Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Merge

Given that CSD I8 has been modified quite a while ago to allow immediate deletion, I suggest we merge Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to streamline and facilitate such deletions. Comments welcome. (cross-posted here, CAT:NC, CAT:NCT, and CAT:CSD) —kurykh 19:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any real problem here. Xclamation point 21:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, CAT:NCT is out of control. Conscious (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - less is more when it comes to different places to go to find CSD candidates. Happy‑melon 09:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do I8 deletions at all? Doesn't help us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have implemented this proposal, but it was reverted. Conscious (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin fix the template for A7?

The text that gets transcluded by {{db-bio}}("This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible for this criterion.") does not include the words "organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content", which are present in the policy, so the tag is thoroughly confusing for a newcomer. VG ☎ 17:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

db-bio is for use on biographies. For others, use {{db-a7}}, {{db-org}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-web}} etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, {{db-a7}} is the 'main' template for the A7 criterion, not {{db-bio}}. {{db-bio}}, {{db-org}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-corp}}, {{db-web}} etc are all versions that use more specific wording for specific types of articles. You shouldn't put, for instance, {{db-bio}} on an article about a website - either use {{db-web}} or the general {{db-a7}}. Happy‑melon 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess Twinkle needs to be fixed then. It puts a {{db-bio}} whenever I choose a A7, even though the explanatory text in Twinkle's message box correctly reflects the current A7 criteria. Thanks for the detailed explanation. VG ☎ 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the explanatory text that needs to be changed. This selection should still insert db-bio. There are other selections for the other A7 categories. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a display of the speedy selection box. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that. Try it and let me know (I don't use Twinkle myself, so can't check). Happy‑melon 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now it doesn't work at all. I stays stuck trying to read tags from the page. The other TW A7 criteria radio boxes work though. Also see: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Bugs#TW-B-192_.28open.29 VG ☎ 01:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles on recent financial market crashes

Draft proposal "Articles purportedly about a recent financial market crash should be speedily deleted unless they include a verified quote that there has actually been a financial crash from an exceptionally reliable source in financial journalism, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Economist, or the New York Times."

Rational - Twice this year, we've had articles stating that a financial crash is currently happening. Compare the recent renamed version January 2008 stock market volatility with The same day version [1] and notice that the crash stuff is mainly given via templates at the bottom of the article. See also Talk:Black Monday (September 2008). People tend to panic when markets are volatile, and our editors are no different, so this type of article can be expected to reappear on a regular basis. But financial market crashes only appear 4-5 times per century. This would be no problem, except that, when we have an article saying that a financial crash is currently happening we are potentially multiplying that panic, and costing our readers a lot of money, as well as lowering our credibility.

I'm not saying that there should never be articles on financial crashes, only that we get an exceptionally reliable source to say that there is a crash, which in effect will give us a full day to think about it (and not panic). Another reason to use exceptionally reliable sources is that headline writers at lower quality sources use the words "crash" or "Black Monday" without backup in the article, or that the writers will state something like "so-and-so thinks this might be a crash." The exceptionally reliable sources (above) have been through real crashes (and non-crashes) and know the potential problems on panic and credibility, thus do not use the term "crash" lightly.

Why speedly deletion? Going through the regular deletion process would take several days, by which time the non-crash is over, but any reader who put their trust in us has already panicked and lost money, and Wikipedia has lost any credibility on financial articles.

Smallbones (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. This is not a good idea. First off, it opens the door for speedy criteria of the sort "does not include sources", which is not and never will be a speedy criterion. Second, twice a year is far, far away from often enough to make a special speedy criterion worth everyone's collective while. Third, we've got disclaimers for a reason. People shouldn't be coming to Wikipedia for advice of any sort, be it financial, medical, legal, or anything else. You should try going to for speedy closes at AfD, or else PROD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Again AfD will be too slow. Remember people are panicking and there will be some controversy. Financial markets are different from most subjects of Wikipedia articles - lots of money is involved, and people panic. Of course people know that they shouldn't trust financial advice from Wikipedia - but in a panic situation, many are likely to forget that. Also please note, this proposal is not so much about deletion, but about a one day delay. How else to realistically stop this type of article? Or is it just not important enough? Smallbones (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any moral duty to keep the markets from crashing. Besides, I doubt that "Wikipedia spreads panic on Wall Street" is ever going to be a headline in any serious publication, especially when that gigantic red tag appears at the top of any Wikipedia article going through AfD. VG ☎ 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, those articles should be deleted on sight as WP:OR. Encyclopedia articles can't be written without reliable secondary sources. lk (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't speedy delete articles because they are original research. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the benefit here. If somebody is going to make a poor financial decision based solely on an unsourced Wikipedia article with a big red deletion discussion notice at the top of it, well, you just can't protect people from their own stupidity sometimes. And the idea that such an article could actually precipitate a crash is a notion I find ludicrous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a long time watcher of the financial pages, I would agree with the sentiment behind this proposal. Whenever the markets get volatile, we see a bunch of WP:RECENTISM get dressed up in a full-fledged article. I'm not sure that speedy deletion is always the right course here, but I do think there should be some firmer guideline about notability in these cases. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I have proposed such a guideline. Ronnotel (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good speedy-deletion criterion but this is an excellent example of why we need to beef up WP:NOTNEWS (or at least begin to enforce it better). Wikipedia should not make the mistake of trying to "scoop" anyone. Encyclopedias have the luxury of being able to wait for perspective. We sacrifice that advantage when we start to think that we're also newspapers. People who desperately want to write these 'breaking news' articles should be politely pointed to our sister project, WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the proposed guideline, but frankly this and a couple of essays aren't enough. How can we keep editors from panic-pushing? The question is not "will wikipedia precipitate a stock market crash?" but "When should an encyclopedia say that there is a crash going on now, which may contribute to a general panic?" I say that Wikipedia should never do this, it's simply unencyclopedic and it may cause (or contribute to) harm to its readers. Do please note that the January 21 "crash" was linked to from the main page for a week (even though the market went up during that time). This type of thing just makes Wikipedia look stupid. So far the only practical suggestion I see here is to put up a big red template on the page saying "this article is up for deletion." I'd like to be able to do something more than that! Smallbones (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, see the third point about proposed criteria at the top of this page. Your proposal will not arise frequently, and therefore should not be one of the listed CSD. Feel free to make use of the template {{db}}, however, as I believe a good case could be made for WP:IAR. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The third point - frequently is a relative concept, so please excuse me if I didn't know exactly what was meant. Actually I think that since it might be used a couple of times per year rather than everyday would make the application of this much easier. Rule 3 seems to be written more for administrator convenience, than for solving a real problem. I'd like to solve a real problem.

I still don't understand the suggestion. I'm supposed to put up the {{db}} template, fill in the reason with WP:IAR and presumably text similar to what I've put on this page, and then you will speedily remove the article? I'm guessing it wouldn't work that way. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is written because speedy deletion is designed only to work in incredibly obvious and uncontroversial places, and is supposed to take loads off of [{WP:PROD|PROD]] and AFD, where the articles would also be deleted. If it's not going to take a substantial load off of either of those processes, there's no need not to use them. Still, we've got WP:IAR for a reason, and we haven't deleted {{db}} for a reason. Creating a specific disclaimer to put at the top of the article/talk page isn't a bad idea either. I'd suggest heading elsewhere to see if those are acceptable, to get a wider audience. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Write a {{do not panic; markets will rebound}} template if that makes you happy. VG ☎ 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't appreciate the attempt at humor. As far as "Wikipedia doesn't have any moral duty" from above, I think you're blowing this way up - instead of "moral duty" I'd rather talk about "common decency" or maybe just a simple rule like "an encyclopedia should attempt to tell the truth."

Please consider the following situation: You work with an organization that regularly misleads its customers in a way that may cost its customers money, without in any way benefiting the organization. Wouldn't you think it best for both the customers and the organization, that you make an attempt to correct this situation? That's all I'm trying to do here. If anybody has a positive suggestion, please let me know. Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Smallbones, but I can see that the Speedy Deletion criteria, in order to function on a project wide basis, need to be kept manageable, general and few. I'd also be extremely reluctant to beef up NOTNEWS type restrictions in the speedy deletion criteria, because writing high-quality encyclopedia articles based off current events is something that Wikipedia does better than anyone in the world. Many editors, unfortunately, don't understand the difference between encyclopedia articles based off current events and news articles. In the specific case of sudden stock market volatility, I'd think a better approach would be a smart, and simple, guideline. 1) Wikipedia generally has articles on a variety of economic trends. When somebody starts Black Sunday (Nikkei) Dollar Crash or something, it would be better to swiftly redirect this to somewhere like U.S. National Debt (or whatever the cause). The problem with speedy deletion is that people are going to add the information somewhere. This week's Dow dive showed up in several different articles. And CSD doesn't get at the real problem, whereas a guideline could. So, 2) the guideline should spell out not to use phrases like crash or panic anywhere without the sort of sourcing Smallbones outlined. It could also provide better guidance on dealing with market volatility in general. I'd think if we write this guideline we could get consensus for it, and then bring it to the attention of enough editors who are familiar with markets. I do think we can address the problem without adding a CSD criteria. Not sure the next step here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just no on this proposal - it's true that the financial market may respond adversely to misinformation. By the same token, people may get bad advice about medicine or their health from Wikipedia, or even commit murder based on misinformation they read on Wikipedia. These people are responsible for their own actions. Recentism is a problematic phenomenon in many ways, but it is also in the heat of the moment that many of the details about a topic are most easily available, and that many editors are willing to commit resources to expansion in that area. We currently take advantage of the recentism tendency to create detailed articles that later get pared down to essential information. This is better than hoping to locate this essential information after the event has passed, and I believe ought to be encouraged as an effective wiki-style methodology. Dcoetzee 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

New Speedy criteria proposal

• An article may be speedily deleted if it only contains information that is already contained in an existing article, there is no content to merge, and the title would make an implausible redirect.

The wording of that sucks, but the idea is, well, pages like this. It's an exact copy/paste of another article (Huzzah), right down to the reference numbers. The other type of pages I've seen that fit this mold are pages where someone has started an article without knowing there is an existing article, and the name happens to be an implausible redirect...in the past, I've actually been able to get some of those deleted under R3 criteria, but it doesn't seem right.

Again, the wording of my proposal sucks, but the concept is, quite simply, that if the info is already on Wikipedia, it should be able to be speedily deleted because no reasonable person should have an objection to it...seeing how the info will still be on Wikipedia. Comments? --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The articles like the one you pointed to as an example fall squarely into the category of vandalism (G3, misinformation). A complete copy-paste would fall under G6, since there is no obvious need to keep it, and it probably violates the GFDL. Beyond those, I don't really think there is a need for a broader class of speedies. An article that is only a partial copy paste, but not obvious vandalism, could just be the start of a spin-off (see WP:SUMMARY). Someguy1221 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone took the time to create a duplicative article at a different title, my first thought is that it's probably a plausible redirect candidate - maybe just following a title logic that's not immediately obvious to me but that might be very obvious to someone else. Speedy-deleting those good-faith contributions will will result in one of two outcomes. Either the newcomer will see that their new page was deleted and feel bitten or they will incorrectly think that our database is unstable and "ate" their contribution - leading them to repost it, have it speedy-deleted again and the situation escalates from there. A redirect solves that problem neatly by pointing the new contributor to the right page where their contributions will be appreciated.
If the duplicate title is blatantly inappropriate or if the page truly is an exact duplicate and it's apparent that the user must have copied the text from an existing Wikipedia, then you have a probable case of vandalism on your hands. (Note, however, that merely being a copy-paste may not be proof of bad-faith. A new editor might have copy-pasted the text from one of the many Wikipedia clones without recognizing that we were the original source of the text.) The vandalism charge can often be verified by investigating the creator's contribution history. If it's substantiated as vandalism, that's already speedy-deletable without creating a new CSD criterion.
I think that once you weed out the vandalism cases, there's not enough need for a new CSD criterion. Rossami (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this proposal, someone in the midst of expanding content from an article into a new article may be find a speedy delete on their new article. Ouch. --Una Smith (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All these proposals require too much consciousness on the part of contributors. I see a trend here to shift from writing rules for speedy deleters (yourselves) to follow, toward writing rules for everyone else to follow, if they want to protect their work from being speedy deleted. --Una Smith (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Template for declined G4s

I so commonly have to tell new newpages patrollers that G4 doesn't apply to article only previously speedily deleted that I created a template to save time. I imagine others have similar experiences so please see {{notg4}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also {{sdd}}, {{sdd2}}, and {{sdd3}} which provide more general templates for why a speedy deletion was declined; these require parameters though. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new category

I'd like to suggest a new category for speedy deletion: "no assertion of reality". I have come across a few articles that have been written by a single author and that serve to propose their own invention, society, etc. They make no assertion that the subject actually exists or is known to others, but mistakenly create articles all the same.

This is not vandalism as it is meant in good faith, and nor is it a hoax as that would imply an attempt to give the impression that the subject is real. It has elements of Original Research, Vandalism, Hoax, Advertising (self promotion), No Assertion of Notability and Nonsense, but doesn't quite fit into any or those categories.

I'm not happy with my use of the word reality to describe such articles. I'm not contending articles on sujects of disputed reality (God, Soul, etc), nor articles on fictional subjects (Captain Jack Sparrow; Captain Ahab). Even though contentious or fictional, at least the thought of these subjects is genuine, and information can be distilled into an artcle.

In practice, I've nominated such articles for speedy deletion anyway, and admins have been kind enough to bend the rules. I've also explained the issue on the authors' userpages. However, I'd like to check that there is agreement that such articles are CSD.

swyves201.230.43.196 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to call these "coherent nonsense." They usually snowball at AFD very quickly, although many of them happen to fall into a speedy criterion by describing a group or something. I'm just not sure this can really be pinned down accurately enough for CSD. The criteria here are supposed to be at least remotely objective. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good term! My key defining feature is that there is no assertion of non-nonsense-ness (say that ten times fast). If the article is purporting to be about something real, it deserves a fair shot, but you do sometimes see articles that are written as first proposals. It's almost a "no assertion of notability", if you really strain the definition of notbility. These things would generally be notable if they weren't figments of their authors' imaginations. But then.... 201.230.43.196 (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose making such articles CSD, There have been too many cases of one person writing a wholly inadequate article not explaining the notability in an adequate way, and it turning out that, yes, its actually well known to people who know the subject and there are sources if one actually looks. A common example of this is college students writing an article about their instructor, saying what courses he teaches & how good he is at it, and it turns out he's famous as a scientist, only they don't know it. Now those are A7s, and some get deleted because people don't know, but usually not , because its easy for an admin to check sources. Other topics are harder. The list of topics is deliberately restricted to those where one person can easily tell even without special knowledge. The only check against deletions on Ineverheardofit is exposure to the community. That's the purpose of prod and afd. There are not enough definable groups to make a list that would not be subject to overuse. As it is, I'd support removing companies and groups in favofr of specific sorts of groups. The proposal is going in the wrong direction. DGG (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this CSD proposal even is about, but it's fair to say that "when in doubt, take it to AfD instead of CSD" is a good principle. The concerns here seem to revolve around a certain type of WP:OR articles that are not obvious hoaxes. These articles constitute a tiny minority of the stuff sent to AfD, so devising a new speedy criteria for them is IMHO a waste of time. VG ☎ 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - after all, many of our articles - including some of our featured articles - are about fictional characters. There's no easy way to tell whether an article is about something that is a figment of the author's imagination, or is the figment of many people's imaginations. Dcoetzee 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would articles like this be covered under such a category? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, already speedied it. In my view articles which give a biography where all the events are clearly fantastic (eg claiming to be the President of non-existent countries, to have invented impossible devices, or like here where every date is decades in the future) are already speediable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fails points 1, 2, and 4 at the top of this page. Anything that's clearly a hoax is speediable under G3, and anything that may or may not be a hoax should not be speedied. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel an obligation to add a qualifier to Stifle's comment. Just because you think something is clearly a hoax or has "no assertion of reality", you should still send it to AfD in almost all cases. Our history at the project has shown that as individuals we are not very good at telling the hoaxes from the poorly written or especially obscure but true topics. When we decide as a group (the AfD process), our success rate is much higher. Speedy can, of course, be justified if you see a pattern of vandalism in the editor's contribution history. Rossami (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on G11

I'm not exactly understanding the second sentence of this criterion: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Can someone explain that? MuZemike (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the intent is to distinguish between verifiable (as in, a product exists) and notable (as in, someone other than you cares). --Una Smith (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every article about a company or product is blatant advertising. I think that's all it wants to say. --Amalthea^Talk 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IBM, as a random example. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or as products go Windows 98 would not speedable. --70.24.176.182 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. So in other words, it's a failsafe to prevent dubious/bad faith G11 taggings of notable company/product articles. Is that right? MuZemike (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost, but I would not assume bad faith in those tagging. It is to prevent over-eager tagging of new articles, in most cases created by users with a conflict of interest. So it says: Just because it's about a company or product and sounds like an advertisement, it does not mean it can be speedy deleted. That's why the word blatant is included and that's why {{ad}} exists. G11 is just for such cases when there would be no article left if you cut all the POV and ads. SoWhy 07:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short time after G11 was implemented (pretty much handed down from the foundation, although speedy deletions of obvious spam was commonplace already), one administrator went ahead and deleted dozens of articles on cookie brands, even though the general consensus was that the articles were not spammy. DRV discussion. The qualifier in the current text is probably to preempt that interpretation of G11, and that it is pages which try to market or advertise a product, as opposed to merely describing a product, which can be G11-ed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

not quite, it is, according to WP:CSD: Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.. In practice, if the product is reasonably notable, the promotional part can often be removed. A great deal can be done by simply deleting addresses and phone numbers and names of minor officers--and unsupported blurbs. If there is an informative core, it is not a speedy. DGG (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the emphasis DGG put here. For example, here's an article that I don't think it's advertisement, even though some other editors do think it is. Had this been speedily deleted as advertisement, I wouldn't have gotten the chance to add those references (I didn't touch its contents otherwise). The article might still be deleted, but at least it got debated seriously. CSD#A7 should be used when it's obvious that the company/product would have a hard time being notable, and no notability claims are made. For companies this generally applies to mundane local shops, e.g. a parking lot or a cell phone dealer would have a hard time justifying notability, so in the absence of any claim for extraordinary fame, I'd speedy it as A7. CSD#G11 is for those cases that could otherwise survive the A7 test based on advert-like claims, e.g. "the cheapest parking lot in the area", "has the best deals on XZY", or "fast-growing startup". While these are claims for notability, and may even be verifiable, they are obviously adverts and have no encyclopedic value. If the only claims to fame are of this variety, G11 seems the most appropriate way to rid Wikipedia of those articles. Similar examples can be given for products. Basically when some product is fungible, I'd expect some references or at least a claim about that it stands out somehow, or else I'd speedy it as A7. However, G11 type claims can be made about products too: "the yummiest cookies", "the screwdriver recommended by experts" (without saying who they are) etc. A more subtle form advertisement is encountered is some WP:COATRACK articles; these are not always speedily deleted. A recent example was Freelance_Academic_Assistants, a notion which was made up to promote certain sites and services. For articles with claims that are not of the garden variety of advertisement, AfD is the safer recourse, because when WP:DELSORTed properly, an article usually attracts knowledgeable editors. VG ☎ 06:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

an additional advantage of afd, is the possibility of removing repeats with G4. spam of this sort, in my experience, tends to repeat. DGG (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course first person plural is is an obvious G11. If I see "WE", it's G8+3. (unless an unknown king is writing about himself then it's A7) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

as I see it, FPP is more likely an indication of copypaste, and can generally be removed easily enough if that's the only problem. Remember the option of stubbifying. DGG (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Slight) expansion of G4?

Editor !votes "Redirect" in an AfD discussion, but discussion is closed as "Delete." Despite this, same !outvoted editor recreates the deleted page as a Redirect to some other page. Shouldn't the recreated page be subject to a G4 speedy, because it is contrary to the result of the deletion discussion? UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, not really, although this has always been a gray area. Deletion does not imply salting, and recreation of deleted titles in a form not substantially similar to the deleted version is generally allowed. The exception would be if there's an explicit prior consensus that the title should not be redirected, either in the form of a RfD discussion or as a clear and unambiguous consensus among those commenting on the AfD. Someone merely !voting "delete" in an AfD discussion should not, in itself, be taken as an objection to redirection: it is just as likely to simply mean "the content on that page sucks, get it off Wikipedia". If there's any doubt, I'd recommend simply RfD'ing the redirect. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, redirects are cheap. If it is a likely search term, it gives a subtle nudge to new editors (more than the edit notices do, honestly) that the community has already looked at the article, as they are delivered to a parent article when they type in the previously deleted one. And plenty of fictional character AfD's end in "delete and redirect over deleted article" to leave the redirect but prevent editors from just reverting it to bring the article back. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if there are speedy deletions for redirects if needed. But I agree with Ilmari Karonen, if redirects were not specifically discussed in that AfD but just overlooked, there is nor harm in having them :-) SoWhy 07:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ilmari on this one. The CSD only covers deletions of substantially identical material. The consensus for or against the redirect is a separate issue. Frequently redirects do get discussed in deletion discussions, and contributors generally ought to respect that, but there's no speedy recourse if they don't. Dcoetzee 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a logical article to redirect to, there's generally not a compelling reason to delete the revisions. If any of the content is merged, the revisions ought to be undeleted to preserve at least some form of attribution as required by the GFDL (yes there are other ways, but they tend to be non-standard and quite ugly). Plus as a practical matter, any editor scrutinizing the merged content has a legitimate need to see who contributed what prior to the merge. — CharlotteWebb 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate articles - ineligible for speedy?

A new user created FORMOZA and FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia (the content is ripped off [2] which is copyrighted and allows use with attribution, but it's not the point). I cannot find the appropriate CSD for removing the duplicate - is there such a thing? Is G6 applicable? NVO (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've used G6 in the past for duplicates where both were introduced by the same author and have (almost) identical content, and one of the topic names was not useful as a redirect, yes.
In my early days, I've also first converted one into a redirect to the other, and then marked it as a R3 misnomer/implausible typo, but I don't think that's the way to go. ;) --Amalthea^Talk 11:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would redirect one to the other as redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If the copy is exactly the same (and the new name not worth a redirect, i.e. completely non-sensical), it might be deletable as G2 (if the user is new and such does not know about moving or cannot do so due to not being autoconfirmed) or G3 if there is reason to assume bad faith. But I think Amalthea is correct in this case to apply G6, I cannot see any reason for controversy. I think redirecting FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia to FORMOZA creates a redirect deletable as R3 in FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia because I cannot see any reason why anyone should search that term. On a side note, i think deletion of non-redirect-worth-copies should be included into G6's definition. SoWhy 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Being an unlikely search term isn't even a valid reason for regular deletion much less for speedy-deletion. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Unless there is evidence of bad-faith in the user's contribution history (in which case G3 applies), the project is better off just making the page into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How does that redirect help searching for the article? As far as I know it only helps if you type the exact article name?
As far as I can tell the article creator copied the title "FORMOZA - Navy Special Forces based in Gdynia" from the article Polish Special Forces. I don't see that it is related to a full name of those forces, and would have filed it as an obscure synonym (WP:R#D7) at best. --Amalthea^Talk 14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from the article space R2

Is CSD R2 limited to redirects from the article space only? If so, then the language should be revised to read something like:

Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space only. Other cross namespace redirects are not eligible for deletion by this criterion.

This would help clarify R2's application. -- Suntag ☼ 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's plausible that an essay or something could be moved from project space to user space and the redirect deleted afterwards. Hut 8.5 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, even likely that such a page would be moved and the redirect deleted but that would generally be with the author's consent (in which case G7 applies). Otherwise, essays are so frequently moved from the Wikipedia space to user space and back that the redirects are generally left alone. If you don't you risk breaking literally thousands of talk-page links. R2 definitely should never be applied to those redirects. R2 is carefully and deliberately worded to be restricted to article-space. Rossami (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)