Being an admin that patrols Category:Candidates for speedy deletion regularly, you will notice many mistakes that could easily be avoided, which cost admins time to decline, time they could otherwise spend on doing other important tasks.
For this reason, I hereby present a short list of basic mistakes to avoid, Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion so to speak, as a reference to both new page patrollers, admin-candidates and new admins with limited experience in this field.
The Commandments
- Instead of reading the
((db-xxx)) templates, read what Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says. Given the changing nature of speedy deletion criteria, the templates are bound to use incorrect or out-of-date wording sometimes, they are only summaries of more precise criteria, and their wording is not the basis for the reviewing admin's decision. Also, read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations.
- Remember that all criteria represent a very strict set of possible pages that may be deleted without further input. If no criterion cover the page in question and you think it should be deleted, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Deletion discussions is the correct way to achieve it. Remember that a page cannot be speedy deleted just because it meets Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Make yourself familiar with the Non-criteria.
- G1: Patent nonsense is strictly limited to true nonsense. If you can understand what the page is about, it's not patent nonsense. If it's a test page, that's what G2 is for. Resist the urge to tag articles that are blatantly un-encyclopedic but not nonsense with G1. It's almost always incorrect; G1 is not a carte blanche deletion catchall
- Not all apparent hoaxes are vandalism and properly deleted via G3. The criterion only applies to pages where no one (except maybe the creator) would have any doubt whatsoever that it is a hoax.
- G4 is limited to pages that were previously deleted by consensus, after a deletion discussion. It does not apply to pages that were previously speed deleted via speedy or proposed deletion. Also, the criterion only applies if the page is substantially the same as the deleted content. If the new page has content that the deletion discussion could not have investigated (for example sources that came into existence after the prior deletion), the previous consensus cannot apply.
- G11 requires blatant advertising. If the page can serve any other purpose at all, it's not blatant advertising. "Buy software XXX now!!!" is blatant advertising. "Software XXX is the best software for apply the infinite monkey theorem to cats!" is not. If you encounter such a page, try to remove the spammy sounding bits. If you still have a valid stub afterwards, it's not a G11.
- A1 only applies if there is no context at all. If you can understand what it's about or even guess it, use ((context)) instead, or try to improve it. Similarly, A3 only applies if there is no content at all. If there is any real text content, even if it's only speculation or similar, it does have content, even if "unencyclopedic". Remember: Content that fails WP:NOT is explicitly not covered in the speedy criteria, so A3 cannot be applied to pages only consisting of such content.
- A2 requires that exactly the same content exists on another Wikimedia project. If it doesn't, use ((notenglish)).
- Remember that A7 is much stricter than most people think!
- a.) A7 is not about notability. It's about having no credible indication of importance or significance. It is a lower standard than notability.
- b.) Credible claims are enough. An article does not have to demonstrate Wikipedia:Verifiability or cite to reliable sources to indicate importance or significance.
- c.) A7 only applies to real people, individual animals, organisations, web content or events. Not software, not books, not fictional characters, not movies, not TV shows, not games, if it is not one of those five types of topics, A7 is inapplicable (although musical recordings are eligible under A9).
- R3 applies only to recent and implausible redirects. If a redirect exists since 2004 and you think it's implausible, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
I could probably add another five or ten common errors to this page (and maybe I will), but those are the things anyone working in that area should take to heart.
