Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Add discussion
Active discussions

Proposal to add QD G13 & G14Edit

Consensus was to not add, as QD's should be article based, not user-based.

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.

Hi everyone. I would like to suggest to add a new QD reason, G13, or Page is Disruptive. This would be placed on articles that are not vandalism, however, they are blatantly disruptive and the page has no reason to stay up.

I would also like to propose QDG14, or Long Term Abuse. Again, this would be where the page is not vandalism itself, however, the user shows a pattern of creating pages like this that are disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnafpuppetmaster (talkcontribs) 18:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


  Support The idea for QD G14, however I Oppose the idea of QD G13. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


@つがる: What custom criteria are you talking about? QDs happen only for the specific reasons listed in the policy. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6 Twinkle already has a custom QD option, It is very much valid for the listed reason proposed above, to just be inputted into the custom reasoning, as such there is no need for this new QD criteria. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing that option, but we're pretty strict about not doing QDs for any but the official reasons. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If it's valid enough, then I don't see why It can't be done --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The only "valid" QD reasons are those explicitly provided for in policy. If there is a need to type in a custom QD reason, then either (1) you need to find out what the proper QD criterion is, or (2) the page is not eligible for QD. Chenzw  Talk  01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. Then, why is there a 'custom QD' box in TW then. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The custom field is so you can expand on why you believe the page meets a given QD, not just to delete for your own reason. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too generic and subjective for a QD. The QDs we have mostly already cover stuff like this. Likely if its disruptive its vandalism, if its not an obvious QD then it goes to Rfd where subjective things go for deletion. -Djsasso (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Qdick deletion criteria should only be about the article, and its content. Suppose there's someone who is known for vandalism, or as a long-term problem maker, and that person creates an article, which perhaps isn't perfect, but wihich can be changed to a valid stub with 5-10 min work. I would hate to have to delete the article, when spending the 5-10 mins can fix it. For example: en:Slutwalk (no we don't have it yet) is a term for women who organize protests against victim blaming in relation to sex-related crimes (such as rape). Would creating an article on the topic, in this Wikipedia be disruptive? - What if the person I mentioned before created such an article? - In short: the QD criteria we have cover the two cases for everyday use, and qd criteria should be about the article, and its content, and not about the author. In that respect I can only oppose adding the two criteria.--Eptalon (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the vagueness of the wording leaves an opening for abuse and because the problem it is meant to address is already covered by other deletion criteria. People who propose policy with good intentions sometimes have trouble imagining what someone with bad intentions could do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


@Auntof6: I've gone ahead and moved it, and put a notice to discuss it where it was. rollingbarrels (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Fnafpuppetmaster: Perfect, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: "Page is disruptive" seems ambiguious. What exactly would the criteria be for it to apply? --IWI (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@IWI: This would be for articles that are not disruptive to project by itself, but the way the user is creating the page is, and the content should not be left up. rollingbarrels (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that is the kind of thing that should be discussed. We've had proposals for new QD options that were more clearcut than this, and they were rejected. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I think it's more subjective than ambiguous. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with IWI. "Page is disruptive" and "Long term abuse" are too ambiguous. On other Wikis, I've seen people use vague rules like that as an excuse to declare disruptive and delete pages they didn't like, including essays and marked drafts still in the writer's userspace. (And no, I wasn't the only person who had stuff deleted.) I've never seen anyone on Simple act like that, but the rule will be there for many years, when new people will have cycled in. Fnaf, I figure you've seen something that makes you think a quick deletion would save everyone time and work, and you must have seen it many times, but I think to be a rule we'd have to be very, very clear about what that something is. Do you feel okay about telling us some specifics? Maybe we could work out a good rule. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I started this proposal because of the user who created a bunch of pages that were duplicates of another page on simple. I wasn't really sure which one they would have fit under, so I decided to propose an additional criteria in the case that it happens again. rollingbarrels (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Then maybe "identical duplicate of recently deleted page" would do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24, that would likely be QDA4, which does not apply to Quick Deletes. rollingbarrels (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
If its a duplicate just redirect it. If the name doesn't match the content it would be a QD for vandalism. There are a number of QDs this would already fall under. -Djsasso (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to add T3Edit

Given that we have more and more unused templates, full of red links, and the results of RFDs tend to delete, I propose to add one more CSD criterion: T3: Templates containing all red links and are unused.

Ideas are welcomed, thanks for considering.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I think this was proposed before (by me). An issue raised at that time was that a template creator might need time to turn red links blue and put the template to use, so an additional requirement might need to be that the template needed to be a certain number of days old. However, it was then pointed out that having to wait to QD might not be considered quick. That proposal was rejected (though I'm not saying this one will be). --Auntof6 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Why not we add in 7 days old untouched templates, if let say the creator created today, I RFDed, 7 days later, still the same, defaults to delete, so if the creator left it untouched after 7 days, we can be sure if at the very point of creation we RFDed, it will never survive the RFD. Although I hate to striaght RFD pages, that is a little harsh on creators, but it typically happen this way so 7 days will be a good yardstick. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    To me, if we’re doing that, we might as well RfD. If we are going to include a new "quick" deletion criteria, it should be deleted straight away if unused. Otherwise, I don’t see the reason to even introduce it if 7 days would have to be waited. I would support such a criteria to avoid unnecessary RfDs, but only if the deletion would be truly quick. --IWI (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, let's try not include 7 days then. Proposal is per listed in the 1st go. Let's see whether we have consensus this time, per consensus can change? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. With RfD running to 52 items, we need to make more use of QDs. Seven days idea is also OK, but not essential. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already have a problem with people jumping on things to delete them too quick. We have to give time to allow the articles to be created. Don't forget our Rfd process also serves as prod here so anything that goes there gets deleted automatically after 7 days unless objected to. -Djsasso (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Djsasso: In practice I see many admins extending dates on RfDs with no votes, so clearly this is not the case, at least not for a majority of admins. --IWI (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes I am not sure why that has suddenly started happening. It is new within the last year. I believe Eptalon started doing it and then some others started following. But there has been community discussion around this multiple times. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that with our small community, relisting RfDs is not really helpful. If nobody comments after a week it should be taken as no objections. If someone wanted it kept, they probably would have commented. --IWI (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Djsasso. Chenzw  Talk  17:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Minimum-wait for renominatioonm of a kept RfD?Edit

Hello all, we are currently at over 50 open RfDs. What I would therefore like to propose is the following:

  • To renominate a kept RfD, a minimum waiting-period of 3 months or a signifgicant change in article content is required.

Re-running an article at RfD that was closed earlier, is likely to get the same result, unless the article changed significantly. Thoughts?--Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Is that seriously a cause of the long queue? I would think an underuse of QD is a cause. Together, of course, with lots of kids being cooped up at home because of covid! Also, what percent of RfDs is caused by renoms? Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    We actually have the opposite problem, of QDs being used too much. A4 is often used when it is not applicable for example. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say to reduced to 1 month because it may be long time for that. Only 1 month is enough.KP (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see how this is related to the amount of RfDs. Only 2 that I can see were previously nominated. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not sure having a lot of Rfds is a problem. If anything it shows that things are working as they should. There is always going to be an ebb and flow where sometimes there are a lot and sometimes there are not many. Don't forget our Rfd also works as prod where any articles nominated if they don't have an oppose automatically get deleted after 7 days so it doesn't actually end up using any extra editor time to have a bunch up there unless they are all controversial nominations. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Djsasso: With 50 RfDs now open, it might be helpful to leave a message on WP:AN reminding admins of this. We could theoretically be relisting them repeatedly forever. --IWI (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose based on the fact that certain things can be missed in previous RfDs, regardless of a change in page content. An example of this has happened recently here where new information changed people's opinion. --IWI (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    You mean we are currently discussing to what extent a contestant of 'Miss Universe' is notable. There was no final contest in 2020, so there are many contestants, who each won the 'national contest'. And yes, we all know like many contests, this is about finding a pretty girl that gets a contract for advertising, for a year. I mean, en:Nathan Söderblom is also just known for one event. In my opinion the issue here is also tto accept a decision of the closing admin; unless the article changed significatly, or a long time passed, we shouldnt renominate articles. If I think an article should be deleted, and the closing admin decides otherwise, re-nominating it until it is shouldn't be an option (unless ofc a long time passed, or the article changed significantly). I might not agree with the closing admin's decision, but I accept it.--Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    This is not about accepting the cloising admin's decision. I totally accept the closure of the previous RfD where consensus was clear at the time, but bringing certain previously unmentioned aspects to light have changed the opinion of three people (me included) from the original RfD in this case. From this standpoint, giving a fixed period of time where one cannot RfD a page does not seem appropriate. Sure, bringing a page for RfD a short time after with nothing extra brought to the discussion should not be done, but a fixed time is not the way to go about that. --IWI (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Actually putting aside PAID editing (which is hard to proof and hard to delete), (and I will recommend something like COIN if we want to say about PAID), the articles all suffer from BIO1E as the actual Miss Universe isn't held due to COVID, if they had been held, it will be easily 2 events (local / international) events. But to be honest, the BIO1E argument isn't that solid as it should be after some point in time we examine the article (after all the dust have settled), this is still in the midst, likely they will be held this year. So I will think those articles are a case of created too soon, and if there is a draftspace, I will gladly say move to draft. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    To me, they can only be considered notable in the international competition if they win. Otherwise, they are very unlikely to receive enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, regardless of how many pageants they took part in. Ultimately, all of these guidelines, including BIO1E, are simply estimations we use to guess whether a person will meet GNG. This isn't a discussion that should take place here in any case. In relation to the proposal, I oppose a fixed time period. --IWI (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage: To make what I said above a little clearer, simply taking part in the international Miss Universe competition does not make someone notable unless they win it, so BIO1E would still apply to all of these winners of local competitions unless they go on to win the international one. This is because if they do not win, they have only played a minor role in the event (as BIO1E) states "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate". Otherwise, there will probably not be enough coverage to meet GNG. --IWI (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImprovedWikiImprovment Let take it step by step, 1st the miss universe competition can be one additional source of notable event, I really don't know why you keep on discount the local selection pageants, some of them may be notable events. Secondary, we need to take more care in a blanket, take part in Miss Universe = non notable, as some of them might have others event / activities. Note notablity is not based on sourcing or content in the article, each subject should be ideally evaluated one by one, who knows one of them might write a book that qualifies them as NAUTHOR, another might act in films which make them okay per NCREATIVE and another might be a prof which fulfills NPROF. Such blanket statements is unsafe at times. I am not saying this batch some meets, but there is always a possiblity. Lastly, there are some other events like Olympics /Asian Games / South East Asian Games which NATHELETE seems to suggest medal winners have their page, is it because there isn't a subject notablity guideline for pageants, then it should be time for us to discuss one if needed to have some consistency. Do note that some winners may have greater fame in their home countries than the events themselves too, hence, per BIO1E, we should also be careful that for such subjects, it may be better to write about them not the competion only, and some winners / participants may be given civilian awards etc. All in all, my approach will be all these since the international event is not held due to COVID, we should take it that we don't know who wins, and hence, a better reason for deletion will be too soon / etc rather than the blanket assertion in some sense, we simply just don't know who will be notable in time or not in some sense (based on the competition placing) - but some might be notable now, each need individual research. I voted keep for one of them as I think it's ok, feel free to defer though. Nice to discuss this out :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yes you are right, I should correct myself. Of course, any one of these could be notable for another reason, but taking part in the Miss Universe doesn't inherently mean they are notable in of itself. Also, the local events are notable, but most of their winners do not pass GNG for coverage about them. Yes, it is very good to have a discussion to come to an agreement :). --IWI (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I am thinking something along the lines of zhwp deletion policy here, briefly and 3rd paragraph "If a page had been kept in RFD, or restored in deletion review, the same page shouldn't be renominated for deletion for the same reason. Unless 6 months had passed, if any RFD is nominated with the same reason, and the page didn't have any significant changes or cirumstances didn't change, it can be speedy keep. If it's no consensus, then a resonable wait period should be imposed before renomination. enwp seems to have en:WP:NPASR, these are things we can follow.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My pageEdit

For Anjum Lucknowi Category:Kenya Websites and my other pages un delete them I also sometimes edit pages to make them out of the deletion criteria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysses 0G (talkcontribs) 18:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Pages directly copied from other WikipediasEdit

Why is "Pages directly copied from other Wikipedias" listed under "Discussed deletion"? This would either be A3 or A5. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Sometimes, editors copy the page from another Wikipedia (usually enwp), and then they work on it to make it easier to understand. Depending on the page, the language may already be suitable for our wiki, so it won't fall under the 'copied from somewhere else, not simpilfied' QD criterion. Also, in some cases we might want to discuss the issue. --Eptalon (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that not be "directly copied"? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • We live in the age of sharing, the cotent of Wikipedia is under a free license. As I pointed our, the text may be sipmle enough, and just need attribution on the talk page....--Eptalon (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      • A3 requires it to be directly copied and complex. Not just directly copied. A5 of course would require it to be in a language other than English. -Djsasso (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of U2Edit

Can U2 be used for user talk pages of accounts that have been hidden by stewards? (i.e. when you go to contributions, and the account is "not registered" but there are contributions there) --Ferien (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages can't be deleted unless its purely vandalism. The user existed at one point so the talk page is valid. Most often that I see this case when the editor is very old, there is a point where a lot of stuff was converted from the previous wikisoftware I think it was so users that do exist don't show as registered. I forget all the details about how it all worked, but I had to go around undeleting a bunch of stuff in the last year or so where people thought the users didn't exist but they actually did and incorrectly went around deleting stuff. However, they did exist, their accounts were just very old. Djsasso (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional reason for revdel?Edit

Because it has happened recently (the change has been revdel'd already), should it be clarified that addition of bad or offending images as vandalism could be grounds for revision deletion? (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You might be able to argue that could fall under RD3. I don't think we need one for images. The images all exist on commons, if they should be deleted I feel like it should be dealt with at the source on commons. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There has recently been vandalism on WP:AN with bad images. It has been revdel'd already (and I already sent a request to have an admin add the images to the bad image list) but I feel as though that criteria should also clarify that something like that would fall under RD3. (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That would already be RD3. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This page has now been fixed. Now remove the delete tag on itEdit

Dear Team, This page has now been fixed. Now remove the delete tag on it. Refugiaa5 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Deletion policy".