Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following views are strongly supported by consensus:
  1. CSD must be kept clear and specific, bright-line and mechanical. [1.8]
  2. Out-of-CSD speedy-deletions should instead be passed on to XfD (or PROD) for discussion, and non-compliance with this should be very rare.[1.3]
  3. The CSD do not oppose IAR, and IAR-like exemptions should not be mentioned in the CSD.[1.3,1.6]
  4. Strict CSD criteria are not bureaucracy, but instead represent the consensus against undiscussed deletions.[1.3]
  5. Though admins usually have good judgment,[1.4] higher standards apply to CSD due to less oversight,[1.8] and due to the harmful effects of deletion. Loosening the standards will make the effects worse.[1.3,1.11]
  6. Deletion, especially by one party, often has the serious harmful effects of upsetting and discouraging new contributors who are acting in good faith.[1.3]
  7. Our best-practices may be prescribed to administrators, though the descriptive/prescriptive distinction is not actually that significant an issue.[1.6,1.10,1.11]
  8. (There is some support for refactoring CSD [1.2,1.9])

Background: The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page contains the speedy deletion policy. There is a discussion as to whether this policy should be made less prescriptive and more descriptive. 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes
  • Alter the language of the policy, especially in the introduction, so that it does not imply that the policy is a firm rule;
  • Generalize the criteria where necessary so that administrators making deletion decisions are not bound by technicalities, but instead are bound by the spirit of the policy;
  • If necessary, further simplify the policy by reducing the number of criteria or merging them, so that the policy is easier to follow and the spirit of the policy is not obfuscated by jargon.
Possible objections to the proposals
  • The policy has been this way for a long time and therefore it already reflects community consensus. So there is no need to change it.
  • Policy that is not prescriptive is merely tactical information, and as such it would not be policy at all. Therefore the policy is prescriptive or it is not policy.
  • Administrators do not need leeway to interpret the criteria, since any ambiguous content can be sent to WP:XFD.
  • The criteria already represent consensus for what counts as a valid speedy deletion, and so an administrator who deletes outside the policy necessarily contravenes consensus.
  • When administrators are given too much leeway, they are bound to disagree. A clear and unambiguous explication of this policy is needed to resolve these disputes.