Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

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

See also Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions for discussions which took place in 2006-07 before it was redirected here.

Issue regarding the A-series criteria

[edit]

The A-series criteria such as A7 has been misapplied to drafts. Should we fix this or should we do nothing? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 18:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BodhiHarp: Can you provide some examples? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw it here, but it may have been suppressed. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 18:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed suppressed, so this has nothing to do with speedy deletion. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was tagged as A7 when it existed. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 18:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for both A1 and A7 by user:Aesurias. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I added the A1. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tag oversightable material for speedy deletion, even if you think it's "only borderline". That makes it much more visible. (Facially-nonapplicable criteria like A* on non-articles even more so.) If you can't actually delete it yourself, mail oversight directly and let them deal with it. —Cryptic 21:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the admin probably did was delete the page under a CSD to attract less attention than say, "IAR", or even worse, "has private info." Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An admin deleting it, especially with a non-attention-attracting log entry - and an A7 or A1 on a draft does stick out - is all well and good. Same situation as Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Hiding oversightable material prior to Oversight. Tagging the page puts it into the very-visible Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, sometimes for a long time, where it will be seen not just by admins (who may or may not act on it) but by, for example nonadmins looking for pages to untag, and projects that preferentially mirror pages likely to be imminently deleted. —Cryptic 04:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I assumed an admin deleted it before sending it to oversight, not an editor tagging it for speedy deletion. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf said just above that it had been tagged, and BodhiHarp said he had tried to tag it too. —Cryptic 04:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for A1 at 05:21, for A7 at 05:24 and detagged at 05:59. The email to oversight was received at 06:02 and it was oversighted at 10:17 (which is quite a long gap). Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think A10 has the most support for applying to drafts. There is no value in having a draft on an article which already exists, and these seem to be common and easily recognized. I recently encountered Draft:भास्कराचार्य, which is in Hindi and seems to be about a person who already has an article, Bhāskara II. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases though the draft title should be redirected to the relevant mainspace article (after merging anything useful that isn't already there) rather than deleted, to discourage the creation of future redundant drafts. Thryduulf (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should redirect, not expand or change A10 to cover drafts. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions, deleted contributions) 05:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that "easily recognized", it seems - that draft was declined, rather amusingly, on notability grounds. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about we do this:
  • Not allowing to add a tag to the non-articles via Twinkle gadget
  • Adding an edit filter to warn users
  • Instead of letting the templates transclude, it will display an error message similar to R2:

- BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 18:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. That last option should be applied preemptively to all namespace-specific CSD's. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the templates generating a prominent error when used in the wrong namespace. Perhaps with a second, more specific sentence like, e.g. "Speedy deletion criterion A7 applies only to pages in the article namespace.". Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that on September 4, User:Oklopfer tried to tag Template:IPA nasal vowels for A11 speedy deletion. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ talk 22:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the edit filter, perhaps we could use this:
Your action has triggered an edit filter
Note: It looks like you are trying to tag a non-mainspace page for speedy deletion under the A-series criteria (articles). The A-series speedy deletion criteria apply to the mainspace, not anywhere else. If you hit publish changes again, your edit will be saved anyway, and the tag will be an error message. If you did not try to add an A-series speedy deletion criteria tag to a non-mainspace page, please report this error.
and also, misapplying R2 and others also categorizes it: Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ talk 21:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, of course. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow creator to remove U6 tags?

[edit]

U6 is intended to be a fairly mechanical process, similar to G13 for deleting expired drafts. Since the creator is allowed to remove G13 tags, should U6 be the same? Anomie⚔ 17:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so; part of the definition is that it has not been edited in 6+ months, so if edits are made to the page (e.g. removing the tag) then it no longer meets U6. I will note the template does currently mention this. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per lack of objection, I went ahead and added this. Anomie⚔ 16:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for A11

[edit]
Withdrawn. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Shouldn't A11 be a general criterion? There is no direct speedy deletion criterion for invented stuff in the draft space. We have A11, but that's mainspace articles only, and we have G3, but that's hoaxes, not inventions that are indicated to be invented.

We may want to either:

  • Replace it with a general criterion G16
  • Or merge to G3

Also, this is similar to how G12 was formerly A8. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions, deleted contributions) 05:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How often does this get nominated at MfD? Is it always deleted? Obviously we can't just extend A11 to be a G criterion without modification as there is an allowance for a limited amount of invented stuff in userspace and project space (see for example many of the Wikipedia:Department of fun subpages). Merging with G3 would be a terrible idea because that's for bad-faith creations and a significant proportion of A11 stuff is people contributing in good faith but simply not understanding what Wikipedia is for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how the 4 criteria noted at the top of the talk page and the edit notice are met. In particular, what research into frequency have you done? -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, U7c does apply WP:NOTMADEUP to userspace, but only under a limited set of circumstances. I'm not sure it would be desirable to apply it any more broadly than that in userspace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 08:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Inventions and discoveries can be perfectly good drafts, and the editor adding the content having a WP:COI is a reason to have it drafted in userspace or draftspace, and is not a reason to delete it from userspace or draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See this. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And? We have one example of something that can be deleted using an existing speedy deletion criterion, suggesting that WP:NEWCSD point 4 isn't met. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 7 December 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.

X3 category

[edit]

I notice we still have Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as redirects with no space before a parenthetical disambiguation. Redirect to R3? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say take it to CfD. Pages should generally not be being added to speedy deletion categories directly, and anyone still nominating pages under X3 they need to stop and either nominate them under an actually extant criteria (if it meets the requirements) or at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should you be bold when tagging pages?

[edit]

I find a lot of drafts that are very clearly written with spammy language, but I feel fall just short of being blatant spam. See this as an example. Would it be best to avoid tagging these pages, or to tag them? ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31416-56 Should you be bold? Yes. The deleting admin should review the page for CSD eligibility, so in theory you can't get a page deleted incorrectly simply by tagging it. Do you need to tag that page? Meh. It's probably eligible for G11, or at least close enough that many admins would delete it. But tagging pages in draftspace is generally not a great use of time, since they will eventually be deleted by G13 anyways. In my view it's only helpful to tag drafts or userspace pages if they are actively harmful (see User:CoconutOctopus/How fast to speedy delete) or being repeatedly disruptively submitted to AfC. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does T5 apply to Modules?

[edit]

Does WP:T5 also apply to unused Module subpages? I thought it did, but tried to tag one and got an error from {{db-t5}} that it should only be used in the Template namespace. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but there is an error in the template code - see Template talk:Db-meta#db-t5. Thryduulf (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it appropriate to amend the first statement of WP:T5 to say This applies to unused subpages of templates and modules, such as... (emphasis added for clarity here)? Does this require an RFC or broader consensus or can I BOLDLY make this change? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think better would be a note at the start of the templates section that all the criteria apply to both templates and modules unless specified otherwise. This means we don't have to repeat notes if we get more T criteria. This sort of change doesn't require an RfC but it is best practice to mention it on the talk page (as you've done) and allow people chance to object/comment if they wish before making the change. Thryduulf (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll give it a day then be bold. Can always be reverted. I'm not changing policy here (if I was I would feel I needed broader consensus) just trying to clarify what seems to be established policy already. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G8 and user subpages

[edit]

Looking at the history of the "User subpages" versus "User subpages when the user has not created a user page":

Personally, my reading of the whole situation is that the 2011 discussion was specifically about exempting user subpages from the "Subpages with no parent page" clause of G8, and was not intended to exempt them from any other G8 clause. But the wording added in 2011 was unclear, and it remained unclear even after the attempted clarification in 2019. The 2022 and 2025 changes both seem to have (mis)interpreted it as applying to all of G8. If we really want to clarify it, I think we should remove the clause from the "This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia" list entirely, and instead change "Subpages with no parent page" to "Subpages with no parent page, excepting user subpages" or something along those lines. Courtesy pings: @Extraordinary Writ, HouseBlaster, Amorymeltzer, and Snowolf. Anomie⚔ 00:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the version I restored is ambiguous as well. I support your suggestion, which I agree is clearly what everyone has meant ever since 2011. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the clauses in that exception list are really only exceptions to one part of G8. User talk pages really means top-level user talk pages, when deleting for not having a corresponding top-level user page. Talk page archives are also only for when deleting for not having a corresponding subject subpage, as it awkwardly tries to explain (by including an exception to this exception, and a further exception to that exception). Redirects broken by page moves obviously is only an exception for broken redirects - and again, there's an awkward exception to the exception. "Pages that should be moved instead" really only arises for talk pages of non-existent mainspace pages, and usually they get deleted instead of moved anyway. The only one that even sort of applies to the entire criterion is misplaced deletion discussions, and how often are those still an issue?
Pppery was right. The different G8 subcriteria really have nothing to do with each other except the one-line description in Twinkle, and the "examples... are not limited to" bit is dead letter - you never see, say, a company article get deleted at afd, then the articles for its officers and the events it runs deleted as G8s. (Or else both discussions at WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 December 4 would have turned out very differently.) This merge was supposed to make things simpler, and it's had the opposite effect. We've already reversed it for T5 and C4, née T4 and C3, and we're better off for it; let's finish the job and re-split the rest. —Cryptic 02:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. (Except for the fact that old T4 isn't the same as new T5 and is still merged into G8 - old T4 seems to have been for subpages of nonexistent templates, whereas new T5 is for subpages of existing templates which the parent template doesn't use). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other exceptions at least actually do fall under "any page that is useful to Wikipedia", and while not all of them apply to all of the G8 criteria they probably do apply to all that apply. I also note that C4 was more split out of G6 than G8; the discussion there related to G8 was more about some people not wanting to apply "Categories populated by deleted or retargeted templates" when a template still existed but no longer populated the category and wanting C4 to cover that perceived gap. T5 seems to have been a similar situation, in the discussion creating that I see almost no mention of G8 despite the potential overlap. Anomie⚔ 03:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on adding a quick delete to CSD template for admins

[edit]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#speedy:_add_admin-only_"Delete"_and_"Decline"_buttons_for_quick_parsing, on whether to add a delete and decline button to the CSD templates for admins that talks directly to Twinkle. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does G4 qualify on redirects if former target page moved to current target?

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#National Award, I noticed that the current target of National Award, the target being National Film Awards, is the new name of the target article after a page move from National Film Award; the former name of the target article, National Film Award, was where the redirect National Award targeted prior to being deleted in 2014 via Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#National Award.

I'm bringing this up to determine if National Award should qualify for WP:G4 since the page it targeted when it was deleted in 2014 is a {{R from move}} to the target the redirect was recreated to target years later. At the present time, the description of WP:G4 makes no reference of such cases. Steel1943 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion U2

[edit]

I don’t mean to stuff beans up peoples’ noses here but shouldn’t the U2 criterion include exclusions for Example, Example1, etc.? As far as I can tell, right now you could technically argue for their removal per U2. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both example and example1 exist. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, what I’m saying is it should specifically state that the U2 criterion for speedy deletion excludes those users, so that some dummy doesn’t come in and try to propose they be deleted per U2. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see how that was confusing. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion U2 is for subpages of user accounts that do not exist, e.g. User:Thryduulf 6402 would be in scope as no such user has been registered. User:Example and User:Example1 have been registered so the user accounts exist, meaning that U2 already does not apply.
However pages like User:Example/Lipsum are technically eligible for U6. Is it worth explicitly excluding subpages of accounts explicitly created as non-editing role accounts or examples for discussion from that criterion? I can see arguments both ways and don't immediately know which side I favour. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I guess I took the word “exist” too literally, but you are right that U6 could apply. I’m also not sure. On one hand, it hasn’t been a problem, but who knows what some wikilawyer vandal could do. FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyer vandals can try whatever they like. Admins are the ones who press the buttons. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undeletion is also a thing; if someone finds an example subpages and if they tag it with U6 and if an admin actually deletes it... we'll just restore it (if someone notices). I'm all for carving out exceptions, but not when they're a) incredibly rare and b) easy to deal with. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: FWIW, that page is on User:CSD U6 Bot/Ignore list. I think it'd be fine to create a {{U6-exempt}}, as exists for a few other criteria, that just says "This page meets CSD U6 but should not be deleted because an editor other than the page's creator has identified it as beneficial to the encyclopedia." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 00:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin I don't see any harm in creating that, but per Primefac the benefits will be limited (although not non-existent). Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expand G3 or G15 for pure slop?

[edit]

I'm not sure how we'd define it, but some "articles" are pure slop in a way that verges on vandalism, and I think it might be worthwhile to make them speedily deletable. Recent examples: Catholic Church and independence of the Republic of Indonesia and 1930s romantic comedy films. I'd suggest something like "pages in the patently created by an LLM that make no attempt to imitate a Wikipedia article" but worded better. What do people think? lp0 on fire () 00:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is regular AFD inadequate to get rid of slop like that? -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 00:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just feels to me like a waste of editors' time to bring something like that to AfD. lp0 on fire () 10:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any speedy deletion criterion must be objective. "It's pure slop" appears to be mostly subjective. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "pages in the patently created by an LLM that make no attempt to imitate a Wikipedia article" is closer to objectivity, but I'm aware the wording needs significant workshopping before it could be a CSD. lp0 on fire () 23:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empty draft submissions

[edit]

After User:Rbone gaming 2020/sandbox, should there be a new CSD for empty draft submissions?

In any case, I think patent nonsense and empty drafts could be added as an explicit U7 criterion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: User:MermaidxxPeace/sandbox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: User:GS Murungi/sandbox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do these need to be speedily deleted? If they really bother you and the editor has mainspace contributions (not eligible for U7), you could draftify and wait for G13. If the editor repeatedly resubmits a blank draft, that is disruptive and I think G3 (vandalism) would apply. But they seem quite harmless, so I'm not sure a new CSD is needed. Toadspike [Talk] 12:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there is no reason to speedy delete these. If the creator is being tendentious, they should be sanctioned rather than us play whack-a-mole with userspace drafts. Primefac (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are these pages currently deleted at MfD? If not where is your evidence that WP:NEWCSD point 2 is met? Three examples also doesn't demonstrate the frequency required for point 3. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not allow uploaders to remove the dfu tag?

[edit]

For a long time, uploaders have been disallowed from simply removing the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Sure, removing the longstanding rule would make the template a File PROD copycat, but even then repealing the rule should be the first step before deciding whether to deprecate the template and F7d. Also, the removal should reduce bureaucracy, IMO. George Ho (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where is F7a??

[edit]

Why is there no F7a, but only F7b, c, and d? Was there a F7a CSD in the past that was removed? WasowkiMike (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's listed in the "obsolete" section. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was really confused on this. WasowkiMike (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is A7 and A9 different?

[edit]

A7 is no indication of importance for lots of things, while A9 is no indication of importance for just one thing. Is there a reason for it other than A7 came first and they made a new criteria instead of expanding A7? If there is no real reason, they should probably be merged. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A9 has an additional exception that makes the article unspeedyable, no matter how bad a shape it's in, if its subject's creator has an article. (And it's an exception that comes up very, very often in practice.) A7's unwieldy enough as it is without trying to shoehorn this in there too. —Cryptic 21:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given how often this comes up, we should probably have an information page/essay somewhere explaining the difference between A7 and A9, the reasons for that difference and why it doesn't include things like books. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could also put up a frequently asked questions or perennial discussions page at the top to supplement that. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages (G14)

[edit]

Disambiguation pages have a peculiar set of criteria for deletion. The parenthetical term "(disambiguation)" must be in the title in order to merit deletion when there is only one entry.

Nashville tuning is a disambiguation page that lacks this parenthetical term in its title. It only lists one article with the name Nashville tuning. The second article has a different name entirely (E9 tuning). Clearly, the two titles are dissimilar. There is no danger of ambiguity; therefore, there is no need for a disambiguation page.

Common sense would say that this page should be deleted. It does not meet Wikipedia's own guidelines for disambiguation pages. G14 does not anticipate this scenario. Therefore, speedy deletion is denied, requiring editors to waste time debating the page through another process.

The spirit of our criteria for speedy deletion is clearly met by a page like this. It is a fluke of a page that should not exist. Yet, the letter of our criteria do not allow it. We should update the text to allow for common sense to prevail quickly and spare editors' resources. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The answer in this case is to move Nashville tuning (high strung) to Nashville tuning (see WP:SWAP; you can request swaps at WP:RMT), and keep the hatnote to E9 tuning. If the title of Nashville tuning is unambiguous, then why would we need the parenthetical disambiguator? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why not expand this criteria to make it simpler for editors? It took you no time at all to understand the problem, because this particular disambiguation page should clearly not exist. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because the answer doesn't involve deletion; it involves moving. Deletion on its own does not help; you need the full WP:SWAP treatment. I'm all for making editing easier, but I don't think "authorize a CSD, tag it, and then do the move" is more simple than "ask at RMT". Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. One thing that would make editing easier is less red tape. In this case, there are multiple ways to solve the problem. The end result is the same: the disambiguation page will disappear. Whether it is deleted or moved is immaterial. Editors operating in good faith will have made the site better by getting rid of junk.
If the G14 section of this policy were more expansive, this inaccurate page could be removed quickly. It's very hard to delete things on Wikipedia. You end up down the rabbit hole of abbreviations.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

R2 on mainspace pages with article (i.e. non-redirect) revisions in the history

[edit]

It would seem to me that is not allowed. User:SouthernNights apparently disagrees. Full conversation at User talk:SouthernNights#SS Empire Star (1919).

For background a new user made a WP:DRAFTOBJECT on SS Empire Star (1919) by c&p moving the page back to main. Since no attribution issues arise on singly authored pages, and since they subsequently WP:DEPRODed the page, my understanding is that WP:AFD is the next step.

I don't believe the page should exist as is, and if no one else does I am inclined to write up the AFD nomination myself subject to some reasonable delay to allow time for improvement. However, I do not believe this kind of backdoor deletion should be allowed either. However I am willing to take on some additional feedback here before moving directly to a WP:DRV. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, this isn't the place to bring up this issue. Second, I deleted a redirect to the draft article Draft:SS Empire Star (1919) per speedy delete R2. However, when ~2025-31245-28 raised this issue I looked into it and there is indeed an earlier version of the article that is identical to the draft article. That earlier article was moved to draft space by another user. The problem is that if I recreate the article in main space then we also have an identical draft article and the whole situation gets extremely confusing. As such, it's better to leave the article deleted and have all this sorted out in the draft article space. I told 2025-31245-28 this but the user wasn't satisfied and brought the issue here. SouthernNights (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:SouthernNights drafts duplicating mainspace pages fall under WP:NOTCSD point 16, they may nonetheless be redirected as necessary. Also, it is allowed and even preferred in cases where two people disagree to raise the issue for discussion with a larger audience. You are required to account for all tool usage upon request under WP:ADMINACCT. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pages are only eligible for speedy deletion if all their revisions meet one or more speedy deletion criteria. In the case of R series criteria that means that either all revisions must be redirects or any revisions that aren't must meet be eligible for speedy deletion under a different criterion. Additionally Win Kyaw turned the page into a redirect and then immediately nominated the redirect for deletion. That is always inappropriate and should have immediately resulted in a decline of the speedy deletion.
@~2025-31245-28 for future reference, the correct venue for this discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But if we undo the delete then we have a main article and a draft article with the same content, which is not acceptable. I should add that 2025-31245-28 wants me to recreate the article so it can then be brought up for an AfD. In addition, there are some strange edits going on around this article/draft that can't be easily explained. That's why I believe it's best to leave things as they are and work all this out in the draft article space. SouthernNights (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What should have been done is history merging the article and draft versions together. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do that. I haven't done a history merging before.
I should also add that after the original article was moved to draft space the remaining redirect page was deleted by User:BusterD. It was then recreated and I deleted the new article. All this cycling back into this article having a very messy history with some questionable moves and edits. All of this is why I believe it should be sorted out and a consensus reached in draft space. But if you or another admin want to go a different route, I won't object any more. SouthernNights (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When no attribution issues are present due to having only one substantive author, Template:Histmerge requests are often declined as redirecting resolves any concerns. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thryduulf I suppose that is true, could and probably should have gone straight to DRV. With the last question on User:SouthernNights' talk page still open however, it would now be impolite to do that without allowing 24 to 48 hours for a response. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are making up an issue where there isn't one. On my talk page I said I wasn't undoing the deletion but if "you get consensus from other admins that I made a mistake, one of them can recreate the article." I also said above that I will no longer object to anyone undoing the delete, although I still think this should be sorted out on the draft article's talk page. SouthernNights (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I went ahead and undeleted the article. Other people can sort out all the crap around this. SouthernNights (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have my eye on it and will list it at AFD in a week or two assuming no one else does first. There is a complex protocol surrounding review of tool usage, which is why I was trying to make everything entirely unambiguous for third parties that would inevitably be called upon to assess. But whether or not community expectations were met with respect to that in this specific case is now no longer an important point. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting as far as "all the crap around this" goes, there is no need for a histmerge because there was only one content author between the two versions of the page. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf: if there's even one revision in a page that isn't speedy-deletable, the page as a whole isn't. Usually what happens in cases like this is the page is moved to another title in draftspace, like Draft:SS Empire Star (1919) (2), and the historyless redirect in mainspace is R2'd. If the cut-and-pasted version was identical to the draft, a history merge is inappropriate and it's really not suitable for mainspace (I haven't checked any of these three conditions), then - and Thryduulf is going to vehemently disagree with me here - I'd be ok with an IAR delete of the mainspace title. After all, no content's being lost. —Cryptic 01:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a histmerge isn't normally needed here. I was proposing one as a way to escape from the dilemma of having two pages (the article and the draft), not having valid cause to delete any of them, and wanting one. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Easier to just redirect the draft to the article. Redirect would have been left behind anyway had the creator moved it the correct way, so end result is the same. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and Thryduulf is going to vehemently disagree with me here - I'd be ok with an IAR delete of the mainspace title. indeed I am, IAR is by definition never an appropriate reason to speedy delete a page. IAR is only for situations that uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia, every speedy deletion that does not meet the letter and spirit of the speedy deletion criteria is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion&oldid=1331076736"