Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

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

Subpages of talk pages

[edit]

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.

What's the right course here? Tule-hog (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a redirect - should go to WP:RFD. Not sure why it needs to be deleted, though... Primefac (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac it wasn't a redirect at the time they asked this question. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Wiki/lede. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2025

[edit]
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 review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletionWikipedia: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:

  1. 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.
  2. To enable titling consistent with the other deletion process pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion).
  3. To allow smoother referencing and better syntax, e.g. "tag it for WP:Speedy deletion" vs. "tag it for WP:Criteria for speedy deletion".
  4. 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. Frost 10:48, 19 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

[edit]

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]

New CSD guideline proposal

[edit]

G15 — not an English page Stumblean! Talk ☏ (he/they) 08:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No.
But to argue for it, you would need to comment on WP:A2, and why that is not good enough, then address the four criteria at WP:NEWCSD, and then you should show evidence from WP:XFD showing the NEWCSD is met. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double-plus no as a G criterion (think drafts, user pages, translations in progress...). —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear you haven't read the notice at the top of this talk page tag says Read this before proposing new or expanded criteria. Also I agree with SmokeyJoe and Kusma. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]