Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to rename G1 from 'patent nonsense' to 'incoherent page'

[edit]

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]

Propose speedy deletion nomination timeframe

[edit]

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]

G14 works on pages that have survived deletion discussions

[edit]

I have added G14 as a criterion that works on pages that have survived deletion discussions, provided that something has changed since the discussion causing G14 to be met, when previously it wasn't. For example, a (disambiguation) dab listing three pages at the time of its AfD lists one extant page because the other two have been deleted. —Alalch E. 16:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support this. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New bullet point for "Other issues with redirects"

[edit]

"For redirects that don't have any correlation to the page it links to, see G1."

This is also stated in rule 5 of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting, and the topic is frequent enough to be included here. I think a redirect that doesn't mean anything like "fjewif923fjwvidsjjwj" linking to the Magna Carta should uncontestably be speedily deleted. Senomo Drines (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such verbiage being added. It's extremely subjective and, as I've learned over the course of hundreds of RfD nominations, there's sometimes a relation that you had no idea about which makes the redirect valid. That's why a discussion can be a very helpful thing. As for your example, that'd be R3 eligible based on the current criteria we have. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]