Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

SK#4

Does any substantial contribution disqualify an AfD from being closed, or only comments that suggest deletion or otherwise agree with the nominator? See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Information Society, which has - other than the two socks - two keeps and a merge. ansh666 06:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically, any legitimate contribution that is arguing for a different outcome from "keep" would disqualify the AfD from being closed. In that particular AfD, the "merge" contribution would definitely be justification for keeping the discussion open. However, if that suggestion hadn't been made, I would argue that the discussion could've been closed as a speedy keep.--Aervanath (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Criterion 1 question

Does criterion 1 apply if the nominator does not give any reason for deletion, but someone else in the discussion also !votes delete without explaining why? I would like this to be clarified in case such a situation appears in the future. Glades12 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about CSD tagging for criterion 4

From User talk:Liz/Archive 4#Question about CSD tagging for CSK#4: should we revise the wording of the following to provide clearer guidance about {{db-banned}}-tagging AfDs created by blocked & banned editors?

the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution.
— Wikipedia:Speedy keep

Liz pointed out to me here that the {{db-banned}} tag on specific speedy keep AfDs results in transclusion of the tag to the AfD main page and AfD sorting pages so that they also show up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users.

One option is to remove the tagging suggestion altogether, since it may be useful to retain bad-faith AfDs (e.g. for future SPIs). Is there even a way to CSD tag the AfD page without inadvertently tagging the other AfD pages? — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

<noinclude>{{db-banned}}</noinclude> works to avoid tagging the log page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! So at minimum, the CSK guideline should suggest <noinclude>{{db-banned}}</noinclude> instead of just {{db-banned}}. Should the tag be the recommended course of action in general though? The current wording of can be suggests that this is up to discretion, but it's not clear in which cases are AfD nomination deletions really preferable. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove it from the log page, like the instructions already say to do. If you just noinclude the speedy deletion template, it'll still need to be removed from the log page after it's a redlink. —Cryptic 07:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What Cryptic said. If the page is not transcluded in the log then the CSD tag will also not be transcluded anywhere, basically if you're doing one of the steps you also have to do the others. If there is any change needed to the instructions then it would be to change "the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted" to "the nomination can be removed from the log, then tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted". Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that resolves and clears up my first question! I suppose the second one, about whether to speedy delete the nomination at all, is just one of those optional WP:BANREVERT things that doesn't need additional guidance. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)