Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 3

Criteria A3 (copypaste) and G12 (copyright)

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

---

QD criterion A3 currently says:

Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no change.

My understanding is that:

1. This criterion is to meant ensure that text copied from another Wikipedia is simple enough for this Wikipedia, and
2. Word-for-word copying between Wikipedias is allowed (with proper attribution)

If those are true, then text from another Wikipedia that is unchanged but already simple enough should be allowed to stay. In other words, text shouldn't have to be changed just to make it different.

I bring this up because User:Rus793 tags articles with A3 due to being unchanged from enwiki, even when the text in them is simple enough for here. I see his point that A3 can be interpreted as meaning a copyright issue. To clarify this, I propose changing the wording of options A3 and G12. Please comment under each section below. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• On "Word-for-word copying between Wikipedias is allowed (with proper attribution)", I need to say something. When a reader is not fluent in a language, reading a text in that language is complicated by its length. If someone imports 100,000 bytes that is quite a different situation from importing 5,000 bytes. Even if the readability of the texts are similar, it is very likely that almost no non-fluent reader will get anywhere near through the longer article. I don't have such a problem with shorter prose sections, although many of them are quite badly written and might also be judged 'unsimplified'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A3: copypaste

I propose changing the wording of this criterion to say that it is only to make sure copied text is simple enough. Possible wording:

Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text.

Comments

• Support. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I would suggest keeping the current wording and only changing the last word in the current criteria to 'simplification'. Rus793 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Rus, if I understand your suggestion correctly, that would say that all copied text must be simplified. Is that what you mean? Some text on other Wikipedias is already simple enough and doesn't need simplifying. That's not usually true, but it sometimes happens. For that reason, I wouldn't support the change you suggest (assuming I understand what you're suggesting). --Auntof6 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying anything different from what the wording of A3 says now. I only suggest that the last word be changed to simplified. I've said before I don't think the wording of A3 is particularly ambiguous. You've said before this is about simplification and, thinking about it more, I think you're right. But I wouldn't want it to be about sentence structure only or just simplifying the lead. Simplification has to include simple sentence structure, a reasonable attempt to use Simple English words in place of complex words and simplifying the article's concepts and excessive length (Mac-Ross's point above). This can be in the choices of just how much to copy from a sister project article. I've personally seen very few enwiki articles simple enough for our purposes. Also, in your suggested wording, it doesn't mention 'article or section'. Are we saying this no longer applies to copy-pasted sections? Or is this an expansion of the former wording to include copying a sentence? No matter what we come up with, it's always going to involve the use of judgement as to whether or not employing QD:A3 is appropriate. The more guidance we can inject into this policy, the clearer the issue becomes. Rus793 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm not clear on what you would want the wording to be. Would you specify the whole text of what you're thinking?
        As for sections, these are quick deletion criteria. They apply to articles, not sections. We don't tag sections for deletion, we tag articles, so I think it makes sense not to specify sections. Sections can be dealt with by just changing the text or removing it from the article. That can be done by any editor at any time: it doesn't require a request.
        I think my proposed text does include all aspects of simplifying -- text can be complex due to using complex words, complex sentence structure, and probably other things. All that is discussed on other pages (such as Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages), so I don't think we need the specifics in the QD criteria. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
        • What I suggested was: Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia: Any article or section from an article that has been copied and pasted with little or no simplification. But, given the above, I can go along with your suggested wording. Rus793 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Your understanding is correct, if the text coming from en.wiki is already simple it can come over word for word (as long as it attributed or is only a single sentence stating a fact so that it then fails to meet the originality of thought requirement for copyright). -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

G12: copyright

I propose adding text to this option to say that copying from another Wikipedia without attribution is covered here. I think it is already covered, but adding explicit text would make that clear. Text could be added to the third bullet item, as follows (the text in Italics is what I propose adding):

Added by someone who doesn't tell whether they got permission to do so or not, or if their claim has a large chance of not being true. This includes copying from other Wikipedias without proper attribution

This one could be more controversial. We often get articles copied from enwiki that either have incomplete attribution or have no attribution at all. I don't know how well we follow up on making sure the attribution is added. Getting stricter about this might drive editors away, which would be bad.

Comments

• Hello, I am new here. I have been copying from another wikipedia and it is difficult to know exactly what is needed. It would help to have some words above the change summary box to remind people to put the link to the source if they have copied from another wikipedia. Another option is a pop up box that says "If you have copied from another wikipedia you must provide attribution in the change summary". This could pop up every time a new article is created. It is important to include a link to instructions on how to do it. Not everyone knows about their talk page which is where I found a link to the information.Acb314 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. There's good sense in the ideas of Acb, except that attributions must really be on the talk page because change summaries are ephemeral. It's not reasonable to expect a later user to search back through change summaries. Legally, attribution has to be clearly visible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I have to agree with Mac-Ross here. As one who has been adding attribution to the change summaries, I can see the point why it's much better to use the talk page. As for following the attribution policy, it is foolish to have a policy and not enforce it. Attribution is a legal requirement and also a copyright issue. Rus793 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. We have policies and guidelines. If we're not going to enforce these because it might lose editors, perhaps we should have thought of that when we created the policies and guidelines. Put another way, what organization would have employees (paid or volunteers) who won't follow the rules and do whatever they please? Who would have editors who contribute at the absolute minimum level of effort and follow only those policies and guidelines they want to? To borrow from the US Marine Corps, we need a few good editors. The fact is, the Simple English Wikipedia is living proof of that concept. We function very nicely with a relatively few good editors. Sure, we could use more good editors, but not more editors. We need to give new editors every encouragement but also to make clear we follow guidelines and policies here. Else when the few good editors go on to other things, who have they left the care and keeping of this wiki to? If we 'drive away' editors by strict enforcement of policy, where is the loss? You can't lose something you never really had anyway. Rus793 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really see the need to add an explicit point as a copyvio is a copyvio but I don't see harm in it either. Unless its used to aggressively (such as the one sentence example I mention in the above section). -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Outcome

I see consensus here, so I am going to make the changes. Thanks to everyone for the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2014 (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.

Changes to Quick Delete reason A4

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.

---

Background. An article called NES Advantage was added to simplewiki. The entire article follows:

The NES Advantage is a controller for the Nintendo Entertainment System made to be like an arcade joystick. It has knobs for turbo and a slow-mo function.

This article was originally deleted under A4. It was then (correctly) restored because products are not eligible for A4. We would like to change that.

• There are many English Wikipedia discussions about what can and cannot be included in its parallel rule (A7). It is a very difficult rule. It is applied the wrong way very often. This tells me that we have to think very hard before we decide to add a new type of article here.
• At the same time, there is absolutely nothing in the article on NES Advantage to say why it is notable.

Administrators and others on this wiki spend much time on deletion discussions. This article gave us no reason to know why we should keep it. But we still needed a 7-day discussion, and the attention of several active editors, to delete.
Why I think we can change the rule here. There are two reasons why I think it will be ok to make the change on this wiki:

1. The standard that it demands is low. A4 says we cannot quick-delete if there is a credible claim of notability. The standard for that is not the same as a proof of notability. A credible claim only means that the article gives a reason—and that the reason given is a little better than "I think this is important." The NES Advantage article would only need to add something like "This controller was the best-selling controller ever for the Nintendo Entertainment System" to meet that standard.

   An article like this might eventually be deleted anyway if notability cannot be proved. All we want here is a reason to know why the article might be important enough to keep.

   It is also possible that an article like this could be quick-deleted for other reasons, like G11 (advertising). We're only talking about when A4 should be the reason.

2. This reason only allows administrators to quick-delete an article, it does not require that. So if an administrator sees an A4 tag, he or she can still decide to keep, or to require a full RfD discussion.

Proposal (part 1): Rule A4 is changed to read as follows, with changes underlined:

Is about people, groups, companies, products or websites that do not claim to be notable. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product or web content that does not say why it is important. As long as the article says why the subject is important—and that reason could eventually be proved—the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead.

Additional idea to make sure A4 is used the right way. To avoid abuse of A4, especially because of this change, I would also add the following paragraph. Proposal (part 2) (entirely new paragraph):

If an article is tagged for quick deletion under rule A4, the editor making that selection must try to contact the person who created the article. An administrator cannot delete an article under this rule until 24 hours after the time the person who created the article was contacted. If the creator of the article, whether signed-in or IP, is not contacted, the administrator must reject the quick deletion. The article could still be proposed for deletion under the regular rules.

The invitation to use the template {{notable}} would follow as is. We might wish to modify the message in the template slightly, but that's a separate question.
I would appreciate thoughts and comments on this proposal.

Initial discussion

See Closing discussion below. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of proposal 1 (part 1). Products is a good addition. Part 2, the note (similar to the one following G12) seems a little restrictive. As things are now the submitter is already contacted twice regarding the QD. The automatically generated QD notice and a warning notice placed there by the editor who requested the QD. Adding a remark to the warning notice would be helpful though. I think with the rest of this we'd be placing an unnecessary burden on the administrators. A 24 hour period after the submitter responds could lead to QDA4 taking longer than an RfDs. Perhaps as often as half the time the submitter is unresponsive to notes on their talk page. I think beyond a good faith attempt to contact the submitter, when to approve or disapprove the QD request should left to the discretion of the administrator. User:Rus793 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rus793: You misread: the period is 24 hours after the creator is contacted, not 24 hours after a response. Essentially, all I intended to formalize was what anyone tagging a QD with Twinkle would do anyway: give the creator a chance to respond. (On our side, not using the automatic tools at Twinkle [or wherever else] can't be an excuse not to contact the originator.) And then I think we need to give the creator a fair chance: If I'm on the US East Coast and she's in Singapore, I can't exactly demand an answer in two hours, right? It would probably be good to make sure the remark in the warning notice asks for the "credible claim." Otherwise, I don't think you and I disagree. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did misunderstand. I agree, 24 hours is a reasonable period of time to wait. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I originally posted this proposal in my sandbox. The discussion up to this point happened on my sandbox page. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comments from Auntof6: I'm not sure whether I support or oppose this. My concerns are:
  • "Products" is vague. A lot of things could be considered products that you may not mean to be covered by this proposal.
  • Article creators do not always get automatically generated QD notices. They do if Twinkle is used to do the QD request (and maybe with other tools -- I only know Twinkle), but some QD notices are placed manually and the person placing them may or may not notify the creator.
  • Why should a 24-hour notice to an article creator be specific to QD#A4?
  • When would the creator be considered to have been contacted? When a message is placed on their talk page? Not everyone checks their talk pages. In addition, IP editors may not edit under the same IP every time so they may not see a notice at all.
  • Having a 24-hour notice would place an extra burden on the admins. All the admins who come through looking at QDs would have to check the time and try to remember to come back to it later. Each admin would probably end up checking this several times, because we wouldn't remember the time for each one. This is contrary to the spirit of quick deletion and is an argument for requiring these to go through RfD.
  • What constitutes a claim of notability is not always clear. That is why QD#A4 doesn't cover more things.
  • In your proposed wording, I would change "and that reason could eventually be proved" to "and that reason could eventually be proven or disproven". Sometimes we have claims of notability that turn out not to be true.

--Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Auntof6. Thanks for your comments, thoughtful as always. Some responses:

• I would welcome more specificity to a definition of "products," if you have an idea how to do that.
• I specify a 24-hour notice here because I can see that an editor could create a page in good faith and not know that there is a minimum threshold to get a page going. And accordingly, I wanted to make sure that a page doesn't get QD'd unless the creator got notice. It's easy to do that with Twinkle, more of an effort to do manually. And that's also why I put in the mandatory rejection of QD if the creator is not notified. If QD is rejected, RfD is always allowable.

  I take your point about possibly needing to recheck, but I imagine that's still less work than a whole RfD.

• This is a "reasonable effort" standard: notice placed on user talk page, whether to an account or to an IP address. We can't help it if IP users end up not seeing the notice; there is no perfect way to handle that.
• My opinion is that a credible claim is not so hard, and is clear enough: tell us why this is notable. (Our problem with the article at hand is that it made no claim whatsoever of a reason for importance.) For this purpose, I'd accept almost anything except "because I think so" or "isn't it obvious?".
• I'd accept your rewording. Some claims of notability do turn out to be not true, absolutely.

StevenJ81 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured out one of the reasons that "products" seems vague to me. There can be articles about types of products (for example, personal computer) and articles about specific products (for example, Apple Macintosh). It seems to me that the proposed change should apply only to specific products. If people agree with this, the phrase "specific physical products" could be added to the second sentence of the guideline. Another question: should the proposed change include works of media, for example books, movies, and record albums? In one sense, these are products, but they are also creative works. You can hold the physical product in your hand (except for electronic copies, of course), but the physical aspect isn't the important part. It would be good to add a sentence to the guideline stating whether this kind of thing is included. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Auntof6, that's a good point. I'd be curious what others say about this.

I think all of us, in this context at least, were thinking about physical products. (I know I was, in making the proposal.) At English Wikipedia, "web content" (more or less = "websites" here) falls under the parallel rule (A7). Musical recordings have their own rule (A9). Other works of art/media do not seem to be eligible for speedy deletion there, though I presume they are eligible for PROD. It may be a good question whether or not works of art/media with no credible claim of notability ought to be eligible for QD, but I don't think that's the question being addressed here at all. (I'd be happy to include some language explicitly excluding such if it would make you more comfortable.)

The current example is, of course, a very specific physical product. But I'm inclined either to let the wording stay "products", where we know we mean physical products, or to change the wording to "physical products". I don't think we really need to say "specific physical products". "Specific" is just another criterion to parse, and doesn't directly have to do with notability. Instead, I think probably all articles about products are either (a) clearly notable, (b) contain a claim of notability that has to pass an RfD discussion, or (c) don't contain a claim of notability and are eligible for A4. I think that's really enough to go on here. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, so then "physical' as a defining word is a bit problematic. True, it is in the combined list of simple words, but our list links to a disambiguation page. We do have an article on "material" that seems apt. Adding the word "specific" makes it even murkier. 'Physical' has so many other similar sounding nuances. Just thinking out loud, really. Fylbecatulous talk 19:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Commercial product? Retail product? -DJSasso (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, of course I think products should be added to the list, and I think common sense is better than trying to define 'products'. However, I don't like the idea of having to contact users directly because it spoils the whole idea of QD, which is to make decisions prima facie, on the face of it, right away. The requirements for notability in QD are already very low indeed: all they have to do is claim. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point on that. Still, I'd prefer to keep the user contact in if possible, for reasons I have explained above. Let's face it: A4 is a little different from the other criteria. Other criteria cover cases that are always prima facie. A4 is more about cases that are a little better than blank or A1 pages, and possibly could become acceptable, but the article creator hasn't given us enough to go on. I guess I am consciously trying to give us something that is less burdensome on us than a full RfD, but still gives newbies an opportunity to learn how to do things the right way. QD-ing an honest effort will drive someone away, which is not what we're trying to do.

I do have an alternative idea, which I don't like as well, but will mention here. I could probably live with the idea that if an administrator comes across a potential A4, that the administrator should tag it and wait for a second administrator to come along and actually do the delete. In that case, the process wouldn't really be any more burdensome than if I tag the article and wait for an administrator to come along. This way, at least there is no A4 QD unless two pairs of eyes agree there is not even a credible claim. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already said I support this but here's a thought, make the proposal just the addition of the word "products" for now. Keep the change small and give it some time to see if it is being abused in any way. Then, if there is a problem, we can consider any additional remedies. Getting changes to a policy is a little like getting a bill through a legislature; the more things you tack onto it the less likely it is to pass. I know you're not asking for a lot here, but maybe baby steps is the way to go. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a useful way to look at it. Let's see what people say. If people resist the full 24-hour approach, what do you think of the idea two paragraphs up as a "suggestion" to administrators? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you mean the alternative idea, I think it might raise more objections than the first idea. Given that about half the active editors here are also administrators, I'd be sure this didn't impose more responsibilities on them, even small ones, without a perceived benefit. Keep in mind an administrator is already involved in the QD process. If something does get deleted a user still has recourse under a deletion review. Again, I think just proposing the addition of 'products' is enough for the present. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the addition of adding "products", I disagree with proposal #2 of adding a wait period. If we are going to add a wait period, it would take it form a QD to more or less a Prod like en wiki has, and that is another layer of things that are not necessary here, and goes against keeping all things simple, just not the language. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with leaving proposal #2 out if people prefer. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hello all, i think that one of the benefits of our current set of QD criteria is that they do not have inherent state: If an admin finds an article that meets one of the criteria, this admin can delete the article. For all deletions that require discussion, there is the RfD process, which takes a week. If we now go and introduce wait periods, we introduce state: An admin needs to be aware at what time the creator has been notified, and how long this article needs to stay on wiki, despite the fact that it violates one of the QD rules. On the other hand, we have templates to indicate that an article is being worked on. So in short: keep the change small, add "products", as proposed, and only discuss how to handle abuse when it actually happens.--Eptalon (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I also agree with adding "products" to the criteria, however it is defined. I do not agree with having any different wait, notification or discussion time than we do for other QDs. Any qualified editor can offer up an article for QD, notify the creator and any admin may quickly decide that they agree and delete (or not). This runs smoothly for all other articles under QD/A4. Fylbecatulous talk 16:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• agree with the addition of adding "products". Apparently any waiting periods are going to be problematic so just the change to "products" at this time. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely don't like the idea of a waiting period. However, I would like to take the time to remind admins that they should not be deleting their own speedies for non-show of notability. You should mark them as speedy for other admins to make the call. I way too often see admins deleting articles with that reason that do show claims of notability. Remember they don't have to prove notability they just have to say something that could make someone think they were notable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Mid-week checkpoint Mostly adding a divider here so it's easy to edit. But just as a checkpoint:

• I plan to leave the discussion here until 23:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC), one week from its posting.
• If things stay as they are now, there will be consensus to add "products", but not to add a waiting period.

StevenJ81 (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Background. I closed the preceding discussion after a week. There is clear consensus that proposal #2 not be adopted. It also seems to me there is consensus that proposal #1 be adopted, but there is still uncertainty as to exactly how to word it. So to focus further discussion:

Proposal: Rule A4 is changed to read as follows:

Is about people, groups, companies, [something?] products or websites that do not claim to be notable. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, [something?] product or web content that does not say why it is important. As long as the article says why the subject is important—and that reason could eventually be proved (or disproved)—the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead.

Changes from the current rule are underlined. Changes from the original proposal are in italics. I'll mention in passing that the "(or disproved)" was @Auntof6's suggestion, and a good one. I don't really think there was controversy over it.

The remaining substantive question is: Do we need a descriptor to modify or specify "product"? (That is, what is the "[something?]" above?)

• There were several suggestions above. The one that gained the most traction was that the rule read "physical product", to clearly differentiate this from an artistic or media "product". There were other suggestions, though, and I do not intend to exclude them by not repeating them here.

  A variation of the above might be a full sentence describing what "product" means, rather than just an adjective.

• There was also a feeling that a modifier might be unnecessary, in that "everyone knows what we mean by this", and adding additional layers of interpretation is not helpful to the quick-delete process.

May I please request further input on this specific question? Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The obvious counterpart to "product/s" is "service/s". By 'service' is meant a commercial or public service, not a religious service, nor a tea service! There may be no distinction between product and service, except that a product is almost always a physical object. A service is almost defined by not being a physical product. For example, companies that sell introductions usually describe their offer as a service. Likewise to products, a notable company might well have non-notable services. These would not be eligible for independent pages unless notability was a) claimed (saying why), and then b) established. The principle in both cases is the cut between the first step (eligible for QD), and the second step (eligible upon application for discussion). I would say, if we agree the principle, we tacitly agree the applications. Anyway, I suggest "products or services" as the phrase to be added. It won't concern me unduly if the services bit gets left out, but it seems logical to include it.

The idea that we include the "say why" clause was good, as also was the point that we can always return after some months if it seems right to do so. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I do not think any further modifier is necessary. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  I'm willing to make it "products or services", though—actually, I suppose grammatically it would be "... products, services or websites ..."—as Mac has a good point on that. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree to the proposal as worded with the exception of "[something]". Products and services are so closely aligned I don't think it is necessary to make an exact distinction. Products will do nicely. OK, "products, services" then. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• I would say the ambiguity is enough that maybe product should just not be included. Its not that much harder to throw it up on an Rfd. In most cases there isn't an issue with waiting the week to delete it. But I don't really care either way. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Agree to the addition of 'products' and 'services'. The addition of 'services' actually makes the concept clearer, I believe. I also think grammatically there is a problem with an awkward or unclear sentence if we place 'products or services' in the middle or just before 'or websites'. I like: An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, products, services or web content. Fylbecatulous talk 13:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of adding products and services. I'd still like clarity about whether this would apply to general articles about products/services (for example, car, personal assistant, etc.), specific products/services (for example, Toyota Corolla, Jane Doe's Help-U-Out), or both. Also, if the point about proving/disproving is because a false statement could be made that appears to support notability, it seems to me that it could be said more simply. Maybe change "and that reason could eventually be proved (or disproved)" to "whether or not the reason given is true"? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Hi, Aunt. Hope you had a good weekend.

  In principle, I think this could apply to general articles about products/services as well as articles about specific products/services. But in practice, as the article gets more general, the chance of it being QD'd by A4 goes down pretty sharply. If what DJsasso said up in the original discussion is in fact followed—admins don't delete their own speedies for A4—then every A4 is at least seen by two sets of eyes before deletion. Both reviewers (tagger and deleter) would have to agree that there was no claim. Neither would have had the ability to add a single sentence making a claim of notability, and so forth. That's enough, in my book. So I really doubt that an article of very general scope would be likely to qualify as an A4.

  If this is not working quite right one month down the road (or three), we can revisit whether or not we need more specificity. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Separately, concerning the other phraseology, I'm open to suggestions. The main point is what you said it was. But it's actually pretty hard to prove a lack of notability. One either proves notability, or fails to do so. Logically it's hard to prove the absence of notability.

  I'm not quite happy with your "whether or not the reason given is true," because the reason given may be subjective, and not really provable itself. ("I think it's important," to take a trivial example.) My original wording "... and that reason could eventually be proved" was meant to show that the claim is a statement of notability potentially capable of being proved, not simply a subjective opinion.

  Maybe a better approach is, "... and that reason can eventually be supported by reliable sources". That neatly take care of a few things:

  • It allows for the notability to be supported by opinion, if from reliable sources. (Toyota Corolla is described as important by Car and Driver and the Detroit Free Press.)
  • It excludes notability from editors' personal opinion (because unless you're the President of the United States, so to speak, your personal opinion is not supported by reliable sources).
  • It takes the "eventual showing of notability" back to the apppropriate standard: proved notable by reference to reliable sources.
  • It fully leaves intact the possibility of a later deletion by RfD because the notability was never in fact proved by reference to reliable sources.

  If so, the sentence would read

  As long as the article says why the subject is important—and that reason can eventually [is that word simple enough?] be supported by reliable sources—the article is not eligible for A4 deletion.

  I'm ok with this, if others are. If others prefer the current wording, or have suggestions of their own, please chip in. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  About the "can eventually be supported" part. Remember the claim does not have to be true to pass A4, it just has to be made. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Well, that's the question, right?

  The reason I added this sentence was to try to encourage article creators to place some credible claim in the article. I thought we needed to be more explicit about the fact that there had to be some stated claim there.

  I started out with "As long as the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion." Maybe that's enough. I went farther than that to exclude things like "Because I say so" or "It's the most awesome one ever" or similar blatant, inherently unsupportable editorial claims that do not protect an article from A4. I was really not trying to differentiate between credible claims that actually prove true and credible claims that actually prove false at this point. Those deserve RfD analysis.

  But maybe there is almost no such thing as "inherently unsupportable". Yes, "Because I say so" doesn't do the job. But maybe "It's the most awesome one ever," suitably cleaned up, is eventually supportable. So maybe all we can or should say is "As long as the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion." Maybe that's enough.

  Mostly, DJSasso, I want us to be able to QD-A4 articles like the one on top that just flat out say nothing. At the same time, I want us to tell new article creators what they need to do to make sure that doesn't happen. The question on this particular sentence isn't even about the "products"/"services" issue. Something like it should be in A4 anyway. Do you have a better idea how to say it? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, with: Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. As long as the article says why the subject is important—and that reason can be supported by reliable sources—the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. I don't think the addition of the word 'eventually' is necessary. User:Rus793 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Trial Close

Since there have been no (legitimate) edits now for 48 hours, and I can close this in another day, I'm just going to put up here where I think we are, based on this discussion, as well as a relevant parallel discussion at User talk:Auntof6#Checklist, punch list or decision tree.

• The relevant part of that discussion emphasizes that A4 is reserved for when there is no credible claim—the claim is absent. @Djsasso's point is that at the QD level, we normally don't evaluate claims, we just see if they're present. Yes, we can reject patently incredible or trivial claims ("because I said so"). But, to quote Djsasso, "If it is that hard to decide if it has crossed the line to making a credible claim then Rfd is the way to go."

In that light, the clause on asking for a credible claim can be limited to "As long as the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion." And then the entire, revised, A4 becomes:

StevenJ81 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with this, but prefer Rus' version of "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites". Why use specific terms like 'bands' and 'clubs' when you can say "groups"? Nor is it good to add "group of people" when that is what group means. Fewer words are better and clearer. Your second sentence about "say why" is good.
There remains the issue of whether the whole concept should be joined, as in: [shortened version] "A4. Articles may be deleted if they do not claim notability and say why. This applies to people, groups, companies, products, services or websites." Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that "band" and "club" were referring to fixed entities (musical groups, athletic organizations, fraternal/social organizations). I lifted the rest of the language from the current A4, and actually hadn't noticed that particular change that Rus made. I think for the moment I'd prefer to keep that language intact, so as to avoid confusion. ("Brickabrack F.C. isn't a group, it's a football club.") I'm not averse to a further discussion, but would like to close this change first.

Same is true of the idea of shortening/simplifying as you suggest; similar suggestions could be made of many of the rules. I think it's a worthy idea. But can we postpone that until we close this? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (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.

Suggestions of further modifications

The following section was copied from the end of the previous discussion. Deleted portions only referred to the previous discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with this [the version adopted just above—ed.], but prefer Rus' version of "people, groups, companies, products, services or websites". Why use specific terms like 'bands' and 'clubs' when you can say "groups"? Nor is it good to add "group of people" when that is what group means. Fewer words are better and clearer. [...]
There remains the issue of whether the whole concept should be joined, as in: [shortened version] "A4. Articles may be deleted if they do not claim notability and say why. This applies to people, groups, companies, products, services or websites." Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that "band" and "club" were referring to fixed entities (musical groups, athletic organizations, fraternal/social organizations). I lifted the rest of the language from the current A4, and actually hadn't noticed that particular change that Rus made. I think for the moment I'd prefer to keep that language intact, so as to avoid confusion. ("Brickabrack F.C. isn't a group, it's a football club.") I'm not averse to a further discussion [...].

Same is true of the idea of shortening/simplifying as you suggest; similar suggestions could be made of many of the rules. I think it's a worthy idea. [...] StevenJ81 (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

End of copy
This leaves two open points for potential discussion:

1. Should "band" and "club" be removed from A4 as unnecessary, as @Rus793 suggested? Should we simplify "group of people" the second time to "group", as @Macdonald-ross suggested?
2. Should A4 (and possibly others) be shortened along the lines that Mac has suggested?

StevenJ81 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would leave the wording alone on #1, for the reasons I said above. I might be ok with #2, but don't feel strongly. I am not prepared to take the lead on it. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would leave the wording alone. Group is far to generic. Band and club are meant to be very specific. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would also leave the wording alone as it is. Group does not always mean people; although that may be implied in this context. Bands are a particular problem area that crops up continually for lack of notabilty. Hence the wonderful "WP:GARAGE" from enwiki: en:WP:GARAGE. Clubs also stand, I imagine, for nightclubs, football clubs, the local Junior League... Fylbecatulous talk 18:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the last sentence "If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable..." is ambiguous (also a double-negative). Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "If someone adds a {{Wait}} template below the QD..." Otherwise the rest of the wording is fine. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  It isn`t actually a double negative. -DJSasso (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

  He's right, Rus, it's not a double negative. A double negative is something like "She isn't not going." Both negative words in that sentence apply to the same thing -- "going". In the sentence you mention, they apply to different things: one applies to everyone agreeing and the other applies to being notable. So two negatives, but not a double negative. It's also not ambiguous, but you are right that the wording could be simpler. Maybe "if anyone thinks the subject is notable". --Auntof6 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new template QD option: Navbox templates that don't navigate anything

I propose a new quick deletion option for templates. The new option would allow quick deletion of navigational box templates if the only links in the body are either red links or redirects to any blue links that might be in the labels. The reasoning is that navboxes are supposed to help readers navigate between related pages. If the pages being navigated don't exist, the template is not needed.

We have precedent for this. We had this successful RfD for this kind of thing earlier this year. We also have this current one that is due to be closed, and which has received all "delete" comments.

Please give your opinions and/or comments below. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Support: I don't see a reason for this not to be implemented. --  Kethrus |talk to me  01:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. See comment below. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose would mean people couldn't create them and then fill them in. People are too trigger happy with speedies here as it is. -DJSasso (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What if it the template had to be a certain age, maybe a day, week, month? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't be a quick delete anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would. I'm thinking such a template couldn't be nominated unless it had a certain age. If a template younger than a certain age were nominated, the QD could be declined -- I wouldn't want it to sit in the quick delete list waiting to be a certain age. "Quick delete" means it doesn't have to be discussed: it doesn't mean it has to be soon after creation. We already quickly delete older things sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick delete means it can be deleted with no strings attached, ie things that can't/don't need to wait the 7 days to be deleted. In other words it can be deleted the minute the QD tag is put on it. Can this not just be listed at RfD and then when the week is up they will just get deleted? I am not sure why the process already in place isn't good enough? Just because something is listed at RfD doesn't actually mean people need to comment on it. If the only person who commented is the nominator it will just be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick delete means it can be deleted with no strings attached if it meets one of the criteria. Not everything nominated for QD meets the criteria, even now, so QDs get declined. This would be no different. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do agree that many of these navbox templates aren't needed. However, we have a system in place to delete these now—RfD. If we were repeatedly backed up using the present RfD process, then perhaps there might be good reason. But we don't have that problem. If using RfD, any editor using navboxes to start a series of new articles has a reasonable seven days to show progress. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason we aren't backed up is that we don't look for these. I periodically look for them and find half a dozen in less than 10 minutes. The reason I don't do more at a time is so that RfD doesn't get overloaded. Doing them at RfD, it's a judgement call about which ones might warrant deletion. If we had a QD option, we'd have specific criteria under which they could be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You know you can put multiple templates in a single nomination right? So you wouldn't flood RfD. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have made multiple-page RfDs many times, for templates and other kinds of pages. The one I mentioned above as being current (which has since been closed) was a multiple-page one that I started. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dj. If the concern is that RfD seems to be too "blown out of proportion" for this, we could explore something like the proposed deletion system on EN. Chenzw  Talk  01:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to comment on the prod system idea I don't see a need to go that route since either way its sitting for a number of days before being deleted and adding another process would just be yet another place for admins to watch for things. -DJSasso (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't like to see us add another type of deletion, either. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I do still create new pages and, with the exception of Nobel Prize winners, very rarely use templates as a source of ideas for a new page. Many arrive on our wiki from editors who do no general editing on our pages, and are in no position to judge our needs. Many of them are left unedited, are far too large for our needs, and are left open on the pages instead of closed.
  It may be good to leave them up for a couple of days to see if the editor who brought them over is actually going to use them. I bet they don't, 19 times out of 20. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Could treat them like a category; they need at least three valid links to be useful, else they really are unnecessary.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

U5 (from enwiki): Blatant use of Wikipedia as a web host

I just marked, and Mac just deleted, a page that was blatant self-promotion (G11). It was in mainspace, as it happens. But we also get people creating such pages in their own userspace. en:WP:CSD#U5 is written to allow such pages to be QD'd, and is fairly narrowly construed. I wonder if others agree that U5 should be brought here. (I suppose the alternatives are [a] just calling them G11 and being done with them, and [b] figuring the volume is not that high, and just handling them through RFD. But I hate spending time on them.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion, though I must admit I do delete self-ad material from userspace as "improper use of user page or talk page" plus comment "we are not a free hosting site"! The advantage of having the suggested U5 is that it allows editors a simple way to draw attention to such cases. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Custom QD's

Why does Twinkle give you an option to use a custom QD reason (i.e. {{QD|reason}}) when they generally get denied for not meeting any of the given criteria? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Could use it to provide multiple allowed reasons. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What Steven said, and so you can explain how it meets a given QD. Although if it requires explanation it probably shouldn't be QDed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: New deletion reason for bad translations.

Hello all, I have recently seen a few pages that probably were the result of an automatic translation. These translations were not reviewed afterwards, and as a result, they turned out ot be very bad.I therefore think we should have a specific deletion reason to be able to delete such pages. I propose a wording in the style of "The page was translated using a tool, but the translation was not reviewed by an editor and is difficult to understand". What do you think?--Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "appears to have been translated by a tool without being reviewed", because we can't really be sure. And how about "and is difficult to understand or is not in simple language", so we could use it for pages that are in good English but not simplified from the original (such as content translator output)? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"The page is written in a form that is difficult to understand, probably because it was translated by a tool, and the translation was not reviewed"?--Eptalon (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Totally oppose this. We already delete too easily as it is. We cater to people who are ESL so we are inevitably going to have bad translations. The mantra should be fix, don't delete. I can't state how strongly opposed I am to this. It isn't hard to prune out all the really bad translation if needed leaving only a stub. There is no reason to totally delete. Even if there is, it should go to Rfd. More discussing deleting, less quick deleting. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Dj. This would open the floodgates to all sorts of arbitrary quick deletions. We should not be quick deleting articles due to low quality prose. Chenzw  Talk  16:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Low quality or poor translations by a human such as an ESL learner or English speaker learning another language are different from machine translations. The latter are easy to spot because of very predictable patterns or usages that follow rules but produce unnatural or incomprehensible language. (Repeated "It" in the subject is a dead giveaway from many languages that do not use subjects the way English does.) Potentially, an editor could run through a web translator and toss up more new pages or new sections of pages in ten minutes than we can really keep up with. In that case it seems QD for vandalism would apply. From Wikipedia:Vandalism, "vandalism is when a user makes changes to pages that make the page incorrect and not make sense." (emphasis mine) If an editor pops up one new machine translated page it may be possible to cut back to a stub as Dj suggests, but I don't think we want to encourage machine translation. Leaving any machine-translated content in this wiki does a disservice to ESL learners who may try to read it without recognizing it as unreadable. Gotanda (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That still requires a value judgement on the page, and value judgements have no place in quick deleting, that is the domain of Afd. I have no problem with those sorts of pages ending up deleted, its the use of quick deletion that is very bad especially when this has only come up maybe once in my 10+ years on this wiki, its not like we will be over burdening Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per DJ. The only time I'd ever agree to a QD in a case like this is if the translation is really gibberish. And if it is, there are other grounds for QD. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Checklist for what extras might need to be deleted

As mentioned on the admins noticeboard, it might be helpful to have a checklist of what to look for when deleting a page, in case there are things besides the nominated page that need to be deleted. I know I've missed some of these, and I've seen others miss them, too. Here is a start on such a checklist:

• The page's talk page (unless deleting a user page). Note that after deleting a page, the software lets us know when there is a talk page.
• Template subpages, including doc page, sandbox, test cases, and others
• Category redirects and regular redirects that link to the page. The regular redirects can be caught later at Special:BrokenRedirects, but the orphaned category redirects can't be.

Can anyone think of anything else? I don't know where the best place is to keep the checklist, so make suggestions about that, too. Should it be another link on the request page along with the links for talk, history, etc.? Should it be on the deletion policy page? Somewhere else? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Aunt. My two cents:

• I think deleting admins should probably (often) check [[Special:WhatLinksHere/...]]. Per our approach here, it's often fine to leave redlinks behind. But in other cases such pages being deleted are for topics that are not likely to become notable in the near- to mid-term future, so leaving a redlink behind would "falsely" encourage recreation of a page on a non-notable subject. Additionally, such incoming links may sometimes reveal other possible deletion candidates. Deleting admins' choice what to do about such cases, of course, but checking is probably a good idea.
• I think if a user page represents a spam-only account, and if the user talk page consists only of a welcome template (and perhaps the RfD notice for the user page), it can be deleted, too. User talk pages of substance, of course, can't be deleted. But I don't see such user talk pages as being of substance, especially if they are IP user talk pages. (I delete such user talk pages on Incubator.)
• I think the location for the checklist should either be the deletion policy page (new level 2 section at the end) or alternatively a subpage of the deletion policy page, with a new level 2 section on the deletion policy page itself saying something to the effect of "Deleting administrators should consult [[/Deletion checklist|this checklist]] for collateral items to check when deleting pages." StevenJ81 (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

1) The main reason for suggesting a checklist is that some things that should be deleted can't be found by looking at what links to the page. If they could be, we'd see them when we look at the links. I included the things that do link to the page just to be complete.

2) User talk pages: No, we don't delete these unless the only content has been vandalism. Also, the ones for IP addresses are not handled differently. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

G1 (Nonsense)

Hello all, our G1 doesn't say anything about user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace. Per Enwp, "It does not cover poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism or hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material. Nor does it apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace." So, I would like to suggest adding "It doesn't apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace." Thanks-BRP ^ever 15:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am in favor of this proposal. Vermont (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This would prevent using this option in userspace? I'd support that. In fact, I'd do the same with G2. You might want to mention this discussion at Simple talk, because few people are likely to notice it here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well...shouldn't apply to users' own creations in userspace. Potentially they should still apply to others' creation of userspace pages ... unless you figure G3 (or something else) would always apply in those cases. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we can either move it to the userspace of the creator or delete it per G6 (housekeeping). That can be done depending on the creator (registered or unregistered). If the creator is registered we can move the page, if not we can delete the page per G6.-BRP ^ever 14:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Works for me, @BRPever, but probably we should put a little note that if someone adds it to "someone else's" userspace page, it could be moved or deleted on other grounds. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

House keeping is only for things like deleting maintenance categories when the maintenance is done. It isn't a catch all. U1 applies to stuff in their own userspace, things in others userspace need to for to Rfd. (We treat what would go to Mfd on en.wiki the same as any other deletion here and send them to Rfd) -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

reword of u2

Would this be better:

1. Non-existent users. User pages or user talk pages of users who don't exist. This also applies to user pages (but not user talk pages) of IP addresses.

I feel like it captures the QD more accurately Computer Fizz (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I think what we have is fine. This is more wordy and less simple and poor grammar having parenthesis. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DJ on this one with respect to wording.

That said, U1 says, "User pages can be deleted if its user wants to, but there are some exceptions." But then it doesn't say what the exceptions are. We should probably do something about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

One exception was user talk pages that had ever had real talk on them (as opposed to just vandalism or something like that), but a while back a (registered) user challenged that and got their talk page deleted anyway. I believe their argument was that such exception wasn't documented in policy. So maybe there are no exceptions now. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe we should re-establish such exceptions. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It is documented here, we say they are usually not deleted, while we don't specify the times when we do, that is usually restricted to vandalism/spam only on the talk page. Talk pages most definitely do not get deleted and it needs to be undeleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

New Critiera: Bad Disambiguation pages

They don't fall under categories, so I think that we should revise the QD options to include bad disambiguation pages/unnecessary ones. Just in case vandals create them. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like this would fall under G1 or A1. Can you give an example where those criteria would not be applicable? Because it seems that anything else would be legitimate content. Chenzw  Talk  16:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages that don't redirect with anything, since disambiguations fall between pages and categories for me. Or unneeded ones, since sometimes the disambiguation pages aren't really necessary. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad redirects potentially qualify as R3 (disambiguation pages should not be redirects, anyway). As for "unnecessary", that is subjective and should be highlighted for discussion at RfD, unless you are referring to something like Madrid (disambiguation), in which case G2 and/or A1 would work, given that anonymous editor's history. Chenzw  Talk  16:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also want to point out here that quick deletion is for uncontroversial cases. When we throw in adjectives such as "unnecessary" and "unneeded", that implies some form of value judgment. From an editorial perspective, it is not up to a single administrator to decide whether a page should be deleted because they believe it to be unnecessary, because not everyone necessarily shares the same opinion. Chenzw  Talk  16:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)