Wikipedia:FIELD

This page is intended to be a quick guide to understanding the speedy deletion criteria, and how to apply it properly.

The policy is quite clear in usage – it is meant to be used in "limited circumstances," and is not the only option when approached. If the guitarist for a somewhat-well-known band is tagged for speedy deletion, consider merging the information to the band's article. If an article reads like an advertisement for a major company, consider cutting the article down to a stub-sized article instead of allowing a redlink to be created. Having second thoughts as you see an article? You can always bump it to a different criterion – articles for deletion if you feel it might be able to use more discussion, or proposed deletion if you don't think anyone will miss the content.

If you still feel that speedy deletion is right for you, here's a quick explanation of how the policy is structured:

That's it! Thus, it allows for easy abbreviation when referring to them with experienced editors off-hand: "A7" refers to Articles – section 7. "G11" refers to General 11. Some editors are bothered by the use of abbreviations like that, so consider not using them, or, in a best-case scenario, using both the abbreviation and the specific rationalization so that everyone understands what criteria you're using.

A number of templates have also been created for some of the more typical occurrences. For instance, {{}} is typically used for spam articles. A full listing can be found at Category:Speedy_deletion_templates.

It is also strongly recommended that you leave a message with the article creator when nominating an article for speedy deletion. While the author can't remove the tag, they may be able to solve the problem or explain why the deletion would be improper with a {{}} tag. Please be courteous – speedy deletion can be a tough process for some to swallow.

The following are some clear explanations of the criteria with some examples of dos and don'ts.

The first general criterion seems simple on its face, but has historically been more confusing than it seems. The criterion states Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Unfortunately, many users ignore the part beyond "no meaningful content."

...
Wikipedia