Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Remove "Typo" from Reword R3

This applies to recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages. This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, unless the moved page was also recently created. It also does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects, including redirects created by merges, or to redirects ending with "(disambiguation)" that point to a disambiguation page.

I screwed up and erroneously contested a reasonable CSD over the redirect Mike Hart (outfieldr, born 1951), instead causing it to be sent to RFD, wasting other editors' time. I did this because R3 contains the phrase "Implausible typo", which leads to the idea that plausible typos (such as forgetting a letter, as was the case in the CSD I contested) should be kept, or at least sent to RFD. After Tamzin (talk · contribs) told me about what I did wrong, I cast my non-vote as Delete and then proceeded to type this up.

Overall, the word "Typo" in R3 implies that redirects that are NOT plausible, intentional search terms, but are still likely to be accidentally typed, should be kept. This is not the case, and as such, I think we should remove the term "Typo" from the page. This both reduces confusion and sets a clear precedent for dealing with such redirects, as they are now "Implausible Misnomers" and can therefore be deleted. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to think on this for a bit, but for now will just share my thought that I don't think it's "typo" that is the issue, so much as "implausible". "Plausible" is a word for a potential event, so if an event has happened once, it's by definition plausible. While typing this comment, I managed to typo "typo" as "tyupo", so that is prima facie a plausible typo, but if I created Tyupo I would expect it to be R3'd. At the same time there are superficially very implausible-looking typos that get kept at RfD because those typos have been made somewhere notable.
  Just spitballing for now, maybe something like implausible misspellings or misnomers, or typographical errors that are no more likely than any other typographical error? I think that that would roughly capture the intent here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I thought the consensus was that one mistake is not R3able, but two mistakes is. More generally, there is much variance in how a misnomer is dealt with and the guidelines don't reflect current practice (or, should I say, current practice doesn't follow the guidelines). Back on topic, it is probably best to avoid using terms like typo, misspelling, and implausible. The first two don't mean what a lot of people think they mean, and the last is ambiguous (another redirect buzzword!) – i.e. does it mean not one person will search it up or not [insert number here as relevant threshold] will search this up. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 04:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• R3 specifies how to treat implausible typos and common typos, but gives no guidance on typos which are plausible but uncommon. I think the outfieldr falls into the latter group. Although there will always be special cases, do we think such typos should generally be (a) kept, (b) deleted speedily per R3 or (c) sent to RfD? Once we agree an answer, we can reword R3 to codify it. My opinion is that such redirects, which no one would deliberately create, should fall under R3 but currently probably don't (as R3 is silent about them). Certes (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  "outfieldr" here is a qualifier. We may be more inclined to delete typos in parenthetical disambiguation, which readers rarely type, than typos in the article's actual title. As Bison X kindly reminded me, this might also be a good place to standardise treatment of redirects from plausible but uncommon typos for "(disambiguation)" such as Blackneck (disambugation) and Authoritative (Disambiguation). Certes (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  We do have "errors in the act of disambiguation" listed as a reason to delete at WP:RDAB. It probably doesn't happen often enough to justify a new speedy deletion criterion, though. - Eureka Lott 23:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I've tried citing RDAB in the past but been told to go away because it's only an essay and, although it advises against creating them, it doesn't explicitly advocate deleting them. Certes (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think it might make sense to elevate it from the essay to WP:RFD#DELETE? - Eureka Lott 23:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to see that happen, along with clarification that such errors can be deleted. I'm not sure whether it has consensus. Certes (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Errors in disambiguation are more often not useful than they are useful, but more often is not always and so there is not a consensus that errors in disambiguation should always be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think there's been consensus about some types of errors in disambiguation, and less so about others. It might be tricky to codify, though. Errors like Joe Smith (disambuguation) are typically deleted, likewise for redirects with unpaired parentheses or extra spaces in the disambiguator. There may be disagreement about the value of errors like Joe Smith (bassball). - Eureka Lott 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  "(bassball)" I could see going either way, "(base ball)" I'd probably recommend keeping. I know we had a discussion about "(sport player)" (as opposed to "(sport)") a while back that I think was kept, but I can't remember which sport it was.

  I also have a vague recollection of one from a few years ago where the "misspelling" turned out not to be one but a valid alternate spelling that is/was used in a variety of English other than the nominators. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming you are meaning this one, it was actually in the past year FWIW. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's a special case, with restauranteur being a variant spelling of restaurateur. No one has claimed that (disambugation) is a valid alternative. Certes (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  The point is that the nominator thought that "restaurateur" (without the n) was a misspelling like "disambiguaton". Any rule, etc we come up with has to accommodate all of:

  1. Things that are errors and all of the following apply:
     • Consensus is that this is not a useful search terms
     • Have no significant history
     • Have no significant page views
     • Have no other reason why deletion might not have consensus
  2. Things that are errors but where one or more of the four requirements are not met
  3. Things that are not actually errors.

  For a speedy deletion criterion it must be possible for an individual admin to objectively and reliably determine whether a redirect falls into the first category or not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Though it's off-topic for this talk page, I'd settle for a documented consensus that Foo (discombobulation) redirects should normally be deleted at RfD if those four criteria are met. It's more work, but is that a reasonable compromise? (It's a shame we don't have a WP:PROD equivalent for redirects.) Certes (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Based on what gets nominated at RfD there is only a loose correlation between what editors who don't do a lot of redirect work regard as an uncontroversial nomination for deletion and what editors who frequent RfD do (e.g. redirects from plurals, different capitalisations, etc) so a PROD for redirects would not end up saving much time or effort. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Still forming my thoughts on this as well, but I strongly agree that this is misleading/confusing and warrants revision, and I generally agree with what's been said above. Pointing to typographical error is a problem, which as defined encompasses both typing mistakes and spelling mistakes, but the cases where a redirect based on a typing mistake is desirable seem rather limited to me. As pointed out above, many typos are plausible, but that does not mean redirects should be created for them, and they should be speedily deleted if recently created. For now, I think Tamzin's proposal is definitely an improvement. I also wonder if the "implausible misnomer" should be separated out, since that even more so hinges on the interpretation of "implausible", since common misnomers make good {{R from incorrect name}} redirects, but obscure or made-up nicknames do not. This might be better as a separate criterion, or perhaps even removed from CSD altogether, since how implausible a misnomer is might not be readily apparent and warrant discussion to reach consensus about. Lastly, as I said at the RfD that spawned this discussion, once we resolve the CSD issue, we should then consider improvements to guidance about non-speedy cases regarding the same issues at WP:RFD#DELETE. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would support adding to RFD#DELETE something saying that disambiguators containing typos like (outfieldr) or nonstandard formatting like ( disambiguation ) are usually deleted, purely as a codification of existing practice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  I also support that but see it as a change rather than a statement of existing practice. Whether Foo (discombobulation) gets deleted depends heavily on who turns up at RfD that week; some regulars would !vote Keep. Certes (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Some disambiguation errors are useful search terms, others are not. Even if the latter are the more common I oppose anything that implies we do not or should not look at them individually. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• My approach on this is that "base" typos (e.g. Amercian, Outfeilder) are much more plausible than "compound" typos (Amercian Airlines, Bill Smith (outfeilder)). Thus I would certainly !vote keep at RfD for typos of the former type, and support R3 deletion for the any and all that are of the latter type. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really follow the distinction. How does having an additional, correctly typed word make a typo less plausible, to the point of it being the difference between being kept at RfD vs. speedily deleted? It doesn't seem to me that's where we should draw the line, or even determine where to draw it. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mdewman6 - "Americian Airlines" is exactly as plausible as "Americian" and I strongly oppose the suggestion that one should be kept and the other speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: I've notified WikiProject Accessibility about this discussion. I don't personally understand the complexities of this discussion, but I can at least tell this will affect spelling and typing error redirects, which are generally most helpful to people with disability (thus relevant to accessibility). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Amendment to A7-web

I recently requested speedy deletion of an article Shadow of survival, about a videogame that obviously failed notability/importance criteria. I had to use {{db-web}} to tag it for deletion. But it wasn't an exactly appropriate criteria under the current wording of A7-web. Hence, I propose that Application softwares be added to A7-web & expand its definition. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 11:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Software is currently explicitly excluded from A7 (very often articles about software meet G11, which is enough). When things don't fit any of the criteria, just use WP:PROD or WP:AFD if they need to be deleted. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: The videogame is described to be an online-game. But, I think videogame still qualifies as a software. I'm not sure if my tagging the article with A7-web is a mistake on my part. Can you please review and revert me if I did something wrong? Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 11:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: it has now been deleted as a G11, not as an A7, which sounds about right. Expanding A7 is wiki-politically tricky, as this is an ancient battlefield of the inclusionist-deletionist war. —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

When you say "it wasn't exactly appropriate criteria under the current wording", it makes it sound as though using the term "website" was a clumsy choice of term made by a discussion group that really meant to include all software, or all online services, and that to interpret it not to cover all software or all services provided online is a technicality. Applications, whether installed locally or accessed online, are products or services, not websites, and products are intentionally excluded from A7. As for the question of "should we include applications in A7 coverage?", I'd say there's no reason to single them out from other products. Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Including software in A7 has been suggested many times before, indeed it's on the WP:NOTCSD list. The most recent discussion I found with a 1 minute search of the archives was from 2020, but this one from 2017 is more in-depth. This this discussion from 2007 shows very little has changed in terms of the arguments for a very long time, so it's unlikely that anything will change in the short term. The principle argument against inclusion is that it is not possible for a single admin to reliably determine what is and is not a credible claim of significance for all things covered by "software". Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think we'd need to specify what kind of software to include - computer programs, video games, anything else? Anything not to include? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Essentially all of the areas covered by A7 have subject-specific notability guidelines, meaning that there are indicators likely to be in the article of whether the subject is notable. (The only exception is animals and they're very similar to people.) We don't have a subject-specific notability guideline for software. Hut 8.5 12:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• The reason for not speedy deleting softare as A7 is the inability of a single admin to be able to tell if there is an realistic indication of importance. Software tends to be specialized, and people in the specific area need to have chance to say whether they thing references can be found. For most A7 companies, people and so on, it's easy for any experienced admin to see whether there is no chance whatsoever. If we included software, there would be too many errors. (At least, I would make too many errors). DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Do these count as test pages...

...IP talk pages that consist of nothing but "hello" or variants and were posted years ago. I declined a bunch of deletion requests on these User talk:42.106.111.40, User talk:97.84.184.89, User talk:2409:4042:2292:27E4:D136:29EA:90B0:40B2, User talk:2600:1700:2761:4E0:9004:8F4B:DD76:3DEF, User talk:103.67.178.13, User talk:122.56.77.83, User talk:2001:16B8:55CC:4B00:211A:C69E:6DFC:4D54, User talk:2001:8003:20F0:E700:3CF6:D057:4BBE:81DD, User talk:2001:8004:C40:8D2:4CCB:743D:774:E523, User talk:2401:4900:2307:8E2:2DBD:EEFD:DD82:375E but I want a second (or third, fourth etc.) opinion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No. We generally should not be deleting user talk pages, even if the only posts are "test"-type edits. I have similarly declined a number of such requests in the recent past. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that the purpose of that advice is to keep a record and to prevent evasion of scrutiny and there is no actual talk page content, what's the point in retaining those pages? I'm not so sure the blanket rule is that helpful in these circumstances. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll answer your question with a question: what's the point in deleting them? Doing nothing is easy. Of course, if you want to go down the prevent evasion of scrutiny route, by deleting those pages you potentially lose info about how they edit these "test" pages. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your implication that it is effectively busywork and sometimes the temptation of the politician's fallacy is strong (Special:Diff/1063626626 comes to mind), but if someone wants to delete them, I'm not going to object. As for "you potentially lose info about how they edit these 'test' pages", it doesn't feel like a great reason for retention – G2 applies outside of the mainspace and we routinely delete test drafts. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit to deleting them. If a user talk page already existed with routine content on it, and someone new writes "Hello!", you'd roll the addition back or remove it manually. That suffices as well for a page on which "Hello!" was the first entry. Largoplazo (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I deleted a few where the text was something like "Test" or a swear word. But if it says some variation on "hello" or "hi", I left an IP welcome template, even if it was a few years old. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, these all seem to be being tagged by MZMcBride. See this conversation on their talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They do indeed. See User_talk:Primefac/Archive_38#User_talk_pages. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that if you look at an arbitrary and specific set of pages or edits, they will be arbitrary and specific. :-) I'm hardly the only person tagging test pages, vandalism pages, etc. for deletion. And instead of saying "thank you for helping keep the project free of spam and patent nonsense", you keep suggesting your volunteer time is being wasted. Please cut it out. A page such as User talk:24.69.40.254 serves absolutely no purpose and should be deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Save everyone else some time, and just blank it yourself. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

For context (Special:Contributions/24.69.40.253):

15:28, 13 April 2016 diff hist +4‎ N User talk:24.69.40.254 ‎ ←Created page with 'deez'
15:26, 13 April 2016 diff hist +19‎ Applied science ‎ Deez nuts.

We really do not need to host a page that reads only "deez" in perpetuity. This is silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

My view is that they're test pages (cf. "Hello, World!" program). You could take a less charitable view that they're vandalism. I don't believe anyone is legitimately trying to communicate to a user by creating these pages. We wouldn't hesitate to delete such a test page if it were in, for example, the article or category or file namespaces. For example, if someone created 2409:4042:2292:27E4:D136:29EA:90B0:40B2 with the contents "hey".

Outside of "hello"-type variations, I think there's real harm in allowing users to write "poop" or "cum" or "shit" on our project and leaving it there for years.

The "busywork" argument doesn't really seem to warrant a response. This is a volunteer project, nobody is obligated to tag or review these pages. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

nobody is obligated to tag or review these pages - and yet, if a page shows up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as test pages (or in my usual decline-for-out-of-scope favourite, the G6 cat), someone is going to have to patrol the page, check to see if it's worth deleting, and then make that decision. If they decline, then someone else needs to do the same thing. Just like we don't talk about server kittens for redirects or PEIS, saying "no one is being forced to review these" is just nonsense.

And for what it's worth, I don't think we're discussing the actual "naughty words" cases here; we are discussing the ones you keep tagging where there is a generic welcome statement. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The practice of using some kind of greeting as a test string predates the existence of Wikipedia and even predates the existence of the Web. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between this and this. If one is revertible, so is the other. If the page had no prior history, delete it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This matches my view. Wikipedia is a very open project and that means we need more maintenance as a result. Tangentially, someone once asked me why we keep vandalism edits at all and it's an interesting line of thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't delete pages where there is no benefit to deletion. Simple vandalism can be fixed by reversion and deletion brings no benefits over than reversion so we don't delete them. If you think we should delete all revdel all vandalism edits then WP:VPPRO is the place to discuss that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• There clearly is no consensus here that these pages should always be deleted, therefore they do not and by definition cannot meet the requirements of any speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Thryduulf. There's longstanding consensus that we delete vandalism, test pages, patent nonsense, etc. Do you think these pages should be nominated for deletion via a different means? Like a batch MFD? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Vandalism, test pages, patent nonsense, etc can and should continue to be speedily deleted. The point of this discussion is that there is no consensus that these old user talk pages count as test pages. Personally I think that doing anything other than completely ignoring them is a waste of time and effort, but I can't stop you sending them to MfD if you want. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• There is a long-running and clear and unmistakable consensus that we don't speedy delete talk pages of IP editors, and continuing to nominate them is disruptive editing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi Oiyarbepsy. I have no idea what you're talking about, we have and we continue to delete hundreds of user talk pages, both for IP users and not, every year. In 2020, we deleted about 6,939 non-subpage user talk pages. In 2021, we deleted about 6,183 non-subpage user talk pages. In 2022 so far, we've deleted about 898 non-subpage user talk pages. We delete them for all kinds of reasons, including vandalism (User talk:94.103.80.157), pages created by banned users (User talk:112.208.213.59), etc. Zooming out a bit, IP editors as a class appear to be going away. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • It seems like a great amount of time is wasted on all this deletion, in that case. We don't want empty articles, empty drafts, empty project pages, empty templates, empty categories, empty help pages. So we can't just delete the content on them and leave them empty, we have to delete them altogether. User talk pages? They can be empty. We even allow registered users to delete the entire contents of their user talk pages. So there's no reason not to just remove the improper content, leave the empty user talk page, and move on, without hooking an administrator into it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • ... and we also deleted thousands of pages for reasons that don't mention any speedy deletion criterion, including several for blatant non-criteria. "We did this before" is simply not a persuasive argument here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• The ones I htink we should be deleting are the ones that give personal information, even relatively safe personal information. I've encountered too many people using them as jokes--if they mention a name, it might be a "friend". DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

A7 and cryptocurrencies

Relevant polices and essays:

• WP:NCRYPTO
• Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies)
• Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

(To help with the discussion below) Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure we're quite there yet, but I'm wondering what the community's thoughts are about expanding A7 to include non-notable cryptocurrencies. I'm starting to see these cropping more frequently in the articles, and then to only reference self-published sources, and sometimes a cryptocurrency exchange where it is listed. These tend to end up in AfD, as the authors usually contest any PROD. Given how it is becoming easier to easier to create cryptocurriencies, and how quickly newer editors go to create an article about said-cryptocurrency without including any independent reliable secondary sources with the article. Would the community support cryptocurrencies being listed in the A7 list of subjects? I'll alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency about this on their talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I support, however I must note that some people may argue that cryptocurrencies fall under software and therefore are already excluded, or may argue that cryptocurrencies fall under web content and are already included. Because of this confusing distinction, it's worth finding consensus on either including or excluding crypto. casualdejekyll 20:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question what resources are there on-wiki to help admins determine what is an isn't a claim of significance in this area (remember that significance is a lower bar than notability)? For example, is there an SNG? Is there a list of publications in which coverage usually is or is not significant? e.g. I know there are a huge number of online publications where the only criteria for coverage is existence or announcement of intent (so coverage in them is not an indicator of significance) but I don't know which ones they are? Are there any exchanges that feature only notable or likely notable currencies? I'm leaning towards supporting some criterion (either A7 or possibly a dedicated one) but I'm not sure yet how viable objective application would be. If we do go for a dedicated criterion, we should explicitly exclude cryptocurrencies from A7 to avoid any amiguity of the sort Casualdejekyll mentions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I know we've been deleting in AfDs when the references are just self-published sources (these "white papers" on the website for the cryptocurrency) and an exchange listing of it's trading value. That tends to be what I'm seeing mostly in the new pages, although I'm interested what more regular new page patrollers are seeing. So I'm inclined to say that self-published sources and/or a listing of the cryptocurrency's monetary value is not on their own an indicator of signficance. Maybe someone from the cryptocurrency wikiproject could expand? Singularity42 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's a recent AfD on a cryptocurrency: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhuman Coin. I'll see if I can find some others (or if anyone else has some to share that might help on what has or hasn't been accepted). Singularity42 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added the relevant policy and an Wikipedia essay on the topic at the top of this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a wider general point is that the software vs web content ambiguity in A7 should probably be resolved at some point. Regarding a cryptocurrency-specific CSD, how do we gauge "significance" for a cryptocurrency? "No independent sources" requires too much evaluation I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency there don't seem to be that many AfDs related to cryptocurrencies, and a lot of what gets listed there is people or products related to cryptocurrencies rather than actual cryptocurrencies. I suspect the volume isn't enough to justify this. I would also like to see some suggestions of what kinds of assertions of significance are likely to be seen in cryptocurrency articles. The notability essay linked above purely talks about the kinds of sources which should be considered. Hut 8.5 10:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The currencies themselves are software, and software is a general exclusion I think we should keep. Web content has been interpreted fairly narrowly to mean creative content--it was intended as an exception to books not being eligible, and to the rules for music,, on the reasonable presumption that most of it is junk. But the various cryptocurrency people and companies are at this point more frequent article subjects, and they all get hype.Fortunately afd has been very conservative about accepting them. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really see that there are so many articles like that that PROD/AFD cannot handle them. Remember, new CSDs (including expansions of current CSDs) need to fulfill the requirements posted at the top and "frequent" is one of them. Plus, as pointed out above, this is an area where a single admin is unlikely to correctly assess whether a claim of significance exists. Regards SoWhy 20:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of valid points have been made above. As the person who raised this issue, I'm inclined to agree that the number of cryptocurrency articles has not reached the point for us to consider modifying A7 to include non-notable ones. Singularity42 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the above; the G11 (unambiguous promotion) and A11 (obviously made up) rationales are sufficient to speedily delete the pure crap, and the rest can go to AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

RDRAFTs

Given that redirects from draftspace to mainspace page moves should be retained per WP:RDRAFT, are any CSD criteria applicable for such redirects? Draft redirects are frequently tagged for deletion as CSD G6. I understand that redirects can be deleted per G7 if requested by the substantive constributor, so can RDRAFTS be considered for deletion if requested? Jay (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, and deleting per G6 is not a valid use of that criteria. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

So what could be the reason G7 is applicable for all namespace redirects, but not applicable for only the draft-to-main moves? What is special about drafts, is it because draft is the only namespace where a page can get into mainspace? Jay (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I was referring to G6. G7 is applicable everywhere, because it's the page creator asking for the page to be deleted (I realise now that I wrote out an extra explanation regarding this in my initial reply but deleted it). I would argue, though, that if the page creator isn't the one moving the draft, then the page mover is not the page creator and thus should not be "G7'ing" the created redirect. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. Unless the author of the moved page and the person who moved the page are the same person then G7 is not applicable. G6 is not a catchall and CSD should never be used to delete a member of a class there is consensus should generally be kept (per WP:RDRAFT redirects formed by moving pages from draftspace to mainspace are a perfect example of such a class). If there is anything actually (not just theoretically) harmful about a specific redirect from draftspace to mainspace then nominate it at RfD explaining what the specific harm is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to see if RDRAFTS are a special case of exemption from G7 (because of the namespace transition), but I see that it is not, except for the mover clause. For context, I initiated the discussion because of the undeletion request WP:Requests for undeletion#Draft:Polar Bear (film), where the mover (EpicPupper) was NOT the substantive contributor, but the deletion requester (Cardei012597) was. The undeletion requester was neither of the users, but an IP. The deleting admin said that the mover clause here is a technicality, and should not have come in way of her G7 delete. Jay (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The request was archived without resolution and can now be found at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 372#Draft:Polar Bear (film). Jay (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Anybody who has had any interest in a draft should, after the draft has been published to main space without the person being aware of it, still be able to go to its draft space location and find it. Under what circumstances should somebody determine that one such redirect is an exception (unless the article has been deleted from main space, in which case G8 applies)? Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A certain type of such deletions was recently discussed. Ping to UnitedStatesian, who may be interested in sharing their opinion. – Uanfala (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree that under current consensus G6 only applies to correct obvious errors (such as the G6 deletion of Draft:Move/Jannillea Glasgow). However, I think it is worth at some point having a clarifying discussion to determine the value of keeping multiple redirects in draftspace that all point to the same lone mainspace article (and where only one of those redirects matches the title of the mainspace article): by definition, only ONE of those redirects was the redirect resulting from the draftspace to mainspace move of the target article. A related open (AFAIK) question: if the mainspace article is moved, should the draft redirecting to it be moved as well, so the titles continue to match? And of course, both speedy criterion G14 and R speedy criteria R2 and R3 can apply to RDRAFTS as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The last draftspace title the page was at when it was edited by those with a significant interest in the page (which will always be at least the original author, the main author(s) if different, and may include others in some situations) edited it/discussed it on the talk page should always continue to lead to the page in articlespace, regardless of what title it now has there. If those page had multiple titles in draftspace we should keep all the draftspace titles as redirects to the articlespace page unless there is evidence that everybody who who edited it at the earlier title knows about the newer title (in which case it may be nominated at RfD). If the article is moved to a different title in articlespace than it had in draftspace, it will sometimes be appropriate to create a new redirect from draftspace to articlespace (although this is likely to be uncommon). The reason for this is that the redirects from draft to article space have two purposes: 1. to enable those who worked on or had an interest in the draft to easily find the article (i.e. the same reason we almost always keep redirects from moves within mainspace), and 2. to discourage the creation of drafts that duplicate articles. See also WP:MOVEREDIRECT. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: for the additional criteria you mentioned that can be applied for RDRAFTS:

G14: How is it applicable, since an RDRAFT ending in (disambiguation) will be redirecting to a mainspace page ending in (disambiguation) or to a page that disambiguates?

R2: How is it applicable, since we are talking about RDRAFTs, not mainspace-to-draftspace redirects?

R3: Although typo redirects which are the result of a move are not to be deleted to avoid breaking external links, for draft redirects, given the discussions here, shouldn't we be able to track back to see where the article came from, regardless of whether the draft title had a typo or not? Jay (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Does U2 apply to redirects on user SUBpages, when there was a rename?

User:اِفلاق/CSD log is a redirect that was created during an user rename, but the current text of the U2 criterium isn't entirely clear whether it always excludes such redirects or only when they are on the main userpage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say no under the "previous name of a renamed user" clause, but I'd say U1 is applicable here, or at least its spirit. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A11, G3, and draft space

Lately I've been noticing a lot of drafts tagged with G3 (blatant hoax), that, were they in article space, would more properly be tagged A11 (obviously invented). Think drafts with text consisting of "X is a micronation declared by (name) on (today's date)." or "X is a word made up by (name) to tell (other name) he loves her!" Or "X is a language made up by (name) to secretly communicate with their friends."

These aren't hoaxes. But they also are not viable drafts. So they are getting tagged with G3. And I've been declining them. Because they aren't hoaxes. And because A11 does not apply in draft space.

My philosophy tends to be that they'll be deleted after 6 months, or if it's that urgent to get rid of it there's always MFD. But the more of them I see - usually tagged by respected users - NPP patrollers, AFC reviewers, sometimes even other admins, the more uncertain I am.

Perhaps we should consider expanding A11 to cover draft space. That said, I wouldn't want it to be a G criteria - it shouldn't cover user space or project space. Thoughts? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think G13 or a different criteria (if possible) deals with them sufficiently and MFD can deal with the few that need deleting quicker or are being edited/submitted to avoid G13. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is harm (which would be covered by other G criteria) there is little reason not to let it a) sit for six months to be G13'd, or b) be MFD'd (if the creator is insistent on tendentious resubmission). Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Crouch, Swale and Primefac, and this has been the consensus every time things like this have been discussed: if they are actively causing harm they will either meet some other G criterion or should be nominated at MfD. If they aren't causing any harm then just leave them for G13. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Does G6 apply to redirects created via page move in the file namespace?

Hey folks, I've been seeing several admins delete numerous pages such as File:Sangamamalbumcover.jpg, File:Yaar 1985.jpg, and File:America Ammayi.jpg, citing criteria such as G6/G7/R3. To my knowledge, redirects created as a result of a page move cannot be deleted in this fashion. I'd also like to call attention to WP:PMRC#10, which was codified by @Wugapodes with this as the rationale. This addition seems incompatible with the language of G6/G7/R3 as currently written. To be clear, I'm indifferent to the outcome, but there is a consistency issue here, and we need to decide whether this is acceptable and/or update the text of the relevant CSD criteria accordingly. -FASTILY 03:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, see WP:FILEREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) G7 clearly doesn't apply unless the mover is the same as the person who uploaded the file (or the uploader requested the file be moved without a redirect). R3 clearly doesn't apply unless the file was moved soon after being uploaded. I really don't see a reason G6 would apply here. And there's no contradiction in the policy as worded; people are allowed to move files without leaving a redirect, but not delete any redirects if they were originally left behind -- this is probably not the intent, but it isn't contradictory. More fundamentally, these are generally kept at RfD, so clearly shouldn't be speedy deleted.
  There was never any actual discussion on the policy of not having redirects; it seems to date to one person's suggestion at VPT in 2010, which was implemented with no further comment, and then copied-and-pasted various places until we got here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• If I recall correctly, the reason for PMRC10 mentioning G6 is that when a file mover suppresses a redirect, the software logs it as a deletion under the G6 criterion.I did not recall correctly I think I agree with Pppery that it's useful to distinguish suppressing redirects and deleting redirects. Going around and deleting file redirects citing G6 is a bad idea because there may be external links or old revisions for which it would still be useful (imo the rationale behind WP:FILEREDIRECT). For files covered by PMRC10, they are generally not widely used and the redirect isn't really worth the added maintenance burden (imo the rationale behind the move interface text). They are treated differently because they are different: not leaving a redirect behind is a different thing from typical page deletion even if the software treats them similarly. Now, the files you bring up as examples are interesting. They all seem to be redirects left behind by a single editor who then requested that they be deleted. To me this seems like the editor forgot to suppress the redirect and asked admins to clean up after them. I think G6 covers that. If these were tags left well after the page move or by someone other than the page mover, I think it would be different. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• You don't recall correctly. The only time the software automatically logs a deletion is when a page is moved over an existing page.
  Everything both you and Pppery bring up apply exactly as much to a redirect created by a page move and then requested to be deleted as to a redirect suppressed as part of the page move. These suppressions contradict long-standing policy, "all uses have been pointed to the new name" isn't enough to get a redirect deleted at WP:RFD let alone by speedy deletion, and G6 is not "whatever I want to delete that WP:CSD otherwise forbids". —Cryptic 07:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Cryptic is correct. Page movers should only be suppressing redirects if the redirect would be subject to speedy deletion, and G6 does not apply in most of the situations it is seemingly being applied in. This is one of the reasons I think we should just abolish G6 and replace it with separate criteria that would be much harder to abuse in this manner, but that view has never yet had consensus (I live in hope). Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    • One of the reasons I started patrolling G6 in the first place was because I noticed pages were being deleted improperly and wanted to get ahead of the "d-batch the entire category" group of admins to decline those that had been improperly nominated. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the text on the move interface for files specifically recommends file movers suppress redirects in exactly that situation so "contradict long-standing policy" is a little strong. I don't really care what gets decided, but if the consensus is that redirects should not be suppressed, then MediaWiki:Movepagetext needs changed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 09:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Since the consensus is going towards the "not appropriate" path, I will admit that the fault appears to be mine, as I read the PMRC#10 much in the same was as Wug wrote/intended it, and if that is indeed the case I am perfectly willing to reverse the deletions I made under that criteria. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am neutral here, and the creator/current admin behind LuckyRename may be notified. Since there is an option on the gadget NOT to leave redirects, I just go with it. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at your deleted contributions (admins only), I can see that you've tagged hundreds of such redirects for deletion. Perhaps you should stop tagging more for the time being. Courtesy pings for @Liz & @Explicit -FASTILY 21:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy of G6 deletions

The above discussion about the scope of G6 made me think now was a good time for an updated repost of my previous taxonomy of G6 deletions. So, in 2022 so far, there have been 10,788 G6 deletions. Of those,

1. 1949 are of dated maintenance categories
2. 1488 are deletions to make way for a move. Note that moves over redirects of the sort that can be done by any autoconfirmed user, or page movers moving pages over single-revision redirects to other targets, don't get included in this table at all.
3. 1233 are in ClueBot III's userspace
4. 879 are deletions of single-author blank pages by Fastily
5. 490 are deletions of pages in the article talk namespace by Tassedethe. The typical context for these deletions is that they move an incompletely disambiguated page to a more disambiguated title, retarget the mainspace redirect left behind from that move to a disambiguation page, and then delete the talk page redirect.
6. 397 are deletions of duplicate archives, usually because the deletion tagger (usually Sawol) has condensed a large number of archives into a smaller number. It's not clear to me that all of these are actually uncontroversial, given User talk:Liz#Alleged uncontroversial deletion
7. 334 are deletions per a deletion discussion
8. 267 reference WP:PMRC#10
9. 193 are deletions per Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Double redirects for user's scripts
10. 156 are deletions of subpages of Template:Infobox road (these all have the edit summary of literally [[WP:CSD#G6]]). There's a vaguely related discussion at Template talk:Infobox road#/translation subpages orphaned.
11. 137 use the default summary from {{db-error}}
12. 171 are per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093#Can an admin move a leftover local description of Wikimedia Commons file?
13. 38 are deletions of subpages of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
14. 88 are by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5
15. 2968 don't fall into any of the above criteria

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I added a pie chart, because it helps me. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

These are interesting data. I saw Sawol's deletion requests and skipped them because I wasn't certain whether they were valid "housekeeping" deletions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How many of these G6 deletions are of pages that begin with Draft:Move/? These redirects are left over after incorrectly done WP:ROBIN pageswaps (if the swap is correctly done then the pageswap doesn't leave a redirect behind) and they get in the way if another pageswap is needed, so I've been tagging them with G6 whenever I've checked for them. Iffy★Chat -- 18:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

77. And none of them meet any other segregating criteria * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I know I sometimes move redirects holding up moves to Draft:Move first, then tag them with G6 as making way for a move. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Since you're an extendedmover, why are you doing that? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sdrqaz! I think that page movers can't delete redirects with more than 1 revision; for example, I can't move Wikipedia:Sandbox/EP to Wikipedia:Sandbox/EpicPupper because the target has more than 1 revision. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't do that, it makes so much extra work. Either do a page swap or just wait for a {{db-move}} to go through; I make every effort to check that cat at least twice a day. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:ROBIN for what Primefac's talking about. While I used to do swaps manually (I would recommend it if you aren't too bothered by speed), there is pageswap.js. One of the points of having extendedmover and suppressredirect is reducing the workload for administrators, so it'd be better if you did it as a proper round-robin swap. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is cool data. So what are the ~3,000 "other"? Levivich 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Not in any of the other categories :) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)