I hope sysops will still be deleting test pages straight off, without bothering to link them here and wait for a bit, otherwise the sheer number of them will stack up. But I agree this can be a useful way for non-sysops to flag a page as a test rather than just blanking it. Evercat 01:38 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm against this idea. The article namespace should not be cluttered with messages like this one. This belongs on the user talk page of the user who created the page. It would also break my recent improvements to the page deletion feature [1]. --Eloquence 03:09 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That would just mean that "Delete test and welcome" were suggested for the deletion log for such pages. How would that break anything? Indeed, that seems to me good practice - just as I currently add "VfD" for VfD pages... Martin

I'm strongly against this. There would be too many articles left behind for people to have to go back to to clean up at some point in time. -- Zoe

I hearby volunteer to regularly come here and delete any test articles that link to this page. I don't expect this to become particularly onerous. Martin 15:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How do you parse "Delete test and welcome", anyway? It doesn't sound like English to me... -- Oliver P. 14:25 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to move to a better name... :) Martin 15:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay... Erm... No, sorry, it seems that I'm far better at moaning about other people's use of language than I am at using it myself. ;) -- Oliver P. 00:08 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How about this name, Oliver? :) Martin 14:00 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Aha! I like this name. :) -- Oliver P. 17:36 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea for people that can't delete pages. If it's used just for junk -- which admins could delete without listing of VfD -- then nonadmins can link here instead of cluttering up VfD. Any controversy, and then it goes to VfD. I'll try to keep an eye on this, if people start using it. (OTOH, there's no need for admins to link a junk page here rather than deleting it.) -- Toby Bartels 22:52 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Those of us who are fallible may wish to link here rather than deleting straight away, in case a page that we think is just a newbie test turns out to be a genuine article. Obviously there's no need, though - it's a question of style. Martin 23:26 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK. But those of us who are infallible won't. ;-) Evercat 00:09 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I basically support the Idea, but I have some suggestions: When I discovered wikipedia several months ago, I didn't really understand what is a wiki, and didn't understand the difference between red links and blue links. So I kept clicking red links, where I though there should be an article, but instead got some weird message about the article "not being written yet", I geniunely thought there is some problem with the website, and didn't understand what I was supposed to do. In some occasions I even wrote some stuff inside, and clicked "save" on some instances (YES I AM A VANDAL!). After some time I got the idea of the red links, but when I wanted to make a new article, I wrote some nonsense inside, just to "create" the page -- I thought that there is some procedure for the page to be created, because I was used to edit "real pages" (not the edit box with the weird message above it) where you should click "edit this page". I know, I didn't RTFM, but that's my point exactly.

I support the idea of putting this notice, but I object to the way it's written right now, especially the use of "we" like there's some form of moderation elite on the site. It's like saying, even in the politest form: "Other users think you are clueless so they will delete your page, you are a burden for the established community of writers, you should read the fu***n' manual, damnit"

I will try to rewrite this -- Rotem Dan 11:36 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please do.

I removed the "not officially recommended" disclaimer because I think I've satisfied Zoe's objection (by volunteering), Evercat's objection (by making it clear that it's optional), and Eloquence's objection (by saying, well, that's not a problem, is it?). Martin 14:20 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

there should be a boilerplate text to notify the user (sent to his/her talk page) who creates a garbage page instead. --Jiang

OK, apparently i messed things up! I will stop with this page and resume posting nonsense in VfD. But i still think it's a good idea to create an immediate deletion page. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 11:23, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can't use this page to suggest "candidates for speedy deletion" because it implies that only "test pages" are thusly deleted. My last 2 candidates for speedy deletions are not test pages: one is the talk page of a deleted page; the other one, early programming projects contains just: "BASIC, assembly language, FORTRAN, etc. ". A newbie experiment maybe, but most probably not intended as a test page. I think it would be unnice to flag it as "test page" . So why not rename this page as "candidates for speedy deletion", with text that politely explains a few reasons that can make a page such a candidate (see guidelines on deletion) ? --FvdP 23:20, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like "deleted test" because it marks the page as already having been logically deleted, even if in fact it takes a day or two. This is good for our readers, I think. Wikipedia:deleted page would work equally well, perhaps?

I would like to keep the current friendly text on the page though, rather than it becoming all legalese like VfD/deletion policy/etc. I don't think it's un-nice to flag early programming projects as a test, given that we explicitly say "if it's not a test, then...", but perhaps that doesn't come across very clearly? Martin 23:31, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't object to renaming the page to either "deleted page" or to "candidates for speedy deletion". Either way, a slight reword to express the fact it's not only tests that are listed here would be a good thing. Angela. 06:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)