% of eligible pages I find—but regardless, wouldn't that be another point in favor of ArbCom and the community clarifying that ECRs should be treated as TBANs, to which provision A grants two limited exceptions? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed G5 as written does not meet that standard and would not be approved as-is if proposed today. However attempts at change have failed (the last one turned into a philosophical debate about preventive vs punitive actions). This does not mean that making it worse is at all acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin, see this diff from Pppery. I'm not sure if other administrators think this way at the moment, but if the G5 policy is changed as proposed above, there will be more. – bradv 03:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv: If Pppery means "indiscriminately" as in "without favoritism", then that comment is no different from justifying any other ECR deletion. If he means it as "without exception", then yes, that would seem unwise given that admins have discretion in all things, and the wording of ECR point A2 seems to expect we will exercise that discretion more than usual. In either case, though, I don't think that this being in G5 changes anything. The ECR, as worded, already allows an admin to impose a policy of blanket deletion on violations. If that's undesirable, that's a matter for ArbCom. That said, as I said to you above, ECR deletions should already be reversible upon a request by an EC editor, much as we allow EC editors to restore content that was reverted under an ECR. Are there cases of editors making such requests and being denied? If so, that's another thing that could be clarified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the article in question? It was clearly created in good faith, which would suggest that your second reading is correct. Regarding your last point, it's unreasonable to expect an extended-confirmed user, without access to view deleted material, to request restoration of a deleted article that they didn't work on. It's hard enough for administrators to find such material. – bradv 03:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to discuss that example somewhere else, but again, it does not make a real difference in the end because deletion is permitted regardless. Per WP:ARBECR, Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. So any admin could have deleted Special:Permalink/1186853374 if they wanted, as an AE action. It is only a procedural question whether we a) include this scenario in G5; b) request ArbCom clarify that an ECR is a kind of TBAN (for which point A1 provides an exception and A2 a discretionary exception), mooting the point; or c) do nothing. None of those eventualities increases or decreases admins' power to delete in such cases. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if it should be clear that there should be discretion in how G5 is applied from case to case. I believe ARBECR is covered under G5. It also makes clear that administrators are permitted, but not required, to delete. Same thing with WP:BRV - a banned editor's contributions are permitted to be reverted or deleted, but it is not a requirement. Awesome Aasim 02:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I think this all really just boils away to the question of how to best administer ARBECR and similar GS. I believe this specific set of discussions started because there was some unclarity in how to flag covered articles for attention by sysops, and someone had the idea to simply tag them as G5 for simplicity. Subsequently, there's been some thoughtful pushback against that route, both for being a bit hasty and from concerns regarding second-order consequences.

It may be an old school move, but from a flagging perspective there's nothing preventing the creation of a new template and category for articles potentially subject to deletion under ARBECR that is entirely independent of the CSD workflow this is a wiki after all. So no changes need to be made here for that to happen; the deletions are already authorized.

Our options then look roughly as follows not intended to be exhaustive:

  • Start a new workflow as previously described. That sequesters all the DS/CT stuff in its own process which everyone who doesn't want to work those areas can just ignore, avoids the need to formulate a new CSD or modify an existing one, and keeps at bay the inevitable disputes over at what point the arbs cross from interpretating policy to making it. But new processes need to be staffed; it takes additional time to set up, will lack a complete existing set of norms, and further increase however slightly bureaucratic complexity. Might also need an approval RFC to preemptively quell objections.
  • Just expand G5 as suggested. That more or less reverses the advantages and disadvantages set out above. There may still be an issue with staffing if people who don't want to work in DS/CT patrol the category for G5 candidates less; the percentage of flagged articles deleted may be higher if this is implemented.
  • Split the difference in some way. For example through a new carefully tailored CSD, or by creating a second G5 category after the same fashion of the existing G3 and G8 duos in {{CSD/Subcategories}}. Many of the disadvantages will combine for these scenarios, but some of the advantages will as well.
  • Do nothing. Doing nothing is always an option. ARBECR itself may still be somewhat new, but the actions it authorizes are not. As much as it may seem like yesterday, ARBPIA3 was decided more than 8 years ago. DS/CT authorized deletions of non-ec creations have been occurring the whole time, and we've managed to get along just fine without either expanding G5, creating a new CSD, or coming up with some new process. Does continuing to utilize the user talk pages of experienced AE sysops in these cases perpetuate yet another part of the project's hidden structure? Certainly. Is it the least bad option available? Room for debate.

I don't really have a strong opinion yet developed here and may not get the chance to develop one with the IRL end of the year crunch ahead, but I thought this might help focus some thoughts on where everything fits in the big picture sense. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Idea

How about we make it clear what WP:BANREVERT means and what it does not mean? Also WP:ARBECR permits, but does not require, deletion. It is the same thing as the rest of BRV. We can use discretion to delete. Given that, could we maybe just retire G5 altogether? The templates could be changed to notify administrators that the article may have been created in violation of a ban and may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia standards. Awesome Aasim 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new redirect criteria

Over the past couple days, there have been a lot of nominations at WP:RFD for redirects with unusual wikipedia spaces (such as Philip Dunne(writer)). I suggest to add a criteria for redirects basedd off WP:RDAB Yoblyblob (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoblyblob The example you gave looks like G6. It was created obviously in the wrong title, so it probably can be speedied under there. I think G6 is well equipped to handle this case. Awesome Aasim 19:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should still have a clear criterion for this (assuming the consensus is that they should be speedy deleted) rather than stretching G6 and relying on the CSD-ing admins to mind-read back to 2005. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does CSD:G4 apply to a page deleted in AfD and immediately recreated as a redirect page?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is clear that Option 2 (G4 does not apply to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD.) has consensus. It is also clear to me that the present wording of G4, using phrases like "applies to sufficiently identical copies" and "excludes pages that are not substantially identical", already forbids the deletion of redirects under this criterion, since a valid redirect has no content text that might be similar to (let alone identical to) the page that was deleted - it only has the #REDIRECT directive plus some optional categorisation, perhaps by means of templates that themselves could not be mistaken for article content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing DRV discussion brought up the question of whether the "sufficiently identical" language in CSD:G4 applies to pages deleted in AfD, and immediately recreated as a redirect by someone who wasn't pleased with the result of the AfD. Several editors believe that since the redirect page is different from the one deleted, any editor is welcome to recreate the deleted page, even if the "Redirect" option was brought up in the AfD and failed to reach consensus.

The options, as I see it, are:

  1. G4 applies to all cases where consensus was not followed, including recreation of a page as a redirect.
  2. G4 does not apply to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, even if that option was discussed and rejected in the AfD.
  3. G4 applies to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, but only if that option was brought up and rejected in the AfD.
  4. Other?

To be clear, we are talking about a page recreated shortly (<30 days) after an AfD closed as Delete.

Either way, there seems to be enough confusion about this to justify adding a sentence about recreation as a redirect to the language in CSD:G4.

Would appreciate more views on the subject. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 21:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OwenX, would you mind changing the bulleted list to a numbered list to make it easier to reference each option? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid RFC, not having a neutral statement of the question to be decided. I also note that the only confusion seems to be by the OP. Everyone else in the discussion can see that a redirect is in no way identical to an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, sort of. We should keep G4 to just the cases of duplicate article creation. RfD is enough of a working process that there is an avenue available to those who believe the redirect should be deleted or retargeted. I think the difference between redirect as an AfD decision, which leads to the article history being preserved, and a post-deletion redirect creation is significant enough that someone doing the latter is not overturning the result. I don't think additional guidance is needed in the text of G4, and I'd rather just talk to any editors who tag, or admins that action, G4s that don't quite apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that after the AfD, we'll need an RfD for the same page to delete the redir? Wouldn't the same arguments for changing the original article to a redir still apply? I understand your point about the history. Do we need an AfD !vote along the lines of, "Do not recreate as a redir if deleted"? I would think most who !vote "Delete" also do not wish to see the article instantly resurrected as a redir, even if they don't spell it out. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I'm saying. My experience with AfD and RfD is that the arguments tend to be quite different. In the rare (as far as I'm aware) case where AfD participants really dig into the criteria for redirect deletion, the case for an eventual RfD would be pretty open-and-shut. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Why do you object to adding clarifying words to G4, then? This doesn't seem intuitive at all. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be persuaded, but I'm having trouble seeing this as a common issue. Have you looking into how frequently this comes up? Since my sense is that it's rare—rare for redirects to be created post-deletion, rare for such creations to be contentious, rarer still for them to be speedily deleted—I'd rather not complicate the language of the criterion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very rare indeed, as you say. Most editors accept that AfD consensus is binding, and if consensus was against turning an article into a redir, we shouldn't turn it into a redir, including post-history-deletion. But if we accept your interpretation of G4, it means that there's no point in !voting "Redirect", as we can now just wait out the AfD, and show up the next day to recreate the page as a redir, and get a second shot through the RfD. I don't think keeping this option a secret is the best way to prevent it from becoming prevalent. If it's allowed, it should be spelled out as such, and if not, it should be explicitly prohibited. There seem to be enough people on the DRV I linked above who seem willing to use this option to bypass an AfD deletion, and I'm sure the popularity of the technique will spread quickly once the word is out. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have trouble seeing the situation so nefariously, but I've said about as much as I feel is wise, and I look forward to hearing from others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changes: This is entirely unnecessary. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. — A redirect replacing an article clearly fits this description as a redirect is substantially different from a page that was deleted at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: I've read through the DRV and the only person arguing that G4 applies to redirects for articles deleted at AfD is you. There was consensus there that G4 did not apply. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why keep it a secret? Why not spell it out in the wording of CSD:G4, and not waste people's time on AfDs debating redirect as an option, when they can simply show up a week later and recreate the page as a redirect anyway? Beyond simply repeating what you've already said in that DRV, I don't see you addressing any of the policy issues in this RfC. Owen× ☎ 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: There is no secret, the wording is already clear to the point that you've been the only one advocating that G4 applies in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "No secret"? 'Redirect' is one of the most commonly !voted choices on AfDs. Do you really think editors would be wasting their time arguing about it, if they know they could just show up the next day and recreate the deleted article as a redir? If this is what our policy is, let's make it abundantly clear, and stop wasting people's time on AfD discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About there being no point in !voting 'redirect': When the outcome is 'delete', the page is deleted. A 'redirect' outcome as an alternative to deletion means that the page is not deleted. Deleted vs. not deleted. The point of a 'redirect' !vote and a 'redirect' outcome is that there is no need to execute the deletion in a technical sense because it's fine to preserve the history underneath the redirect, based on a premise that the content is not something that must not remain publicly accessible even in history (bad BLP content, etc.). Conversely, when the page is deleted and a redirect is created at that name, history is not preserved. —Alalch E. 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying "why keep it a secret that G4 doesn't apply to Draft:X when X was deleted in an AfD". It's the same with a redirect, except it's even more obvious that it doesn't apply to a redirect which can't, categorically, be "suffuciently identical", and a draft can. These are different types of pages each with different deletion discussions. The type of deletion discussion must match the type of the page. I think that this is obvious to most people. —Alalch E. 22:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's exactly what CSD:G4 does spell out! Read it and see: "It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace". If Draft:X was important enough to explicitly exclude, why not redirs? Owen× ☎ 23:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because redirects are not substantially identical to articles that have been deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It mentions drafts because people do sometimes get confused and think that draftspace content copied from a deleted page is G4 liable, because the content is identical which is the primary element of G4, and, more importantly, it extends G4 to respond to circumventing deletion to host content on Wikipedia. It doesn't mention redirects because it's harder to get confused when the content is not identical, or even similar at all (a redirect is not similar to an article), and you can't circumvent content being deleted by creating a redirect at the same name, as redirects have no content. —Alalch E. 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. I already made a comment about this in a deletion review that led to this RfC—special:diff/1187380309.—Alalch E. 22:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 (strongly). G4 specifically does not apply to articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. It makes no mention of being substantially identical to a different version of an article discussed in the AFD (such as a redirect). Any redirect can betaken to RFD, where the arguments tend to be quite different from those made at AFD.Frank Anchor 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As others have said, G4 does not, and should not, apply. Would suggest withdrawing this RfC as it appears there's no chance it'll gain consensus (nor was much workshopping done here, which should've happened before opening this RfC). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per everyone except the OP. A redirect is not an article and therefore cannot be substantially identical to one. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: G4 is about substanially identical recreations. For example, a non-notable article getting recreated a tenth or twentieth time, or an identical redirect already debated at RFD. It does not apply if the recreation addresses the reason it was deleted. Awesome Aasim 14:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I vote Option 2. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 is, and has been throughout recent memory, CSD policy. OwenX It's now 9-1 by my count, with no one else yet supporting your preferred option. Thank you for phrasing this as you did and putting it here, which is the precisely right place to get the best feedback. I suggest reading WP:1AM, even though this is a policy interpretation matter rather than an article content dispute. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3, reworded: “G4 applies to the recreation of a deleted page as a redirect, but only if that option was brought up, and was rejected in the close of the AfD”. And if in doubt, ask the deleting admin.
    I support G4 being useful in broadly supporting consensus at AfD for six months after the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, do you believe option 3 as reworded is supported by the current wording of G4 on this policy page, or are you suggesting that this policy page be changed to encompass this usage? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - I could buy into something like this, but would advise saying "EXPLICITLY rejected". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating a redirect explicitly rejected at a recent xfd (imagining a G10 style reason) could get the creator blocked for disruption. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It could... but if the redirect is G10-able, then G4 needn't apply because G10 does. This interpretation of "the spirit of G4" (immediately below as I compose this) is not only at odds with how CSD criteria are applied (strictly) as well as NEWCSD #2, uncontestable Almost all pages that could be deleted using the criterion, should be deleted, according to consensus. In fact, the vast majority of redirects created after an AfD deletion are kept, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that it is the spirit of G4, would not be surprised to see it happen, but I think it happens extremely rarely if ever. Probably not worth the fuss. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not worth the extra words. Extra words would fail WP:NEWCSD#3 Frequent. Use RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. If a redirect is useful, it should be created, period. BD2412 T 03:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Indeed, but who gets to decide whether it is useful or not? The same can be said of an article, yet we still enforce consensus when it is deleted in an AfD. Why do you feel redirects should be handled differently when consensus was against creating one? I don't think your terse response add any clarity. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "who gets to decide whether it is useful or not?" The community decides. We have an entire process addressing that. BD2412 T 13:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that a consensus reached in an AfD against a redirect has no bearing on the subsequent recreation as a redirect, and we have to go through another round of XfD to remove that redirect? Aren't we putting process above practicality here? Owen× ☎ 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a whole different discussion than what G4 is meant to cover. That moves outside the territory of non-controversial deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In very few cases do AfD discussions consider the merits or otherwise of a redirect, and even when they do very few participants express any opinions about the suggestion so they cannot be considered to have been the subject of a discussion as required by G4. There are occasional exceptions (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakbrook Mall) but in the vast majority of those cases either the presence or absence of a redirect matches the consensus in the discussion. That leaves cases where a redirect is recommended but not created, which is not a matter for any sort of deletion, and redirects created contrary to consensus - which are so infrequent that CSD is completely inappropriate - especially as there may be alternative targets not considered by the AfD. This is not process for the sake of process, but process for the sake of getting the best outcome for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 specifically talks about AfDs that discuss a redirect as an outcome. If you wish to ignore Option 3 because you believe it to be rare, you are free to do so. But rare or not, I don't see how ignoring consensus in an AfD that specifically discusses--and rejects--a redir solution helps get the best outcome for the encyclopedia. The two-phase solution you and others here seem to imply, of an AfD immediately followed by a RfD, is anything but cruftware. We specifically wrote G4 to avoid these unnecessary steps. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We specifically wrote G4 to avoid these unnecessary steps? Without searching archives, I strongly doubt that. G4 is primarily about deleting reposts. Some keeps an offline copy, waits a week, then tries to quietly out it back. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done some wikiarchaeology, the very first version of what evolved into today's G4 dates from June 2003, it read If a page or image is a reposting of previously deleted content, and was not listed on wikipedia:votes for undeletion, then an administrator may delete it without listing it on votes for deletion. (votes for deletion was the ancestor of all today's XfD processes). So, no, G4 was very much not written specifically to avoid AfD followed by RfD or anything similar. Thryduulf (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of G4 and some prior discussions relevant to this one
  • @Thryduulf: Thank you for the thorough wikiarchaeology! The September 2005 quote from Encephalon sums up my thoughts nicely: G4 is recognition that the community has dealt with a problem before, come to a decision, and doesn't need to expend resources to reach that same decision every time the problem is recreated. Yes, the redirect is indeed very different from the article deleted, but it is not different from the option discussed--and rejected--in the AfD. If the community participating in an AfD considered the option of turning the article into a redirect, and consensus was against it, then we shouldn't expend resources having to deal with the same question all over again in RfD. This was the intent of G4 in 2005. Alas, as is often the case with old laws, the words gain Scripture status and are revered, and common sense gives way to blind observance, while the original intent is all but forgotten. Owen× ☎ 09:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, when you read the actual context, that wasn't the intent in 2003, or 2004, 2005 or even 2022. The intent was and is to deal with content that had been discussed and reposted (almost) verbatim. As for your second comment the entire purpose of the RfD criteria is that they are interpreted per the literal meaning of the words, because they are the very limited exceptions to the deletion policy which states that everything must be discussed before being deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic research Thryduulf, thank you for digging all of this up. I think it may be time for an uninvolved admin to put this RfC to rest because I think consensus was clear then and it's also clear now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like you're putting words in Encephalon's mouth. Encephalon's intention was to avoid repeating the same debate over and over. If the option of a redir was discussed and rejected in an AfD, it's pretty clear from their wording that they would not wish to see the debate take place again in an RfD. Didn't we handle both articles and redirects in VfD back in 2005? Owen× ☎ 17:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't we handle both articles and redirects in VfD back in 2005? No. RfD was established in November 2003. Encephalon was not talking about redirects at all. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: I'm interested in your reply to my last comment. You seem to imply that there's zero weight given to views about redirect on an AfD, since opposition to a redirect can only be handled by an RfD. Did I get that right? Owen× ☎ 16:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about a situation where in the course of a well-attended AfD someone suggests, "redirect this title to Foo" and multiple other editors say "do not redirect to Foo, that would be a bad redirect" (as opposed to just voting "delete" without commenting on the redirect), and the closing admin finds that there was a policy-based consensus specifically against having a redirect, and an editor who participated in the discussion says something along the lines of "forget you guys, I'm going to make the redirect anyway", I suppose that might be a speedy case. However, literally anything outside of that should go to RfD, which is well-equipped to evaluate the propriety of redirects. BD2412 T 17:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just described the AfD that triggered the DRV that prompted this RfC. The DRV has since been closed, without prejudice as to the validity of G4 in that case. However, the views expressed in that DRV suggest that the majority of editors disagree with you and me about the applicability of G4 in such a case. Does this happen often enough to justify an extra sentence in the wording of G4? I don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of over-verbosity than leave things in the air. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t happen often enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject AFD most certainly did NOT have consensus against redirect. There was disagreement about a redirect target but not consensus in opposition to a merge/redirect in general. However, the sole topic of this discussion is whether G4 covers a redirect when the deleted version is an article. And many users including myself see it as a strong “no.” Frank Anchor 04:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. Allowing G4 of redirects violates WP:NEWCSD: 1) It is not objective, because reasonable people can disagree whether an AfD actually supports a consensus against redirecting (if not explicitly stated by the closing admin). Meanwhile, requiring the closing admin to specify explicitly every single time seems like extra work for very little gain (given how rarely this situation arises). 2) It is not uncontestable, because AfD and RfD draw different crowds and it is not clear that a consensus formed at AfD would be sustained at RfD. Given the expertise of the RfD crowd, it is better to hold redirect-related discussions at RfD. 3) It is not frequent enough to be be worth including in the criteria in order to avoid an RfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've made a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved editor to close this. Although it's only been open 6 days consensus is already very clear and a formal closure will be of benefit going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Very well, I'm not going to fight consensus here. If the scope of G4 does not extend to articles recreated as a redir, I won't use it as such. My issue at this point is one of informing editors participating in AfD. Many are debating, in good faith, the option of changing an article to a redir, not realizing they could simply do so themselves if the article gets deleted. I'm not a fan of secret rules. Shouldn't we publicize this so that less time is wasted on "Redir" !votes in AfDs? Right now, the guide for AfD makes it sound as if "Delete" and "Redirect" are two distinct, mutually exclusive options, when in reality any deleted article may be instantly recreated as a redirect. An extra sentence in the AfD guide could--and should--clarify the issue. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a secret rule, it's an obvious interpretation of the wording of G4. Redirect and delete are two distinct options, one of which would preserve page history while the other (assuming that the page hasn't been salted) would allow for the page to be re-created as either an article or redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly this. Deletion does not prevent recreation unless the title is salted, and that's been the way things have worked on Wikipedia for at least 20 years and in that time, as far as I've found, only one other person has found the interaction between that, redirects created after deletion and G4 anything other than clear - and that other person didn't have any problem with it. There is no problem that needs solving, and speedy deletion would be the wrong wrong tool to solve it if it was a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We've already moved on from the question of speedy deletion. The question before us now is whether we should add a sentence in the AfD guide to inform participants of the fact that if they don't care about the page history, they are free to recreate as a redir any article deleted in an AfD. It may be obvious to you, but realistically speaking, I doubt more than 10% of those !voting "Redirect" on AfDs know this totally-not-secret fact. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's unnecessary. There's nothing that stops a user from re-creating a page at the destination that was just deleted unless the page has been salted. Users are also free to immediately create a new article at the same location as well if they so wish (provided that article addresses the reasons that it was deleted). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and having them waste their time debating redirects on AfD is ever so much fun, because clearly they have nothing better to do, since they all know they can just recreate the page. Got it. Thank you.
    My goal here is to make AfD discussions more efficient, not to sit back and go, "Well, it's not my problem they chose to waste their time." Owen× ☎ 21:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the pessimism is necessary. As mentioned, there's a very clear and distinct difference between deleting and reflecting a page. It doesn't change the course of an AfD discussion to further elaborate on this unless we start salting more articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was there an unintended change in scope of G14?

This edit by Oiyarbepsy back in Jan 2021 was described as a "restructure for clarity", but it seems to have also resulted in a significant change to the scope of G14. Whereas previously, the bit about "pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists)" was limited to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)"redirects -- after the restructure, it appears that all aspects of G14 are now also applicable to set indexes as well as to disambiguation pages. As a result, a well-meaning editor (NmWTfs85lXusaybq) has been changing set index pages to redirects because they only contain one existing article. However, one of the reasons for the existence of set indexes distinct from disambiguation pages is precisely to allow for entries that do not have an existing article. Was there ever any discussion about this, or was this change in scope accidental? older ≠ wiser 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the previous discussion about this, but I did experienced this issue when I nominated G14 candidates of SIAs and lists before, including MV Buccaneer, List of Development Regions of British Columbia, List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea and List of chairmen of the Chamber of the Nations (Czechoslovakia). The related discussion includes User_talk:EurekaLott#Deletion_of_SIAs_under_G14, Special:Diff/1158664588#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_MV_Buccaneer, User_talk:Liz/Archive_49#A_note_on_deletion_of_lists_under_G14 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chairmen of the State Council of the Republic of Adygea. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that there was any previous discussion on this point. I think the edit was only intended as clarification -- but inadvertently resulted in expanding the scope of G14. Previously, the applicability to set indexes was limited to orphaned "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember, and can't find, any discussion about changing the scope. I would support changing the scope back to the original. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure if this is related but wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27 shows what appears to be an emerging consensus to overturn multiple G14 closes as invalid.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not related, other than both being a response to NmWTfs85lXusaybq's actions. It's about a different misinterpretation of G14. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed update

This applies to disambiguation pages and redirects to disambiguation pages:

  1. Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page.
  2. Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages.
  3. A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).

If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page.

Bullets are changed to numbers to facilitate referencing. There is minor change to the lead-in. #3 has been updated to clarify the scope. older ≠ wiser 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this update. However, what about the case that all topics in a disambiguation page are actually in the same article? Should these pages be changed to a redirect? For example, see Macmillan ministry and Spider-Man trilogy. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that as a question particularly relevant to CSD, and it likely varies depending on the article in question. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There will always be edge cases. If it isn't clear whether the criteria apply, it is perhaps best to discuss rather than try to force changing to a redirect based on speedy deletion criteria. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am wary of dismissing such cases. Clearly there are two distinct Spider-Man trilogies, which are ambiguous to each other, and may be referenced ambiguously to each other. It would theoretically be possible to have separate pages on each, and the redirects go to distinct sections of the page, not generally to the article as a whole. Perhaps those aspects should be the test. I would keep this one as a separate disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't dismissing them -- I just don't think CSD is directly applicable. The note here is just a hint about how to handle pages that do not fit the CSD criteria. If more detailed guidance is needed, WP:DAB or WP:MOSDAB is a more appropriate place than CSD criteria. older ≠ wiser 02:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which two series are the trilogies? It depends on whether "No Way Home" counts as one installment for each of the three Spider-Man universes. It's doubly ambiguous! Largoplazo (talk)
  • Support. Regarding the question above, it is a general principle (arising out of the requirement for CSD to be used only in the most obvious cases) that if it is unclear or arguable whether a criterion applies to a given page then it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=1188537615"