1420:
personal websites or blogs for people with little or no interest in contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than to further the goals of the project. Examples of acceptable userspace pages not eligible for U5 deletion include (but are not limited to) brief profiles of people in their
Knowledge (XXG) editing role (which usually talk more about their edits to Knowledge (XXG) than their real-life background or careers), information pages such as policy essays and profiles of long-term vandals, discussion spaces, lists of articles, galleries of contributed photographs, drafts of future pages and sandboxes for test edits. On the other hand, the following types of userspace page are considered unacceptable, and may be eligible for deletion under U5 if the user has made few or no edits outside of userspace:
568:
entirely negative light and contains no sources to back up the negative claims (e.g. "John Doe is a disgraced former actor, who worked for ACME Studios until his dismissal in 1998 for the theft of equipment. He later committed a mass-murder at their
Hollywood studios in retaliation, and is currently on death row after being convicted.") Before tagging a page with this criterion, be sure to check, as with G3, that there are no neutral versions in the history to revert to, i.e. that a vandal has not hijacked a legitimate article and turned it into an attack page. Pages eligible for speedy deletion under G10 must also have their content blanked whilst awaiting deletion. This is for legal reasons, because the Foundation would prefer to not get sued.
412:
of the page for which a consensus to delete was reached (using a process that corresponds to that namespace; note that redirects have RfD as a dedicated venue and redirects are not a namespace, but the same logic applies). More precisely, G4 does not apply when the material is recreated in a namespace in which the reason to delete identified by the consensus-based process is not also a reason to delete under the policy for that namespace. For example, if an article was deleted due to notability not being met, recreating identical material in draftspace would not mean that G4 applies, because that particular deletion rationale does not play a serious role in deciding whether to delete or keep a draft. The consensus was to delete an
395:. The recreated page may only contain some slight changes from the deleted page, which must clearly fail to address the reasons for which the page was deleted. If the difference is not slight, G4 doesn't apply. If someone writes an article that states: "John Doe is a chef from Kansas City, Kansas," sees it get deleted by AfD consensus for non-notability, and then an article on the same topic is created stating: "John Doe is a world-famous chef from Kansas City who won the Congressional Medal for Barbecue," this page
995:. For instance, the music criterion notes that a band who has toured nationally is considered notable, so if an article states that "The Stuffed Bunnies are an electroclash band that toured the United States," it doesn't qualify as an A7. Furthermore, assertions that a person is widely noted, that a company is the largest provider of something, or a website was featured on television are all valid assertions and do not qualify as A7.
723:), which is better equipped to handle the issue. Always try to verify that you are not looking at a Knowledge (XXG) mirror or page that is copying Knowledge (XXG) such as Answers.com. Since articles on Knowledge (XXG) are published under the GFDL, other sites can copy Knowledge (XXG) word by word so long as they acknowledge the Knowledge (XXG) editors who worked on the article as the source.
1405:, it can be speedily deleted. The way to tell whether a user exists or not is to go to the user's page, and see if there's a "User contributions" link in the toolbox. If there isn't, the user doesn't exist, so any content on the userpage can probably be speedy deleted. However, redirects to an existing userpage do not generally fall under this criterion.
24:
1294:...but don't use an improper fair use claim, or it'll still get deleted. You can always fix this, too. As before, 7 days tagging please. The exception to this is if the image has a fair use tag that's completely off base (like an image of a CD cover tagged as a software screenshot); these can go immediately.
1319:
or a written rationale - this latter option can be used in cases where a source website cannot be found, but the image itself indicates that it has an incompatible license, e.g. there is a watermark saying "John Doe
Photography, All Rights Reserved". When checking for copyright violations, try to find the
1231:
If we have two of the same image, why not get rid of one? No actual content is lost, so there's no need to discuss it in this case. Make sure that the item you want to keep has all the proper licensing information and that you delete the duplicate and not the original unless it was reuploaded because
399:
be deleted under G4. Furthermore, if an article is brought to
Articles for deletion and deleted due to lack of sources indicating notability, the article does not fall under G4 if a new article featuring sources that possibly attempt to demonstrate notability is created – it instead has to go through
1318:
Similar to criterion G12, this criterion is for images and other media from a source or creator that has not released them under a license compatible with
Knowledge (XXG)'s own, and where no claim of fair use has been made. When tagging images with this criterion, you can provide either a source URL
82:
is one of the more useful, necessary, and controversial policies available on
Knowledge (XXG). While our article creation rate is in the thousands daily, many articles, uploaded images, and other forms of content are simply not appropriate enough to stick around for a typical hearing. These articles
1327:
In addition, because
Knowledge (XXG)'s fair use policies strive to protect the revenue earnings of content creators, images that are sold as commercial products, including most watermarked photos from stock photography websites, can in many cases be speedily deleted under F9 even if a claim of fair
871:
is considered by some to be the most misused criterion; although it is often misused as such, it doesn't simply mean "non-notable." Controversial in implementation, proponents believe that it is essential to the working of the project, opponents point to the misuse and question the actual consensus
748:
This applies to any disambiguation page linking to only one
Knowledge (XXG) page and whose title ends with a "(disambiguation)" identifier, or any disambiguation page that does not link to any Knowledge (XXG) page regardless of title. For the former case, ensure that the target page is not itself a
506:
So you're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content (though a redirect should often be used in this case, not deletion). Or you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article
428:
discussion. Still, some reasons to delete extend across namespaces, so if an article was deleted as a page that existed primarily to disparage its subject (but was maybe not quite a G10 case) and a substantially identical copy is created in draftspace, that draft would be subjectable to G4, because
411:
content in a namespace-insensitive way. Deletion reasons are not the same across namespaces, and consensuses across different deletion discussion venues corresponding to different namespaces are only partially interchangeable. In practical terms, G4 mainly operates within the same namespace as that
326:
test pages. Often, many of the people who create these pages then ask for the deletion themselves. Sometimes they even do it in the text of the article ("I didn't mean to do this, please delete it"). A test page will actively look like a test – it won't have any content that is actually an article,
1419:
This criterion applies to pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to
Knowledge (XXG)'s goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of their own userspace. In other words, userpages which were most likely created to serve as
1079:
a plausible redirect to the existing article. These aspects of this criterion make it rarely used: most duplicates of articles that already exist are under very similar titles that the duplicate's title can serve as a redirect to the existing article, and many others are actually better than their
491:
Regular users can't move pages over other pages with page histories. This simply allows administrators to do so. Most users never encounter situations like this. Likewise, this criterion is also used for temporary deletions by administrators to sort out confused page histories. This criterion also
173:
It is also strongly recommended that you leave a message with the article creator when nominating an article for speedy deletion. While the author is not to remove the tag, they may be able to solve the problem or explain why the deletion would be improper by explaining on the talk page. Please be
1038:
A good rule of thumb: if there is content in an article subject that qualifies for A7 that looks like it may have importance, don't tag it for deletion. Truly unimportant subjects will be deleted through a more valid and consensus-driven process. Always keep in mind how controversial this is – if
789:
Note the difference – the first examples offer nothing (or too little) for anyone to build off of, it lacks any context to expand upon, while the latter examples, short as they are, clearly and specifically identify their topic, although the articles are hardly filled with information. If you can
642:
Note that if an article looks the type of text you would expect to find in a "about us" section on a company webpage, then chances are that it is just that. Run a Google check on part of the text, and that will usually reveal if it is a plain copy. Typically, companies don't release their content
1352:
If a category has been empty for seven days, it can be speedy deleted. Some investigation may be necessary if the category has existed for a while, because articles come and go from categories rather quickly. If it's being discussed at categories for deletion, however, it does not qualify – the
531:
As long as the article's talk page doesn't predate
Articles for deletion (when deletion discussions took place on article talk pages as opposed to a centralized location), talk pages of deleted articles generally get deleted. This only generally concerns article space and Knowledge (XXG):-space
850:
no content. This is simple, but often misused. Be sure to check the page history: a blank or empty article may have previous versions that aren't empty. If the article is empty because it was blanked by the creator and sole editor, it may be more appropriate to delete the page under G7 (author
567:
Attack pages are pages which serve only to disparage a person or other entity, being composed solely of insults or pure slander (e.g. "John Doe is a bloody idiot who deserves to burn in hell"), or consisting of prose that, whilst written in an encyclopedic tone, portrays a living person in an
1248:
In order for an image to be used on Knowledge (XXG), it must have the proper licence. There are a lot of complex licenses, so you may need to check to see if the license is truly improper before speedy deleting the article. If you're questioning it, err on the side of caution and
283:
that are seemingly nonsensical, but where the writing is not itself incomprehensible, e.g. "John Doe goes riding on his pink elephant every day to North Korea to procure chairlift parts for the King and Queen of Candy-Town!" (This would be eligible for speedy deletion under A11
527:
There are several such examples - Talk pages of deleted pages, file descriptions with no file and categories that were populated by a deleted template are some examples. This should never apply to a page that is useful to the project, such as any kind of deletion discussion.
1285:
Along the same lines as #5, if you do use a fair use image, make sure you explain where it's from and why you're using it. Also, if you encounter one without a rationale, you can add one as opposed to deleting the image if you feel the image adds something to the article...
518:
to do so by posting a speedy deletion tag themselves: affirming the desire to have the page deleted, or blanking the page can be considered an implicit request. Checking the page history is essential for this criterion (so you can be sure the right person made the request).
220:
Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or
1424:
Lengthy profiles of people written in the tone of a personal website or résumé, usually with a full description of the person's background and/or lists of awards and accolades received and positions held, with no mention given to the user's relationship with Knowledge
1323:
source of the file, as contributors to external websites often misrepresent the copyright status of a file, e.g. by illegally using a non-free image and claiming it under a CC license, or by placing a public-domain file on a page that claims to reserve all rights.
757:
Articles are, by far, the most likely to fall under a speedy deletion criterion. Many of these are very controversial, new criteria are rarely approved, and it is expected that these are followed as closely as possible. Because of the wider use, there's also wider
1432:
Unencyclopedic pages about non-notable topics which would never be accepted as articles due to tone and notability, such as a detailed description of an online Roblox server that encourages new players to join, or a profile of a constructed language or fictional
1428:
Company profiles not written in an encyclopedic tone appropriate for an article draft, especially by users who seem to represent or be associated with the company in question based on their usernames - such pages can also be deleted under G11 if they read like
622:
articles with a questionable tone ("Computer Solutions, Inc is a leader in providing technology solutions to consumers in the United States. Formed in 1994, it is a Forbes top pick..."), or articles about companies that are not promotional in nature (such as
1277:. One of them is that the image must actually be used in an article. If a fair use image isn't being used, it can be deleted. If you can find a use for the image, then feel free to do so. As in criterion 4, the image must be tagged with a notice for 7 days.
464:
of their contributions are welcome at Knowledge (XXG), regardless of the quality. There is nothing stopping a user in good standing from reinstating good edits and articles to stand behind them, but banned users are not allowed to contribute to the project.
735:
Any Drafts or Articles for creation submissions that have not been edited for more than six consecutive months (excluding most bot edits) qualify for deletion under this criteria. If anyone requires these pages again after being deleted, they can do so at
1024:
apply just as much to speedy deletion as they do to the other deletion processes. For example, if you run into an article about a member of a notable group, such as a company or band, but you believe that the subject is not individually notable, consider
245:
The second part of this is where many users get confused. Often, new users will have poorly-formatted sections added to the end of an otherwise legitimate article, or may use much more flowerly and unnecessary language to get the point being made across.
1152:
The former part of this criterion is usually easy to understand once you read the context. "Obviously invented" means exactly what it sounds, as it could refer to anything that sounds like it came out of some random person's head (like, for example,
275:
Poorly-written content, often by new users or those with limited English proficiency, that still manages to convey meaning, e.g. "Knowledge (XXG) i think is a really cool place bcoz any1 can edit it its supposed to be the biggest encycopleedia ever!
372:
on Jeremy Barnes. This page was seen as vandalism and speedy deleted as such, although a proper version existed in the history. If you're doing vandalism patrols, keep up the good work, but be careful of coherent content in the page histories.
553:. The Wikimedia Foundation office can delete articles for reasons not immediately explained to the rest of the project. The actions are clearly marked and irreversible without input from the Office itself. This does not concern most editors.
367:
to see if there is a non-vandalized version available. Complex vandalism often takes place on low-profile articles, so assuming that an article you may not have heard of is simply created due to vandalism may be improper. For an example, see
153:. Some editors are bothered by the use of abbreviations like that, so consider not using them, or, in a best-case scenario, using both the abbreviation and the specific rationalization so that everyone understands what criteria you're using.
1033:
the biography into the group's article. If a user has created an article on themself (e.g. user "Ricky Woo" creates an article titled "Ricky Woo"), the person might have been trying to create a userpage, and you could consider moving it to
83:
fall under our speedy deletion criteria, which were reached by various levels of consensus, and are intended to be followed rather rigidly. Improper tagging of an article as a speedy candidate leaves more work for users patrolling the
1386:. Thus, you have the authority to delete most of what's in your userspace upon request. However, talk pages with discussion pertinent to the running of the project or other subpages with similar information cannot be speedy deleted.
815:
You're reading this on the English Knowledge (XXG) project. If the article is in French, and it exists on the French project, you can tag it for speedy deletion. If not, we have translation teams who will notice this via using
115:
article instead of allowing a redlink to be created. Having second thoughts as you see an article? You can always bump it to a different criterion – Articles for deletion if you feel it might be able to use more discussion, or
796:
This criterion is only for cases where no reasonable editor can tell what the article is, or is supposed to be, about. If you know what the subject is, but think it needs additional context for those unfamiliar with it, use
492:
allows pages to be deleted if they were unambiguously created in error; the common ground between deletions under this criterion is that they're all noncontroversial maintenance tasks that don't actually remove information.
452:, or suggesting to the user recreating the content to do so. It is highly probable that new users, especially, are unaware that we have a process for restoration of material inappropriate for inclusion at Knowledge (XXG).
362:
clear cut. Articles that simply have a photo of a penis transcluded on it, a page consisting entirely of "I LIKE POTATOES", and the like – that's "pure vandalism." What many people make the mistake of is not checking the
614:
a lot, it may provide phone numbers or names of salespeople, it may even have requests that no one else edit the page without the consent of the firm behind it. Everyone agrees that these are articles that do not belong
106:
The policy is quite clear in usage – it is meant to be used in "limited circumstances," and is not the only option when approached. If the guitarist for a somewhat-well-known band is tagged for speedy deletion, consider
127:
The criteria for speedy deletion are divided into sections. First and foremost, the general criteria, which apply across all namespaces, and then one set of specific criteria for each namespace; Articles, images, etc.
1118:
Entire copy-pastes of articles created under different titles (with no additional substantial content added) may need to be handled differently: though they may not necessarily meet this criterion, unless adequate
250:. It may be inappropriate, it may be deleted anyway, but it doesn't fit this criterion, and calling a user's contributions "patent nonsense" when it clearly isn't is not a good way to forge a working relationship.
472:
their ban. If a user has 10,000 edits and then gets banned, the first 10,000 edits that user makes do not fall under this criterion, but anything done by ban avoidance beyond that are. If a blocked user created
1013:
in a similar vein to how significance a lower standard than notability. The standard is meant to exclude claims that no reasonable person would ever believe, not claims that are perfectly believable but merely
602:, this was formed to provide the ability to remove articles that were nothing but spam. This is one of the most misunderstood speedy deletion criteria we have, so it's important to know how to use it properly.
1449:
There used to be T1, T2, and T3 criteria for "divisive" templates, templates misrepresenting policy, and duplicates or hardcoded instances of other templates respectively. T1 was removed in February 2009. See
303:
As stated, this criterion is not intended for hoaxes or other vandalism; it means nonsense as in gibberish/unintelligible. Nonsense as in absurd falls under G3, assuming the content was created in bad faith.
1222:
Files are also possibilities for speedy deletion. Copyright, especially, on images is a big deal, and Knowledge (XXG) is stricter than most in terms of fair use, so many of the image criteria reflect this.
1185:
We don't use article space to redirect to talk pages or userpage content. It's more to make sure that readers know the difference between encyclopedia content and meta content. The one major exception is
1127:(copyright infringement) will apply, as Knowledge (XXG) content is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, which requires attribution, and not supplying such attribution is a violation of our policies about
1071:
of the following is true: the article appears to be a duplicate of an article already on the English Knowledge (XXG), it does not expand upon, improve upon, or add details to the existing article, and
1265:
the license, you can add it, but never assume. Keep in mind, the "speedy" portion of this only kicks in after the image has been tagged with a deletion notice for 7 days, to allow for investigation.
584:(Knowledge (XXG)'s license) doesn't allow us to use the old text again as the basis for an improved, sourced article, unless all previous contributors are credited, usually through the edit summary.
1440:
than Knowledge (XXG), such as climate tables for fictitious cities written about elsewhere on the Internet, or a page intended to function as a discussion board for members of a Minecraft server.
790:
read the article and understand what it's about, it does not fit this criterion. If you can figure out where to go to get more information, there is context, and this criterion does not apply.
1147:
234:
A page that actually looks good, but then starts going into an incomprehensible drivel: "Following the second World War, Xenu hot dog mcgilicuddy." (I haven't seen this, but I wish I had).
1459:
1455:
507:
with. As long as no one else has made any substantial changes to your text, you can request a deletion through this criterion. Or you just screwed up and created a page with a title like
834:"No content" means "No content." It doesn't mean "some content." It doesn't mean "it's a short article with nothing I consider of worth." It doesn't mean "poor quality stub." It means "
429:
unlike notability which is article-specific, the latter type of lack of appropriateness is not (it is not just that the article was not suitable as an article, it is that the mainspace
1451:
532:
pages, and not user pages, nor talk archives. If there's discussion about how to recreate an article properly on the page, consider suggesting to the users on that page to head to
241:", or meaningful words that are arranged in a seemingly random manner conveying no actual meaning: "Moosh drives like a horn because his tie is not more than a crablike queefish."
685:. Although it is true that autobios and articles created by COI editors are often also blatant advertising, often does not mean always. If the page is written in a reasonably
1017:"may be" does not necessarily mean "is"; it is not uncommon for articles to survive A7 and still be deleted as non-notable via proposed deletion or Articles for deletion.
296:
or is otherwise unsuitable for inclusion but which is not covered by another criterion. It does not cover dictionary entries, made-up things or anything else listed as
1107:, the page should be redirected to the existing English article because the topic is related to the Netherlands. On the other hand, if a Dutch-language page about the
711:, pages from a book. This, again, is to protect against lawsuits – copyright litigation can be very pricey. If there's a question as to whether it's infringing (it
1084:
article into the recently created one. If that can't happen, see if it's a plausible redirect, and if so, redirect the duplicate to the original, and if not, only
131:
Within each section are numbered criteria. As time progresses, some numbers are blended and merged, but not replaced in order to keep the references consistent.
979:
Furthermore, an assertion of importance or significance can often be derived, but is not explicitly tied to, the various guidelines for notability concerning
255:
If you can't figure the text out because it's not in any language or is completely incomprehensible for reasons not involving education or knowledge ability,
1495:
593:
1240:
Some uploads don't work. If they don't, we get rid of them, although there are ways to test it within the framework of what Knowledge (XXG) is run off of.
1535:
1500:
863:
1135:
specified, and the article title is a plausible redirect to the target, redirect it. If these two cases don't apply, then you may apply this criterion.
1471:
900:
1128:
1520:
391:
way that the recreated deleted material can be deleted again through G4 is if the page was deleted under a consensus reached in one of the six
1415:
Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is_not § Knowledge (XXG) is_not a blog, Web_hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site
111:
the information to the band's article. If an article reads like an advertisement for a major company, consider cutting the article down to a
498:
This is not a catch-all for stuff that doesn't fit any other criterion; it is only for pages that need to be deleted for technical reasons.
1414:
43:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
737:
44:
677:
This criterion is about the page's content, not its creator. A page should not be tagged for G11 speedy deletion simply because it is an
542:
Sometimes a category is populated by placing templates on pages. If this template gets deleted, the category can then be speedy deleted.
1091:
This criterion can also be applied to foreign-language articles about topics which are already covered in the English Knowledge (XXG),
720:
571:
If the article has potentially salvageable text but needs more sourcing or a different balance, consider stubbing the article instead.
424:
that the draft is not suitable as a draft. To G4-delete a draft, the page it copies also needs to have been a draft, deleted through a
313:
213:
167:
1059:
the article does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant then the musical recording can be deleted via A9.
686:
1371:
Some user pages qualify for speedy deletion. It is recommended that if you're requesting a deletion of a userpage that isn't yours,
785:
Examples of short articles with context: "Joe, Montana is a small town located in rural Montana." "1984 is a book by George Orwell."
698:
682:
644:
539:
A redirect to a page that doesn't exist can be speedy deleted. First, check that it hasn't been vandalised or accidentally broken.
218:
The first general criterion seems simple on its face, but has historically been more confusing than it seems. The criterion states
1357:
782:
Examples lacking enough context: "He likes to play rugby." "Fourth track from the album." "Complete badass from Washington high."
1206:
Keep in mind – if a redirect exists that seems implausible, maybe it's not as implausible as you thought. Although, redirecting
943:
articles that qualify under this criterion are (real) people, groups, organizations (except educational institutions), animals,
650:
For promotional user pages created by an account with a promotional username, they qualify under this criteria with the use of
87:, and improper deletion by administrators causes poor relations with other users and often prolongs the situation by forcing a
1510:
716:
610:
unquestionable, unsalvageable marketing or promotion. It may only use marketing or self-promotional language, it may use the
437:). However, if an administrator considers the recreation to have been simply to circumvent the consensus to delete, which is
1261:
Similar to above – if it doesn't have licensing information, it should be removed for the protection of the project. If you
927:
apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible, and any article with a blatantly false claim may be
1490:
209:
137:
That's it! Thus, it allows for easy abbreviation when referring to them with experienced editors off-hand: "A7" refers to
1515:
883:
838:." Thus, an article with just an external link or a link to another article lacks actual content. An article that says "
1540:
1195:
203:
36:
1104:
1310:
that the image is a duplicate, but be careful when deleting them to make sure that all the licensing issues are met.
550:
486:
123:
If you still feel that speedy deletion is right for you, here's a quick explanation of how the policy is structured:
1353:
discussion may have resulted in a temporary depopulation of the category. Administrators can be warned through the
896:
678:
1340:
Categories are functions that help the navigation of the site. Most deletion discussion of categories occur at
1306:, we'd prefer to keep the image at Commons so any Wikimedia project can use it. Feel free to tag these if you
1302:
This gets complicated because of licensing issues, but the quick answer is that if an image is a duplicate at
562:
94:
This page is intended to be a quick guide to understanding the speedy deletion criteria, and how to apply it
891:
448:
If you do encounter people recreating content deleted through one of our processes, consider bringing it to
1115:, it would be eligible for deletion under A10 as the bird has no connection to any Dutch-speaking country.
1003:
904:
1100:
611:
379:
Obvious hoaxes also go under this criterion, as deception becomes clear so that it constitutes vandalism.
1020:"inclusion" does not necessarily mean having a standalone article; despite being frequently ignored, the
708:
668:
349:
48:
1190:-style redirects. These are commonly used as a shortcut to various Knowledge (XXG)-space articles (i.e.
1159:
Just because an article's topic is "unusual" doesn't mean it can't have a credible claim of significance
1139:
11. Obviously invented/coined/discovered by the article creator or someone they know personally, and no
1108:
1162:
1039:
it's misused too much, people may get fed up and pressure will develop for the criterion to disappear.
508:
58:
1045:: The lack of sources alone is not a reason for lack of notability. Check for sources before you tag.
1363:
template so that they are more aware that such categories should not be deleted even if it is empty.
1112:
654:
156:
A number of templates have also been created for some of the more typical occurrences. For instance,
1505:
1158:
1332:
be used on Knowledge (XXG) if they themselves are the subject of sourced commentary in an article.
820:
1120:
1096:
421:
353:
32:
1051:
is simple: If there is an article for a musical recording (meaning an album, single, DVD, etc.)
1030:
1026:
984:
762:, and it's important to know when a criterion actually applies, or it will only cause problems.
635:
blatant spam. Period. If it's been through a consensus process already, it's been vetted and is
108:
1207:
915:
apply to articles about products, books, films, TV programmes, albums (these may be covered by
1484:
1303:
1214:
is probably not a good idea, and doesn't benefit anything, so we tend to speedy delete those.
854:
A user should wait 10 minutes after page creation before applying this criterion to the page.
793:
A user should wait 10 minutes after page creation before applying this criterion to the page.
474:
364:
1460:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 79#RFC: should WP:T3 be deprecated?
1398:
1383:
988:
932:
392:
117:
112:
1402:
1394:
801:
599:
572:
160:
1372:
1341:
1274:
1250:
1174:
1140:
1124:
1021:
992:
980:
728:
661:
581:
533:
449:
442:
425:
376:
The criterion also applies from redirects created during a cleanup of page-move vandalism.
331:
297:
293:
88:
79:
1009:"credible" does not mean "verifiable" or "sourced."; credibility is a lower standard than
1048:
868:
1154:
1099:
if it were redirected. For example, if a user were to create a Dutch-language article
1010:
931:
instead. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself,
770:
The text of the criterion is "Very short articles providing little or no context." Con
289:
1529:
230:
A page with a bunch of the following: "" (I've actually seen similar things to this)
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
689:(it needn't be absolutely perfect), it's not a G11, regardless of who created it.
189:
use another deletion process, no matter how inappropriate you think the page is.
858:
7 & 9. No credible indication that the subject may be suitable for inclusion
707:– watermarked photos, cut-and-paste copies of websites that do not use a proper
445:), deleting is appropriate, and G4 does, in fact, become namespace-insensitive.
407:
criterion means that it is relevant in all namespaces but does not mean that it
177:
Perhaps the most important thing to note about speedy deletion is that there is
1181:
2. Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space
259:. If you have to think, even for a second, about whether it's patent nonsense,
1191:
272:
Raw machine-translated text that is incoherent, but still somewhat meaningful.
238:
1456:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 78#RfC: Removing T2
1397:
is not a real user, and the "/" character cannot be used in usernames due to
1055:
the artist's article is non-existent (whether it was never there or deleted)
340:
mean it is a catch-all for stuff that isn't speediable under other criteria.
1298:
8. Images available as bit-for-bit identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons
1211:
647:
and are usually deletable under the next criterion in addition to this one.
1173:
Redirects are often deleted for any number of reasons. There is a process,
1080:
existing articles, in which case it may be better to redirect or merge the
882:
real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization,
1375:
may be a better choice, but some user pages have speedy criteria as well.
223:
Unfortunately, many users ignore the part beyond "no meaningful content."
715:
like a copyright violation, but you can't prove it), bring the issue to
174:
courteous – speedy deletion can be a tough process for some to swallow.
843:
839:
441:
but is a judgement call made on a case by case basis (because it means
84:
268:
fall under the definition of patent nonsense includes the following:
888:
that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant,
166:
is typically used for spam articles. A full listing can be found at
1157:). The real challenge, however, comes from the significance claim.
643:
under a workable license, so submissions like this are considered
1148:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day
183:
catch-all; if a page doesn't fit any of the strict criteria, you
327:
and will likely even give some indications that it was a test.
1454:
and pages linked there. T2 was removed in July 2020 following
1123:
is provided in the article content or edit summary, criterion
1063:
10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic
911:
to articles about the listed subjects; in particular, it does
631:
Essentially, if you believe the article is salvageable, it is
292:. G1 is not a replacement to delete material that falls under
18:
416:, not a draft, for reasons that the article was not suitable
976:
Though they may be speedily deletable under other criteria.
468:
It is important to note that this only applies to creations
1163:
some "made up" subjects do in fact become notable over time
1131:
and thus a copyright violation. If appropriate attribution
1452:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 3
1384:
Wikipedians are given great leeway in how to use userspace
826:. This, of course, applies to any non-English language.
1177:, but some often come up in speedy discussions anyway.
624:
578:
576:
514:
Users making a request for a page to be deleted do not
369:
66:
639:
blatant spam. Please be careful using this criterion.
1436:
Pages seemingly created to serve an online community
598:
Following a call to action by then-Foundation lawyer
226:
Thus, an example of "patent nonsense" would include:
919:), software, or other creative works, nor to entire
477:before their ban, we wouldn't delete that article.
1409:5. Blatant misuse of Knowledge (XXG) as a Web host
872:for the criterion. Regardless, it exists, and is
851:request), as this better captures the reasoning.
536:, where such discussions are generally expected.
120:if you don't think anyone will miss the content.
1474:- problems associated with NPP, and development.
1496:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion of newly created pages
949:Articles about these subjects, for example, do
935:, or list the article at Articles for deletion.
594:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying blatant advertising
1501:Knowledge (XXG):Drawing attention to new pages
1198:), and we allow those for ease of navigation.
864:Knowledge (XXG):Credible claim of significance
1097:the guidelines for foreign language redirects
8:
1472:Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/30-day list
1458:. T3 was removed in December 2020 following
998:It is very important to note the following:
253:So, in short, a good rule of thumb is this:
1002:"significant" and "important" do not mean "
969:Instructions on how to do or make something
288:Another frequent mistake is to use G1 as a
1521:Knowledge (XXG):Why I Hate Speedy Deleters
972:Services or manufactured products or goods
330:G2 is sometimes considered something of a
98:, with some examples of dos and don'ts.
45:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
929:submitted for speedy deletion as a hoax
738:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for undeletion
660:and immediately report the username to
460:The idea behind banning a user is that
456:5. Content from blocked or banned users
1196:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style#Images
721:Knowledge (XXG):Possibly unfree images
580:If an article history is deleted, the
334:counterpart to G3. However, this does
314:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying test edits
1536:Knowledge (XXG) essays about deletion
1344:, but some still qualify for speedy.
1328:use is given - commercial images can
1095:the title of the page would not meet
662:Usernames for administrator attention
383:4. Recreation of XfD-deleted material
7:
880:This applies to any article about a
749:disambiguation page before tagging.
744:14. Unnecessary disambiguation pages
699:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright Violations
264:. Common examples of text that does
102:General basics about speedy deletion
1401:. If someone set up a userpage for
1314:9. Unambiguous copyright violations
1269:5. Unused unfree copyrighted images
523:8. Dependent on a non-existent page
344:3. Pure vandalism or blatant hoaxes
1511:Knowledge (XXG):Random page patrol
1390:2. Userpages of non-existent users
717:Knowledge (XXG):Copyright problems
168:Category:Speedy deletion templates
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
14:
1487:– bot categorization of new pages
1275:fair use under some circumstances
214:User:KGirlTrucker81/What G1 isn't
1516:Knowledge (XXG):Speedy deletions
1257:4. Lack of licensing information
22:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
1129:reusing Knowledge (XXG) content
1067:This criterion only applies if
903:, and is a lower standard than
204:Knowledge (XXG):Patent nonsense
1202:3. Redirects of unlikely typos
1141:credible claim of significance
1111:were created, under the title
681:or the author otherwise has a
551:Knowledge (XXG):Office actions
1:
1491:User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage
1281:6. Missing fair-use rationale
210:User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey
811:2. Foreign language articles
705:clear copyright infringement
1273:Knowledge (XXG) does allow
1105:Royal Netherlands Air Force
667:This criterion also covers
575:has done this a few times.
563:Knowledge (XXG):Attack page
294:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
279:Joke pages, or pages about
248:This is not patent nonsense
1557:
1412:
1145:
923:of animals. The criterion
861:
696:
693:12. Copyright infringement
591:
560:
484:
393:deletion discussion venues
347:
318:Often, some articles that
311:
207:
201:
56:
1290:7. Invalid fair-use claim
1236:2. Corrupt or empty image
1075:, the article's title is
907:. This criterion applies
350:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism
1251:nominate it for deletion
1022:alternatives to deletion
947:events, and web content.
895:. This is distinct from
892:educational institutions
830:3. No content whatsoever
727:13. Abandoned Drafts or
439:not a general assumption
85:speedy deletion category
1506:Knowledge (XXG):Patrols
1373:miscellany for deletion
1358:Possibly empty category
1342:categories for deletion
966:Software or video games
928:
916:
443:not assuming good faith
426:Miscellany for deletion
400:the AfD process again.
1541:Knowledge (XXG) essays
1399:technical restrictions
1175:redirects for deletion
1101:Koninklijke Luchtmacht
1088:apply this criterion.
901:reliability of sources
890:with the exception of
774:is not the same as con
354:Knowledge (XXG):Hoaxes
237:A page consisting of "
1155:a double-decker couch
1146:Further information:
1109:Masked Laughingthrush
729:Articles for creation
687:neutral point of view
669:promotion of opinions
592:Further information:
588:11. Blatant promotion
312:Further information:
257:it is patent nonsense
208:Further information:
47:, as it has not been
886:, or organized event
683:conflict of interest
645:copyright violations
1348:1. Empty categories
1244:3. Improper license
502:7. Author requests
198:1. Patent nonsense
145:. "G11" refers to
141:rticles – section
1485:User:InceptionBot
1304:Wikimedia Commons
953:qualify for A7Â :
625:brands of cookies
546:9. Office actions
509:User:User:Example
487:WP:What G6 is not
475:George Washington
433:was not suitable
261:it probably isn't
118:proposed deletion
77:
76:
1548:
1362:
1356:
1073:most importantly
933:propose deletion
825:
819:
806:
800:
659:
653:
600:User:BradPatrick
557:10. Attack pages
370:this page change
322:patent nonsense
193:General criteria
165:
159:
69:
26:
25:
19:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1526:
1525:
1481:
1468:
1447:
1429:advertisements.
1417:
1411:
1392:
1381:
1379:1. User request
1369:
1360:
1354:
1350:
1338:
1316:
1300:
1292:
1283:
1271:
1259:
1246:
1238:
1229:
1220:
1204:
1183:
1171:
1150:
1144:
1113:Brillijstergaai
1065:
866:
860:
832:
823:
817:
813:
804:
798:
768:
755:
746:
733:
701:
695:
657:
651:
596:
590:
565:
559:
548:
534:deletion review
525:
504:
489:
483:
481:6. Housekeeping
458:
450:deletion review
385:
356:
346:
316:
310:
216:
206:
200:
195:
163:
157:
104:
89:deletion review
80:Speedy deletion
73:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
37:deletion policy
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1554:
1552:
1544:
1543:
1538:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1493:
1488:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1467:
1464:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1410:
1407:
1391:
1388:
1380:
1377:
1368:
1365:
1349:
1346:
1337:
1334:
1315:
1312:
1299:
1296:
1291:
1288:
1282:
1279:
1270:
1267:
1258:
1255:
1245:
1242:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1219:
1216:
1203:
1200:
1182:
1179:
1170:
1167:
1143:
1137:
1064:
1061:
1036:
1035:
1018:
1015:
1007:
974:
973:
970:
967:
964:
961:
958:
948:
937:
936:
859:
856:
831:
828:
812:
809:
787:
786:
783:
767:
764:
754:
751:
745:
742:
732:
725:
694:
691:
629:
628:
616:
589:
586:
558:
555:
547:
544:
524:
521:
503:
500:
482:
479:
457:
454:
410:
406:
384:
381:
345:
342:
309:
306:
286:
285:
277:
273:
243:
242:
235:
232:
199:
196:
194:
191:
135:
134:
133:
132:
103:
100:
75:
74:
71:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1553:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1531:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1466:Related pages
1465:
1463:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1444:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1416:
1408:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1389:
1387:
1385:
1378:
1376:
1374:
1366:
1364:
1359:
1347:
1345:
1343:
1335:
1333:
1331:
1325:
1322:
1313:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1297:
1295:
1289:
1287:
1280:
1278:
1276:
1268:
1266:
1264:
1256:
1254:
1252:
1243:
1241:
1235:
1233:
1226:
1224:
1217:
1215:
1213:
1209:
1201:
1199:
1197:
1194:redirects to
1193:
1189:
1180:
1178:
1176:
1168:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1149:
1142:
1138:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1116:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1062:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1011:verifiability
1008:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
994:
990:
986:
982:
977:
971:
968:
965:
962:
959:
956:
955:
954:
952:
946:
942:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:verifiability
894:
893:
887:
885:
879:
878:
877:
875:
874:very specific
870:
865:
857:
855:
852:
849:
845:
841:
837:
829:
827:
822:
810:
808:
803:
794:
791:
784:
781:
780:
779:
777:
773:
765:
763:
761:
752:
750:
743:
741:
739:
730:
726:
724:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
700:
692:
690:
688:
684:
680:
679:autobiography
676:
672:
670:
665:
663:
656:
648:
646:
640:
638:
634:
626:
621:
618:Blatant spam
617:
613:
609:
606:Blatant spam
605:
604:
603:
601:
595:
587:
585:
583:
579:
577:
574:
569:
564:
556:
554:
552:
545:
543:
540:
537:
535:
529:
522:
520:
517:
512:
510:
501:
499:
497:
493:
488:
480:
478:
476:
471:
466:
463:
455:
453:
451:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
427:
423:
422:does not mean
419:
418:as an article
415:
408:
404:
401:
398:
394:
390:
382:
380:
377:
374:
371:
366:
361:
355:
351:
343:
341:
339:
338:
333:
328:
325:
321:
315:
308:2. Test pages
307:
305:
301:
299:
295:
291:
290:carte blanche
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
269:
267:
263:
262:
258:
251:
249:
240:
236:
233:
231:
229:
228:
227:
224:
222:
215:
211:
205:
197:
192:
190:
188:
187:
182:
181:
175:
171:
169:
162:
154:
152:
148:
144:
140:
130:
129:
126:
125:
124:
121:
119:
114:
110:
101:
99:
97:
92:
90:
86:
81:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
1448:
1437:
1418:
1393:
1382:
1370:
1351:
1339:
1329:
1326:
1320:
1317:
1307:
1301:
1293:
1284:
1272:
1262:
1260:
1247:
1239:
1230:
1227:1. Redundant
1221:
1205:
1187:
1184:
1172:
1151:
1132:
1117:
1103:, about the
1092:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1066:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1037:
997:
978:
975:
950:
944:
940:
938:
924:
920:
912:
908:
889:
881:
873:
867:
853:
847:
835:
833:
814:
795:
792:
788:
775:
771:
769:
759:
756:
747:
734:
712:
704:
702:
674:
673:
666:
649:
641:
636:
632:
630:
619:
612:first person
607:
597:
570:
566:
549:
541:
538:
530:
526:
515:
513:
505:
495:
494:
490:
469:
467:
461:
459:
447:
438:
434:
430:
417:
413:
402:
396:
388:
386:
378:
375:
365:page history
359:
357:
348:Main pages:
336:
335:
329:
323:
319:
317:
302:
298:non-criteria
287:
280:
265:
260:
256:
254:
252:
247:
244:
225:
219:
217:
185:
184:
179:
178:
176:
172:
155:
150:
146:
142:
138:
136:
122:
105:
95:
93:
78:
30:
1413:Main page:
1232:of a typo.
1121:attribution
1031:redirecting
993:web content
884:web content
731:submissions
697:Main page:
655:Db-spamuser
561:Main page:
409:generalizes
403:G4 being a
202:Main page:
31:This is an
1530:Categories
1336:Categories
1192:MOS:IMAGES
1034:userspace.
1014:unsourced.
905:notability
862:See also:
836:no content
821:notenglish
766:1. Context
485:See also:
332:good-faith
239:word salad
113:stub-sized
1445:Templates
1367:Userpages
1212:Mo Vaughn
1208:Vo Vaughn
1169:Redirects
985:musicians
945:organized
807:instead.
435:as a page
284:instead).
1479:See also
1433:country.
1321:original
1082:existing
753:Articles
420:, which
358:This is
96:properly
67:WP:FIELD
59:Shortcut
1027:merging
1004:notable
957:Schools
921:species
844:Pokemon
840:Pikachu
802:Context
709:license
414:article
405:general
360:usually
221:hoaxes.
161:db-spam
149:eneral
109:merging
35:on the
1425:(XXG).
1395:User:/
991:, and
989:groups
981:people
963:Movies
917:CSD A9
760:misuse
620:is not
582:WP:FDL
397:cannot
320:aren't
281:topics
1438:other
1218:Files
1161:, as
960:Books
846:" is
842:is a
713:looks
675:Note:
615:here.
573:Jimbo
496:Note:
470:after
33:essay
1330:only
1308:know
1263:know
1086:then
1043:Note
941:only
939:The
925:does
909:only
899:and
776:tent
772:text
719:(or
703:For
516:have
462:none
431:page
389:only
387:The
352:and
212:and
186:must
1210:to
1188:MOS
1125:G12
1077:not
1069:all
1057:and
1053:and
1029:or
951:not
913:not
848:not
637:not
633:not
337:not
324:are
276::D"
266:not
1532::
1462:.
1361:}}
1355:{{
1253:.
1165:.
1133:is
1093:if
1049:A9
1006:."
987:,
983:,
876::
869:A7
824:}}
818:{{
805:}}
799:{{
778:.
740:.
671:.
664:.
658:}}
652:{{
627:).
608:is
511:.
300:.
180:no
170:.
164:}}
158:{{
151:11
91:.
1403:/
147:G
143:7
139:A
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.