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.
WP:G5 and people who have gamed the extended-confirmed restriction
If someone games the extended-confirmed restriction (and is found to have done so at WP:AE or WP:ANI), are pages they created during the window after they reached 30/500 edits but before they were determined to have gamed the restriction G5-able? This specific case seems to have come up here; the editor created the now-draftified Draft:Hamas–UNRWA_relations. My opinion is that it obviously should be G5able (otherwise we're rewarding gaming the restrictions); if someone is found to have gamed the restrictions then, by definition, all their edits in that topic area were in violation of the relevant general sanction, even if we didn't know it at the time. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly this isn't a CSD question, because G5 just incorporates any duly-enacted general sanction that authorizes deletion. Such a sanction could have a clause for gaming, or could not. WP:ARBECR has no such clause, so by my reading it cannot be used to delete a page created by an EC user under any circumstances, which is what I've said at the AE thread; but that's a question for ArbCom (or AN in the case of community ECRs), not for WT:CSD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tamzin, although I'd clarify that "under any circumstances" is not withstanding any other restrictions the creation might have been a violation of (e.g. sanctions on the individual concerned). Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This "restriction" is probably controversial and very bity. Unless there is clearly a problem with a page there is no reason why it should be deleted just because it was created by a new user. I see no reason to take action here, if there is a problem with their contributions then it should be dealt with normally but to sanction them for gaming a "restriction" that wasn't put in place because of anything they personally did wrong doesn't seem appropriate. If a user knows how EC works it might be a sock so should be dealt with that way but otherwise its probably not much of a problem, if the contributions are acceptable just let it go if not then look at deletion another way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted the article is now in the draft space and the user has specifically been sanctioned so I don't think there's anything left to be done. If the draft is left it will be deleted under G13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages of talk pages
I am looking to nominate the unused discussion page Talk:Wiki/lede for deletion, but I can't find a suitable speedy reason, and {{prod}} warns me I should only use the template on articles.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion → Wikipedia:Speedy deletion – I searched through the archives to see why "Criteria" is part of the title, but couldn't find anything much, other than these comments [1][2] that mentioned it without any follow-up. Previously, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion was an information page listing the criteria and Wikipedia:Speedy deletions was the process page where SD candidates were listed. With the introduction of deletion templates in the late 2000s, the latter page was deemed redundant and became a redirect to the former in this edit. Several editors in the linked discussions suggested support for removing "Criteria" from the title, and in my search I have not found one editor opposing the removal of "criteria" from the title, so it led me to believe this move simply was never proposed. Therefore, I am proposing a move from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to Wikipedia:Speedy deletion for the following reasons:
To increase emphasis on the process itself, rather than the criteria. It is evident at this point that this page isn't only about a set of criteria but also an established process to delete pages based on the criteria.
The page currently contains topics other than just the criteria, such as the step-by-step instructions, the procedure, and information about the process. A rename of this page could make room for expanding/altering the scope if needed in the future. Frost10:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even though I don't have high hopes for this RM. This page details the process of speedy deletion, not just the individual criteria. Page titles which do not match their content are problems. Is it a small problem? I guess. But it is a problem, and (to state the obvious) a WP:CHEAP redirect will be kept after the move, so it is unclear what harm comes from making the move. If you want to keep calling it "Criteria for speedy deletion", nobody is stopping you. But WP:Speedy deletion is the more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE name, and that is where this page belongs. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per HouseBlaster; taking "criteria" out of the title will not de-emphasise them: it's clear that the page includes criteria, but the broader and more concise title will allow the page to include the other, non-criteria things. Currently, the title is confusing because it is mismatched with the actual scope of the page. Cremastra (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and HouseBlaster. The criteria are, by their nature, part of the speedy deletion process, which this page details as a whole. Moving will not de-emphasise the criteria; it will just better describe the page's contents. UpTheOctave! • 8va?16:14, 26 January 2025 (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.
Non-notable deadname redirects
A few months ago, I discussed with my mentor about whether non-notable-deadname redirects for transgender individuals could be speedily deleted as attack pages—and there was confusion about whether these redirects are eligible under the criteria. I felt uncomfortable about drawing attention to the redirect at RfD, and I don't like the idea of RfD being filled with 'deadname → current name' listings. I nominated the redirects under WP:G10 and they were deleted as attack pages. Should it be clarified on the policy page that non-notable deadname redirects are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G10? Having this clarified on the policy page would help reduce confusion about what to do when these redirects are discovered. There will, of course, be exceptions. Svampesky (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think these are attack pages - I'm quite sure that whoever created them was trying to do so in good faith not to attack the subject. But I can totally see why another admin would see differently. * Pppery *it has begun...22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be a speedy delete, it will have to be speedily obvious that it should be deleted. Such a name will need an investigation to see if it is "notable", "undisclosed" or "disclosed but not well known". If it is an attack, or "outing", that would be two different things. And a correct but little known former name is not really an attack as it is already known and verifyable. But outing an undisclosed name would need to be deleted anyway as disclosing private information, and may even need the log entry to be deleted. For outing an undisclosed name, it is better not to tag as a speedy delete, and so draw attention, but rather email an active admin or oversighter to take care of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
