Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

message: Hi. I'm proposing that a new criteria be added for speedy deletion of drafts, which are duplicated by an existing, rejected draft. Any thoughts? User:CanonNi (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just redirect rather than deleting. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:SRE.   Rejected draft?  Redirect to the rejected draft.  Do not review, using AfC tools or otherwise, a content fork.  If your redirecting is reverted, take it to MfD.  Only MfD could generate compelling data to support a WP:NEWCSD for draftspace, like it did for G13. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with the others here. Redirecting requires no criterion and usually works. Same for drafts that duplicate an existing article (and are not someone actively working on an improvement to that article). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: This isn't necessary. If it's a duplicate of another draft just redirect or merge them, if it's a duplicate of an article (and not an attempt to improve it) then redirect to that article. If it's actively causing problems for some reason, and doesn't somehow meet an existing criterion, then explain that at MfD. In every other case, doing anything other than waiting for G13 is a waste of time and effort. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: new criteria for duplicate drafts 

message: Imagine that I create User talk:Nyttend/subpage.  Assuming that there's no problem with the content I put on the page, it's a perfectly fine page; we wouldn't delete it on G8 merely because User:Nyttend/subpage doesn't exist.  Now, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with problematic content, e.g. blatant spam.  Someone comes around and deletes it.  Should the talk page be deleted (because it's the talk page of a deleted page), or should it remain (because it's a valid subpage in userspace), or is this something we should just leave up to admin judgement?
Also, imagine that I create User:Nyttend/subpage with the content #REDIRECT ebwtriypnry0tiw5mr4te5, or I create the page with valid content and then replace it with the broken redirect.  G8 (redirect to nonexistent page), or keep (established user's subpage), or admin judgement?
This just now came to mind as I was deleting spam in userspace; I deleted User talk:BassettHousePic/sandbox after deleting User:BassettHousePic/sandbox, and I'm not sure this is always right.  Here it was (the user's been spamblocked and has no other edits), but that won't always be the case, especially if the userpage is deleted via U1.  Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually end up deleting the user talk subpages, and mostly consider it a bug that the "G8: Talk page of a deleted page" option doesn't appear in the deletion dropdown and that there isn't a link to the talk page from the post-deletion screen.  I guess the distinction is that User talk:Nyttend/Archive 42 is primarily a subpage of User talk:Nyttend; while User talk:Nyttend/spam sandbox, which typically consists of wikiproject templates from the article creation wizard, would primarily be the talk page of User:Nyttend/spam sandbox.For a U1, or other ambiguous cases where the deletion would be unobjectionable to the page owner, I'd probably leave a note on their talk page or maybe in the deletion log to ask for deletion of the user talk subpage separately if desired.  It hasn't come up. —Cryptic 00:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd perhaps say user talk pages should be an exception (as opposed to only archives of talk pages) to G8. Crouch, Swale (talk)  06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Hmm, my impression has always been that "User talk pages" in the "not eligible for G8" list only applies to the main user talk page and equivalents, i.e User talk:Nyttend, but not automatically every talk page of a page in the user namespace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's always been my impression too. Obviously there will be some exceptions (e.g. a theoretical user talk:Thryduulf/Subpage/Archive 1) that require admin discretion. The easiest (but non-ideal) ways to resolve this are probably using the  template proactively, and having a very low bar to restoration when asked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8 conflict? 

message: So, this is something I've seen happen in some cases, usually involving inexperienced editors who have just gotten autoconfirmed.
First there is the instance I've dealt with, where an article is draftified (when I've done it, it's usually for lacking references) and the author immediately recreates it by either moving it or, more often, by copy-paste. I haven't seen  an exact consensus on what to do in this instance. Some have said db-copypaste might apply, but not all admins will delete in this instance. The other options would be re-draftify, PROD, or AfD.
The other instance would be declined or rejected AfC submissions that are moved or copied to mainspace without improvement. My understanding is that declined AfC pages that are resubmitted without improvement are usually summarily declined. If a submission is declined multiple times, that would indicate consensus that the page, in its present state, is unsuitable to be an article, putting it in a similar position to a page that meets G4. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think straight to AfD is usually the right choice. If it has already been moved to mainspace after a decline, there's strong reason to believe a prod would be contested. And as a contested deletion, it's not really a good candidate for a speedy deletion. That said, AfD is not mandatory. It happens that the draft reviewer can be wrong. Only take to AfD if you still believe it is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unfortunate since AfD takes up a lot more editor time than CSD. Quick question on that. At which point does contesting a deletion count? Since I've seen plenty of authors go for the "contest deletion" option on G11, U5, and at least one A7 but it's ignored by the deleting admin. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not here to delete as much stuff in as little editor time as we can, but to make proper decisions on whether something is or is not suitable to be an encyclopedia article. G11 and A7 are also possible speedies for some drafts moved to mainspace, but not valid for many of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I thought that a draft that has been declined or rejected (especially multiple times) might be sufficiently unsuitable for mainspace to be speedily deleted. I had been tentatively floating the idea of whether a new CSD criterion might be established for this instance, though it seems like that sort of criterion wouldn't work at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Draftspace and AfC are optional. If someone moves a page from draft to article space that doesn't meet an existing speedy deletion criterion, but you believe should be deleted then PROD and AfD are your only options. AfC rejections represent the opinion of the reviewer(s), not consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure for rejected draftified articles and declined/rejected AfC submissions improperly moved or copies to mainspace