Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion

Merging NEWCSD into the page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should WP:NEWCSD be merged as a section at the bottom of WP:SD? This kind of advice usually goes on the page, not its talk page. I can think of some examples where I could've benefitted from seeing these reccomendations, but I didn't because they were nowhere to be found on WP:SD. FaviFake (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC) (Relisted FaviFake (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC))

I'm not convinced this would be an improvement, although my opposition is weak. My thinking is that the project page is for describing the policy as it exists while the talk page is the venue for discussions about amendments or additions to the policy - the topic of WP:NEWCSD. The NEWCSD guidance is a the top of the page (transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion/Header) and in an edit notice at talk page, so "nowhere to be found" is not really accurate. If it does warrant inclusion on the main page, then I'd say to transclude it there also as we should definitely not be removing it from the talk page.

I do think the shortcut should be retargetted back to the header rather than the talk page though, and I'll do that if nobody objects. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

"nowhere to be found" is not really accurate
I said they were nowhere to be found on WP:SD. When I'm looking for information on creating new CDS, I wouldn't think of checking the talk page. I saw NEWCSD for the first time today, after having edited the SD page for idk how many months. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Why on earth are you editing any policy page, let alone one as significant as speedy deletion, without ever having looked at the talk page!? Why would you consider creating new speedy deletion criteria without first looking at the talk page? I could sort of maybe understand it if you were a new editor, but you've been here for over 5 years which is more than long enough to learn that the first place to look when considering changes to policy is the policy talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Parts of my comments seem to keep being misinterpreted. The following is a more streamlined version of what I said: I would not think of checking the talk page first*, if both of these conditions were met:

• I wanted to create a new CDS; and
• I were looking for information;

(*ETA: I meant to say I wouldn't think of checking the talk page first, meaning I'd check it after other things, namely WP:SD. My mistake.)

I've never said any of those things because they are untrue:

• I'm currently looking for information on SD
• I've never looked at or edited this talk page,
• I've edited this policy page without looking at the talk page,
• I would consider creating new CSD
  • I would consider creating new CSD without first looking at the talk page
• when considering changes to policies, I would not look at the policy's talk page

FaviFake (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this would be an improvement. Maybe we could transclude NEWCSD to the editnotice for the main CSD page though, looks like it's currently only on the talk page's editnotice. Toadspike [Talk] 16:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The way I'm thinking about this is: where would an editor who wants to create a new CSD first check to get information on the process of creating new CSD? I think they'd first go to WP:SD, without necessarily seeing editing, and therefore not seeing the information they're looking for. FaviFake (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

In that situation they would do one of three things:

• Look at the talk page to see if the information was there
• Look at the talk page in order to ask a question/where the information is
• Look at the talk page to propose a new criteria

In all three cases they would see WP:NEWCSD at the top of the talk page and/or the edit notice when they tried to edit the page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I just think they should be made aware of NEWCSD prior to trying to actually propose it. (And again, I'm not sure editors would think that the talk will contain information on standard processes) FaviFake (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

They would be aware before trying to propose it - it's right there at the top of the talk page and in the edit notice. I'm still not understanding why you think the talk page that handles proposals for new speedy deletion criteria is the wrong place for information about proposing new speedy deletion proposals? Are there other examples where information about proposing changes to policies is located in the policies themselves? Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

They have also tried to deem the Vector 2010 page as useless (Special:Diff/1305857734/1340982916) when there's significant history in it. That alone isn't a simple oops to make. – The Grid (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I strongly oppose making WP:NEWCSD into a policy (which is what moving it to WP:SD would do). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that aspect. While I'm not philosophically opposed to making a form of NEWCSD policy (and might actually support doing do) it would at the very least need detailed review beforehand because it was not written as a policy or with the intent of becoming policy (and unless someone specifically proposes for it to become policy I don't intend to do such a review). This strengthens my opposition to the original proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 No Per the arguements above Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about U6

WP:U6 deals with "Abandoned user subpages of non-contributors". What covers "Abandoned user subpages" of users who were permanently banned and have been so for years? Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like an abandoned page of a non-contributor. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If they don't qualify as non-contributors (specifically users who have made few or no edits outside of user space) due to activity from the time before their ban, WP:MFD. Anomie⚔ 11:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that criteria is the one blocking speedy usage. Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Correctly so. Not all apparently abandoned subpages of past contributors should be deleted - it depends on the content of the page and the reason for the ban. For example a userspace essay about a topic unrelated to a ban is very different to a work-in-progress draft from someone blocked for repeated tban violations in the draft's subject area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to expand G8 to pages that are completely blank and have no use for Wikipedia

I propose expanding speedy deletion criterion G8 to include completely blank pages that have no use for Wikipedia, since there is no current general speedy deletion criterion for completely blank pages, except for articles. If this proposal gets accepted, I would then also propose renaming criterion G8 to "Non-existent or blank pages and pages dependent on them". G8 should then also say that pages that have been blanked as a result of courtesy blanking, office actions or vandalism or pages have a meaningful history should be exempt from G8. Blank pages that are or can be useful to Wikipedia, such as sandboxes, categories, drafts, and certain templates, as well as recently created pages should then also be exempt from G8. It should also not include userpages and it should include user talk pages only if the user is non-existent. I would also propose to remove criterion A3 if this proposal gets accepted, as it would then be redundant to G8. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a need for this? How many completely blank non-article pages get discussed at MfD? Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

First and foremost, this is not about MfD, it is about speedy deletion. Secondly, if a problem like this does arise, where there is a completely blank page that is completely useless and not in mainspace, the page would have to go through a whole deletion discussion which can take days to be closed instead of it being deleted quickly by an administrator. So yes, we need such a criterion. RaschenTechner (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NEWCSD before proposing this? Please see number 3 on that list. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I know that such pages are infrequent, but such situations can arise where there is such a page and it has to be deleted, but if there is no CSD criterion, it has to go through a lenghty deletion discussion, which just would not be worth the effort. Additionally, the proposal may not meet number 3 of WP:NEWCSD but it does meet number 1 and 4. It also meets 2 if my proposed exemptions to G8 get implemented. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposals need to meet all of the NEWCSD criteria, not just some of them. This also does not meet 1 as "completely blank pages that have no use for Wikipedia" is not an objective criterion. We also don't know if it meets number 2 because you've given no evidence that this issue has ever been brought to an MfD. As for number 4, as Tamzin says, this would also be redundant to several other CSDs. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Tamzin said that it is not quite redundant, and CSD criteria need to be specific. RaschenTechner (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Tell you what, @RaschenTechner. How about you go spend a few weeks and take some of these blank pages that don't already qualify for speedy deletion through MFD; if they're all uncontroversially deleted, then you can use that as evidence for why we need a new speedy deletion tag for them. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I would do this, but I don't know what the titles of those pages are. The quarry query only shows the number of those pages, but not their titles and I need the page's titles to even nominate them for MFD. If I find such pages, I would nominate them for MFD. RaschenTechner (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't know what these pages are, how do you know they need to be deleted? What problem are they causing by existing? Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what their titles are, not what they are. RaschenTechner (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, "which" would have been clearer than "what", but the questions hold - how do you know these pages need deleting if you can't look at them? What problem are they causing by existing? Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I know that they are blank pages and the problem with such pages is that they take an unnecessary amount of space on Wikipedia and are essentially useless (with the exception of actually useful pages, such as talk pages). RaschenTechner (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleting pages does not save space (it actually takes more space than leaving the page alone). [they] are essentially useless (with the exception of actually useful pages) if you don't know which pages these are how do you know whether they are useful or not? e.g. how many of them have useful history? How many have content that should be restored because it was removed inappropriately? How many can quickly and easily have content added to make them useful? Unless and until we have some idea of the answers to these questions we cannot even begin to evaluate whether the proposed criteria meets all the WP:NEWCSD requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Pages that have useful history or content should not be deleted. Only completely blank pages with no meaningful history should be deleted. RaschenTechner (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We understand that you think these pages should be deleted. That is not enough to create a new CSD. You need to show that your proposal meets NEWCSD. You have not done so. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Here you go. MFD away. —Cryptic 22:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I have gone through the list and saw mostly talk pages to existent pages, which are not useless, as they have a purpose. RaschenTechner (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Then what is the point of this entire proposal? Talk pages without a corresponding page are already speedyable; they're the very first item in WP:G8. If it's just the non-talk pages, there's just under 1200 of those (look for even numbers in the first column); that's very strong evidence that this isn't frequent enough, but they're still worth dealing with. —Cryptic 22:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The point of the proposal is to expand G8 to also include blank and useless pages that have no use for Wikipedia. I did not mean talk pages without a corresponding page, as they are already deletable under G8, and I also did not mean talk pages with a corresponding page, since they have a use. So yes, I only meant non-talk pages. My point was also not to add another CSD criterion, but to merely expand G8 to include such pages. RaschenTechner (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've made Quarry 106050 to remove a number of things likely to be false positives (namely: subpages of talkpages that have a corresponding contentpage; filetalks since these are usually Commons files; and categorypages since these can still show category contents when empty), and sorted the 1,239 resulting pages by number of revisions. (The first five are errors due to phab:T112282.) I'm not seeing a lot that look straightforward enough for a speedy deletion; for instance, it's not immediately obvious to me why various template sandboxes would need blank styles.css pages, but clearly the decision to create them was intentional, good-faith, and not a test, so no CSD would (or should) apply. I was thinking I would G6 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 363, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 364, and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 365, which appear to have been created empty due to a script error; but the archive numbering continues after them so I'm not sure that deletion would be the best solution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about "frequent", but they're reasonably numerous, around 15000 if you exclude userspace and usertalkspace. —Cryptic 21:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You should also exclude categories and talk pages with extant corresponding pages. The extant blank modules, templates, portals, and files can easily be examined and quickly deleted if necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, frequency in NEWCSD refers to the frequency of deletion discussions covered by the proposed criterion, not the total number of pages that would meet it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

To be a bit pedantic, no, it's how often the proposed criterion would arise; otherwise, none of the current criteria would meet the new-criterion criteria. But I'm well aware it's not the currently number of qualifying pages at any given time, which is why I started my comment the way I did. (And I've updated the query to show the counts of talk pages without corresponding pages, too.) —Cryptic 21:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense. Why would we have a speedy deletion criteria for "non-existent pages". If a page doesn't exist, it can't be deleted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It is about blank pages, not non-existent ones. Blank pages are pages that exist, and can therefore be deleted, but are created without content in them, which is possible. RaschenTechner (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Then why are you proposing to name this revised criterion "Non-existent or blank pages and pages dependent on them"? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Because blank pages without use or history essentially exist in name only, but de facto, they contain nothing except the title and the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". I also think the wording is a little bit unprecise, so a better wording could be "Blank pages with no meaningful use and pages depending on a non-existent page". RaschenTechner (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Most pages created entirely blank will be talkpages of extant pages, or userpages, neither of which need to be deleted. In the rare case one is created under other circumstances, like an entirely blank template or something, in practice I imagine an admin will delete that as G2, G6, or G7, all of which are arguably not quite applicable, but I don't think anyone's going to object to. Personally I'd probably G6 it as an error, and wait for the user to correct me if I'm wrong that it's an error. (G6-error should be split off to its own criterion, or at least made a lettered subcriterion, but that's a separate matter.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

G6 definitely needs splitting (it's by far the most misused critrion, in part due to being so overloaded) but I've failed to get consensus on this matter several times previously. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

And G8, for that matter, also should probably be split (see Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion/Archive_90#Rethinking_G8_entirely). If we want a specific criterion for blank pages call it G16 instead. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 21:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that discussion (unfortunately the bot being programmed was abandoned after it didn't work perfectly first time) but I still agree with the proposals you made there. When it comes to speedy deletion, I firmly believe a longer list of simple criteria is better than a shorter list of complicated ones. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirects to Special pages

I would like to create either a new code ({{db-r5}}, WP:R5) for speedy deletion of a redirect to a Special:Page, or else add verbiage to section § Other issues with redirects that would cover this. I lean towards the former, because it is a very particular situation applying to special pages only, which appear to have a unique property when you create a redirect to it (which probably should not be allowed, but is allowed).

This arose when I successfully created Wikipedia:My homepage as an apparent redirect to Special:Homepage. I say "apparent" redirect, because it looks like a redirect but does not redirect when linked to: rather than redirect you to the destination, a wikilink takes you to the redirect page itself, as if it had the ?redirect=no appended to the url.

In this particular case, I could have just used {{db-g7}} as sole editor, but I don't want to do that, at least not just yet, so that other interested editors can observe the behavior. But g7 won't always apply, and I wonder if we should create the new type. As an alternative, another approach would be to create an edit filter to block the page before it can be published, as I don't know why we should allow such a redirect to be created, if it is non-functional. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that such pages are categorically unuseful. For instance, Wikipedia talk:Special:ShortPages exists as a discussion page (since there's no Special talk namespace), and the corresponding content page is a {{soft redirect}} to Special:ShortPages. I also don't see an obvious problem with the one you created; the redirect should be softened in the same way, but it's probably useful for new users, which is our usual standard at RfD for non-R2-eligible cross-namespace redirects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Tamzin. Also, how many such redirects are there? What proportion of them cannot be resolved by either explicitly making them soft redirects, making them an information page about the target or by retargetting them somewhere (e.g. an existing information page about the target)? I'd be very surprised if this met the WP:NEWCSD frequency requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Quarry 106082 shows the 204 redirects to the Special virtual namespace and the 1 redirect to the Media virtual namespace. Other than the Media one, which just behaves as if it redirected to the corresponding file, they should probably all be turned into soft redirects or transclusions (many special pages can be transcluded), although most are in userspace so it doesn't matter much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the userspace ones, which should generally be left alone:

I've retargetted the following:

• Wikipedia:Requests for account vanishing → Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing (although the Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing#How to request a courtesy vanishing may be better?)
• Wikipedia:BLOCKLOG → Wikipedia:Historical archive/Logs/Block log (as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Wikipedia:Block log)
• Wikipedia:DELLOG → Wikipedia:Historical archive/Logs/Deletion log (as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Wikipedia:Deletion log)
• Wikipedia:UCL, Wikipedia:User creation log → Wikipedia:Historical archive/New user log (the former as an avoided double redirect of the latter)
• Wikipedia:Longest Wikipedia Article → Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Articles (as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Wikipedia:Longest Wikipedia article)
• Wikipedia:NPFEED, Wikipedia:NPPFEED, Wikipedia:SNPF, Wikipedia:NewPagesFeed, Wikipedia:NPPF → Wikipedia:New pages patrol
• Wikipedia:GENEALOGICS → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#genealogics.org reliability (link to the complete archived discussion rather than a permalink to the second of three comments in it)
• Wikipedia:List of salted pages → Wikipedia:Protected titles/Historical list of titles

The following should be converted to proper soft redirects or be made into information pages

• Wikipedia:My homepage
• Wikipedia:Movelog, Wikipedia:Move log (there doesn't appear to be a historical archive for this)
• Help:Mygadgets
• User:Preferences (Help:Preferences, where Wikipedia:Preferences redirects, is not particularly useful here imo)
• Wikipedia:SWLH

I'm unsure about these, but I don't think they should be deleted

• Wikipedia:User list, Wikipedia:Userlist - retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedians as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Wikipedia:Users?
• Wikipedia:NU - NU means "new users", Wikipedia:New users is a failed proposal from 2007
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Recent changes
• Wikipedia:Recent changes (medicine)

I'm completely unsure about these:

• Wikipedia:Special:OrphanedTimedText, this appears to be getting used based on pageviews and the talk page has been used (but many years ago, and I don't understand the comments) but the double namespace is very odd.
• Wikipedia:TCT - I guess it is intended to function as a partial shortcut for [[Wikipedia:TCT/<page>]] to [[Special:TemplateCompare/<page>]], but I'm not sure if thats correct and, if so, whether it works

I've nominated the following at RfD:

• Wikipedia:Journal des uploads - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 7#Wikipedia:Journal des uploads
• Wikipedia:New Pages Grrf - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 7#Wikipedia:New Pages Grrf
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks/Tab header/Toolbox - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 7#Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanks/Tab header/Toolbox

Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The RecentChanges redirects would probably work best as transclusions with a {{purge box}} up top. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

If you know how to set that up, then go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Recent changes and Wikipedia:Recent changes (medicine). The same markup can be copied with slight modification if there's any similar pages I overlooked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed there is no historical archive move log. Until rev:7335 in early 2005 there was no centralized log of moves at all. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 14:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

My retargetting of Wikipedia:List of salted pages was reverted, so I've now nominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 9#Wikipedia:List of salted pages. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass deletion of all villages listed at Muhu Parish#Settlements

I am proposing for speedy deletion of all villages listed at the aforementioned location, becuase they are very short articles with no context. While I have nominated a few of them, nominating all 52 for WP:A1 and notifying the page creator, so I proposed it. ~2026-34050-45 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that these qualify for WP:A1, whose rubric says: "a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" (my emphasis). Having sampled a few, it seems quite clear what the subjects of the articles are. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Do a bulk AFD nomination, after checking that they don't have a reference or anything useful. At least Kesselaid has plenty of content and should not be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Despite the general agreement here that those articles weren't eligible under WP:A1, the four nominated pages were deleted under that criterion by User:BusterD. Should they be restored? - Eureka Lott 13:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Once there is a good faith objection to a speedy deletion nomination then the page is not eligible for speedy deletion, regardless of how many other editors think it does meet the criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Four articles restored. Thanks for the help! BusterD (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)