A few months ago, I discussed with my mentor about whether non-notable-deadname redirects for transgender individuals could be speedily deleted as attack pages—and there was confusion about whether these redirects are eligible under the criteria. I felt uncomfortable about drawing attention to the redirect at RfD, and I don't like the idea of RfD being filled with 'deadname → current name' listings. I nominated the redirects under WP:G10 and they were deleted as attack pages. Should it be clarified on the policy page that non-notable deadname redirects are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G10? Having this clarified on the policy page would help reduce confusion about what to do when these redirects are discovered. There will, of course, be exceptions. Svampesky (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think these are attack pages - I'm quite sure that whoever created them was trying to do so in good faith not to attack the subject. But I can totally see why another admin would see differently. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be a speedy delete, it will have to be speedily obvious that it should be deleted. Such a name will need an investigation to see if it is "notable", "undisclosed" or "disclosed but not well known". If it is an attack, or "outing", that would be two different things. And a correct but little known former name is not really an attack as it is already known and verifyable. But outing an undisclosed name would need to be deleted anyway as disclosing private information, and may even need the log entry to be deleted. For outing an undisclosed name, it is better not to tag as a speedy delete, and so draw attention, but rather email an active admin or oversighter to take care of it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary distinction needs to be whether it is a non notable or an unreferenced deadname. If there is no reference, then it absolutely should be deleted as an attack (regardless of whether it is the person's actual deadname). If there is a source for the name, then it's not unreasonable to have it as a redirect, and it should probably be taken to RFD. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could really do with a speedy criterion for articles created to circumvent a salted title. Dr.Seema Midha has just been salted as Seema Midha and as Dr. Seema Midha, yet we don't have a really good criterion for this, unless they are an obvious G4 (which in this case, with the most recent AfD from 2017, is not a good fit probably). Fram (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 88#Proposed new or modified criterion: clear SALT evasion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, the "G4 already covers this" votes were rather misguided. Fram (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this article creation is done as promotion, or banned user creaton, so the chances are that another speedy delete applies. If G4 does not apply, eg new article differs, then it should be checked to see if the XFD no longer is applicable. So perhaps speedy delete should not happen. However if LLMs are used to rapidly create variations, we should respond rapidly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, CSD G5 currently excludes transcluded templates and populated categories. The purpose of this seems to be to avoid collateral damage. I propose that we also add files being legitimately used to these exceptions. I imagine this was never added because people assumed that most images would be kept on Wikimedia Commons, but we have a decent number of fair use images as well as images which are free to use under US law (e.g., {{FoP-USonly}}, {{PD-US-expired-abroad}}) which are uploaded locally. We should not damage articles if they contain useful and free (or fair use) images that just happen to have been uploaded by a banned user. What do people think about this potential change? IronGargoyle (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The reason for those rules is to avoid careless admins from creating messes that Special:WantedCategories or Special:WantedTemplates patrollers have to clean up. Since we have a bot that cleans up unused files that isn't needed here and we can and should continue to apply G5 as written. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: WantedCategories/WantedTemplates may be one purpose of the exceptions, but I don't think it's the only purpose. Note that the policy currently says that it matters if the transclusions were placed and the categories were populated by the banned user. This suggests a collateral damage interpretation as well, which means that good-faith usage should be protected. Similarly, we don't delete pages where there have been substantial edits by non-banned users. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as for fair use files they can be re-uploaded by another user. If there is no source available to reupload, then the file would be a problem, as FU should have a source. For other files they should be checked to see if they need to be replaced or not. G5 is not compulsory, and if deletion causes damage, then the admin should avoid it, or reverse their delete if they find out later on. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G1 is known for being misused as a catch-all. I think this is partially because it is called 'nonsense', which people may be interpreting as 'does not belong here'. I propose changing its name on the Speedy Deletion page and its template to 'incoherent page', which I think describes its purpose better and may clear up confusion. This proposal does not involve actuall changing what does and does not fall under G1. QwertyForest (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will help, as there still will be a misinterpretation in the same sorts of ways, such as an incoherent rambling essay, or non-English writings, or a template that is not understood or contains an error. However I agree that "patent nonsense" is a strange wording. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "unintelligible page" instead of "incoherent page"? I agree that patent nonsense is strange wording to me at least. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe "gibberish" or "random characters" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support "unintelligible page" and "gibberish" as good choices. I don't think "random characters" would work because 'patent nonsense' also includes word salads. QwertyForest (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because "nonsense" is ambiguous. "Tigers live on Mars" is patent nonsense (sense 2) but coherent, so not G1. (G3 still applies.) Certes (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. I'm quite fond of 'patent nonsense' although it's very English and slightly grumpy. Perhaps why I'm fond of it. 'Patent' in this context means 'clearly' or 'self-evidently' and that sort of fits the bill to me. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. People who are going to misinterpret this as "does not belong here" are going to do that no matter what we call it (and G1 isn't even close to the worst in this regard). "Patent nonsense" looks enough like jargon that it encourages reading the the text of the criterion to find out exactly what's meant, in a way that "technical deletion" or "unnecessary disambiguation page" or "obviously invented" or "misuses of Wikipedia as a web host" do not. The plainer-worded summaries get misused much, much more, because it's not the summaries that are important. —Cryptic 10:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone at New Page Patrol, I follow NPPHOUR guidelines regarding nominating articles for deletion. In brief, this recommendation states that articles should be nominated for deletion within one hour of being meaningfully edited unless they have a serious content issue (i.e., copyright, harassment, or pure vandalism). We have a similar recommendation at DRAFTNO, and I figured we would have an explicit statement with deletion. However, the only thing the CSD page says is contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation. I propose that, in line with other recommendations on Wikipedia, we explicitly state that articles shouldn't be nominated for speedy deletion within an hour of being actively edited unless there are serious content issues. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we should delay G5 speedies. Those are about serious contributor issues, not so much about content. (Of course, this usually goes hand-in-hand with re-blocking the contributor.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G5 makes sense, too. The main concern is biting newbies (or anyone really) because they decided to create an article in mainspace instead of in draftspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could recommend a waiting time of an hour for A criteria, but not for G criteria. —Kusma (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]