Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion.
Archives: 1, 2, 3

T1 clarification

For T1, exactly how long of a period is recent? I say this because G7 clarifies it to be specifically under 7 days. Anohthterwikipedian (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Anohthterwikipedian: More recent than the template it duplicates. Just redirect it. No reason to keep both, any more than an exact duplicate photo. - Jmabel ! talk 19:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Content created by a sockpuppet

Why don't we have a Commons version of WP:G5? BodhiHarp (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Commons doesn't have topic bans, general sanctions, or arbitration committees. Because Commons and Wikipedia policy don't match one another 1:1, it's not surprising that deletion policy differs as well. If there is consensus on Commons to introduce new additions to deletion policy, there's no firm barrier preventing this, but there isn't any need to specifically chase after what Wikipedia is doing either. Just because Wikipedia does something, that doesn't mean that Wiktionary, Wikisource, or Commons need to do that same thing too. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 02:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Some admins, including myself, will use CSD G3 to wipe any files that aren't in use. However, it's worth noting that the users I do this to are usually hoaxers - we've got a couple of people that like uploading fake flags (plus one that does road signs and one that does radio stations), pretending they're real, and trying to get them into articles. The rest are serial copyvio uploaders, where we could just as easily wipe with CSD F1, or spammers where G10 applies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It's worth noting that en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets has about 10x as many sockpuppeteers as Category:Sockpuppeteers. It's just less of a problem here than there. Apocheir (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Some past discussions related to this at:
I'm still surprised at how relaxed Commons can be about block evasion, when the original block is for copyvio uploads or hoaxes, and a confirmed sock's uploads are below the obviousness threshold for F10 or G3 (like this slow DR on whether we should delete or maybe keep the uploads from accounts that were confirmed and blocked as socks of a bad faith copyvio LTA). Belbury (talk) 11:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
For hoaxers and for people blocked for willful copyvios, I agree, and maybe we should have a speedy criterion for that. But I'd hate to see us speedy-delete pictures from (say) the Colombian presidency because they were uploaded by someone who was blocked for incivility. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we could introduce a new criterion G12 to delete content created by a sockpuppet, depending on the situation. BodhiHarp (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Once you get into "depending on the situation" you are out of speedy deletion territory. Speedy deletion criteria need rather sharp lines. This is why we don't handle FoP issues through speedy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
WP:G5 at Wikipedia is for content created in violation of their ban or block, so wouldn't affect older content from before their first block. Under an equivalent G5 we wouldn't delete content uploaded by the original uncivil Colombian presidency account, but we would delete any uploads from a later sockpuppet account that was deliberately evading that block.
I'd support a more limited Commons speedy criteria of something like

G12. Creations by banned or blocked users
Pages or files created by sockpuppets of banned or blocked users, where the user has been blocked for uploading copyrighted or hoax content.

... Belbury (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps there has to be doubt on the file's copyright status or whether it is in scope for example. BodhiHarp (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
The doubt would be in the mind of the user who decided to tag the file as G12. They wouldn't need to articulate that doubt, in the same way that en:WP:BE gives freedom for editors to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason. If a copyvio sockpuppet uploaded something that was indisputably public domain and genuine, and nobody minded, it might not get tagged. Belbury (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Not for single banned or blocked users, but for LTAs with many sockpuppets, yes. I do not delete files for a few socks, but for LTAs with a farm of socks, speedy deleting everything is the best solution. I would say OK to delete if there are more than 5 socks. Yann (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Two recent cases where this applies: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samathaishwarya and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Universalnews23. Yann (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Are there many cases that go the other way, where a user blocked for copyvios or hoaxes is found to be evading that block with fewer than 5 socks, and we decide not to delete those socks' uploads? Belbury (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Well, I don't know, but with only a few socks, deletion should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and may need a regular DR. I can imagine a case of a user with 2 socks, and some useful uploads. Yann (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Should this page take up the question of Template:Speedy delete and vandalism?

A few questions have come up lately with respect to vandalistic adding or removal of {{Speedy delete}} [or equivalent; I won't keep repeating that] on a file page [or other page; I won't keep repeating that], and Ooligan suggested on my user talk page that perhaps we should cover that overtly on this policy page. I don't necessarily have a neat solution to propose: a vandal starting a bogus speedy deletion and a good user removing it doesn't look that different from a good user starting a legitimate speedy deletion and a vandal removing it. And often both people are likely to think that the other is a vandal.

I've tried to describe our existing informal policy (as I see it) in the following bullet points, but this is the sort of thing that comes down to administrative judgement calls, and is very difficult to codify.

  • Repeated inappropriate adding of {{Speedy delete}} is subject to sanctions up to and including blocking. The more blatantly inappropriate, the fewer incidents are liable to lead to a block.
  • If a user has reasonable grounds to contest a speedy deletion, it is always appropriate to change it to a regular DR. There's a pretty strong presumption that is an innocent action; in practice the only exception I can think of is if someone does this repeatedly in situations parallel to ones that have already resulted in being told by an admin that it should, indeed, have been speedy deletions. (In practice, one way of telling them that is if an admin closes a DR as a speedy delete.) E.g. someone who keeps uploading logos above TOO and keeps making us go through a full DR to delete each of them, or who keeps arguing that their personal pictures are in scope. Generally, these are things that could eventually lead to a sanctions even without the issue of changing a request for speedy deletion to a regular DR.
    • In theory, rather than convert to a DR, it is OK to use a user talk page etc. to discuss the matter with the person who placed {{Speedy delete}} on the file, but because speedy deletions can be, well, speedy, it is probably best to turn it into a normal DR and address them there.
  • The only time it is reasonable to remove {{Speedy delete}} without turning it into a DR it is if it the nomination was clearly vandalism or blatant incompetence in the first place, and I do mean clearly. When done by a non-admin, this probably also always calls for followup: dropping a note on the relevant user talk page if you think this may have been an innocent error, otherwise posting to one of the Administrators' noticeboards; if it's a user with no productive contribution history, COM:AN/V is probably in order, otherwise COM:AN/U and notify the user that you are reporting them. Please, if you go this route, provide a diff in your report for the edit you think was vandalism, don't make the admin do research to find out what you already know.
    • Any other removals of {{Speedy delete}} without starting a DR constitute vandalism, and reverting such a removal does not constitute edit warring (but please do leave a comprehensible edit summary!). Other actions you can take if someone inappropriately removes {{Speedy delete}}: turn it into a DR yourself; after reverting, drop a note on the relevant user talk page to try to help them understand; bring the matter to one of the Administrators' noticeboards (again, with diffs).

Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

New Criterion: AI-generated fake

We're currently flooded with AI-generated images. All these images are generally unusable for educational purposes. I see only two uses for such files: in articles about AI and, in a very limited way, as user personal files (greetins, etc.).
Unfortunately, i very often see pseudo-historical AI-generated images in the DR nominations now, which imitate medieval pictoral arts, sculptures, documents, etc.
I propose creating a new section, F##: AI-generated fake, for quick removal such files by administrators. -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree completely. Herby talk thyme 10:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
 Support Agreed. Yann (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Note that Category:AI-generated images of historical figures and Category:AI-generated images of historical events both have a significant number of images in use, on Wikipedia projects that possibly don't object to AI generated content.
What's your intended cut-off for "historical"? Would it include pictures in Category:AI-generated images of real people like a 1960s Elvis and a 2023 Yevgeny Prigozhin, where they look superficially like photographs from the period? Belbury (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
This confirms my proposal. I see it used on the user pages and in the article en:Deepfake about AI use. Very limited use. Wikipedia projects are factual representations, not anonymous AI fantasies. I trust that administrators will use common sense when making decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, it's time for us to take action to combat this onslaught of fake images.
For example, File:Promises of fair Compensation were often ignored or violated.jpg from Category:AI-generated images of historical events. This is a good candidate for quick deletion. The person in the foreground has shoes on one foot only. I doubt the historical resemblance of his clothing to the real thing. The two people on the left resemble cyclopes. The person on the right has three arms. Do we really need this garbage? It seems like we're moving from the world of real facts into the fake AI world of the Matrix. -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
File:Promises of fair Compensation were often ignored or violated.jpg is an AI-generated line drawing in a generically modern style. Are you going further than pseudo-historical AI-generated images [...] which imitate medieval pictoral arts, sculptures, documents, etc and suggesting that any AI-generated representation of anything from history should be speedily deleted? Belbury (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Not at all happy about the extra arm, etc., but I don't think we would be doing ourselves any favors by speedying something like this. Obviously it's an illustration, and (except for that arm) about as plausible a one as would be likely to be drawn by a human; someone could easily edit it to deal with the anomaly of the arm. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I believe AI should be considered as a separate criterion. It's not always obvious that it's a personal image created by AI. However, it's almost always obvious that what we're looking at is an AI-generated fake. And і don't remember AI files being DR nominated/deleted as CSD F10. F10 is usually used for selfies etc. A separate criterion will clarify and simplify the rules. -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Apocheir: because these aren't ordinarily intended as "personal". - Jmabel ! talk 06:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment while I am generally against AI-generated images being used here on Commons, I think we do have to consider that (1) several of the Wikipedias seem to consider them often acceptable, and part of our role is to support those various Wikipedias and (2) there are subjects where any visual representation will be fictional, and I'm not sure we can say "those should not be illustrated" or "any illustration of this must be created entirely be a human." For example (on point 2), if someone wanted to illustrate the fiction about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or the possibility that William Shakespeare had been to Italy, it is not clear to me that an AI-generated image is any less appropriate than a user-made drawing. Of course, it needs to be correctly identified for what it is. - Jmabel ! talk 06:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
    several of the Wikipedias seem to consider them often acceptable - out of interest, is there any interwiki project that could reach out and tell us what AI stances different projects are taking? When I see AI images listed as COM:INUSE on other projects I'm never sure if that's an endorsement or just an obscure page that hasn't been reverted yet. Belbury (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Not needed – redundant per F10 and could cause problems of people reducing things to be a "fake" of something when that element is just intentionally an element of the image and not meant to be "faked". Prototyperspective (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
 Support - was literally about to ask that question here, but add it to the already existing F10 criteria, only thing worse than AI generated image is AI Manipulated image sometimes people use to make images clearer but which intentionally makes the image less original due to random words written on the image and even making the face of the person look like someone else..that to me is a bigger problem.. Stemoc 04:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
 Support --It's moon (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
 Neutral I believe that all images created by AI are fake, and I'm not sure whether images created by humans are fake or not. But I support reconsidering the F10 criteria; has anyone nominated (SD) them yet? --Henrydat (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Neutral, I think G3 and F10 probably adequately cover it. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose This seems contrary to the purpose of speedy deletion, and likely to go wrong as a result.
Speedy deletion is not here to be 'speedy'. It is not 'urgent deletion', it is not 'important deletion' it is certainly not 'I am outraged by this' deletion. It is at best 'simple deletion', for use when the conditions are something like obvious copyright breaches or vandalism and this is so self-evident that no reasonable editor would be expected to disagree. If it's any more complicated than this, we can't use it.
This is redundant per G1 / G3 / F10. We don't need a specific criterion to apply to a specific type of content. Criteria depend on the reason, not the medium. If it's not meeting G1 / G3, then it might still warrant deletion, but it's not straightforward enough that we can shortcircuit the discussion process and do it as a speedy.
This is going to be used instead as a simpler way of the current crop of DRs under "Unused AI image", neither of which are valid criteria. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Criteria for templates

Does the criteria for templates also apply to modules? BodhiHarp (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@BodhiHarp: I'd hesitate to speedy-delete a module except on the usual very general criteria like it being vandalism/nonsense, or if it were unused and the request came from the creator. The two speedy criteria specifically for templates are "unused" and "duplicate." If a module were unused, I'd probably still like to understand why before deleting it; if it were a duplicate, I'm not even sure how we handle that; I don't think I've seen a redirected module, not sure that can even be done. Certainly more of a process than I'd like to see handled as a "speedy".
Do you have a specific case (past or present) in mind, or was this an abstract question? I'm not sure I've ever seen a module deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Module:IPA symbol/data is unused and is a mirror of a module on Wikipedia. BodhiHarp (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
@BodhiHarp: if you think it should be deleted, you could start a DR, but I don't see the harm in keeping it. I'm actually surprised it is not used. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to change two criteria

I propose this:

  • To change G2 so the broken redirect part is a part of G8, and then rename it to R1
  • To merge G5 into G6

BodhiHarp (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@BodhiHarp Would you please include proposed changes in language?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Changing G2
I am proposing to change G2. Unused and implausible, or broken redirect so the broken redirect part is a part of G8. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content, and then rename it to R1. Unused and implausible redirect, which means we should move G2. Unused and implausible, or broken redirect into a new #Obsolete section with the same old wording and rule:
G2. Unused and implausible, or broken redirect
Page is an unused and implausible redirect, or a redirect that is dependent on deleted or non-existent content. Unused talk page redirects created as a result of a page move and cross-namespace redirects may also be deleted under this criterion.
change G8. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content so the broken redirect part is a part of it:
G8. Page dependent on deleted or non-existent content
The page or file depends on content that was deleted or no longer existing, such as orphaned talk pages without useful content, subpages without parent page, redirects that are dependent on deleted or non-existent content, and so on. The criterion only applies to content within Wikimedia, and does not apply to external content (i.e., deleted source).
and then finally renaming G2 to R1. Unused and implausible redirect:
R1. Unused and implausible redirect
Page is an unused and implausible redirect. Unused talk page redirects created as a result of a page move and cross-namespace redirects may also be deleted under this criterion.
Merging G5
I am proposing to simply merge G5. Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression into G6. Uncontroversial maintenance:
G6. Uncontroversial maintenance
Content temporarily deleted to make way for a page move, content temporarily deleted to remove specific revisions containing vandalism, threats/attacks, or personal information, content temporarily deleted to perform a history merge or split, or other uncontroversial maintenance tasks that require temporary or permanent deletion.
and then move G5 to the same new obsolete section with the old wording and rule:
G5. Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression
Content temporarily deleted to remove specific revisions containing vandalism, threats/attacks, or personal information. Content may also be temporarily deleted to perform a history merge or split.
BodhiHarp (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

G7 2026 discussion

The original discussion that decided 7 days for G7 is Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_1#c-NickK-2011-04-07T19:52:00.000Z-Author_or_uploader_request_deletion_of_recently-created_unused_page_or_file.

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2026/02#Courtesy deletion requests by uploaders, aka CSD G7 this discussion showed that com:courtesy deletion requests (aka CSD G7) would be declined if the files are com:inuse, and that the period of grace would remain at 7 days, but some users were open to extending it to 2 weeks. RoyZuo (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In practice, a request by the uploader for courtesy deletion of a file 8-14 days old and not in use is typically granted, but it's not a "speedy." We have to draw the line somewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Move

I suggest moving this page to Commons:Speedy deletion for the same reason as w:Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion/Archive 90#Requested move 19 January 2025, I will also notify the village pump of this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Why does it matter which direction the redirect goes? - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it matters.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:46, 18 April 2026 (UTC)