Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

A suggestion for encouraging and better enabling proper sourcing

Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#A suggestion for encouraging and better enabling proper sourcing

Removal of T2

I am removing T2. This criterion endangers templates created for illustrative purposes and could get in the way of conducting experiments such as Template:Prob that require templates. Its addition back in 2007 was controversial and reverted several times. I think it's time to give it the heave-ho. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please get consensus here first before declaring things "deprecated." If a template needs to be created for an example, it could be created as a subpage of the project-space page it is associated with or as a user subpage. Mr.Z-man 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This criterion is important for precisely what it says, deleting templates that misrepresent policy. It's useful for keeping out official looking but patently false warning and speedy templates, which I can recall seeing in the past. Further, we all have our own userspaces for experimenting. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with attempting to change policy through a good-faith edit; note the square box below the "Previous Consensus" oval at WP:CCC. Discussion is further down on the flowchart. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmph, that chart moves around. Should be at CONSENSUS proper... or it should have a section explaining the chart... that's for later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Obuibo Mbstpo's edit. That's one heck of a strange criterion for speedy deletion. I'd think that kind of thing wouldn't happen too often, and could just fall under common sense. As per WP:BRD can someone explain why that was actually (still) in there? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC) on the other tentacle, userspace can work. On yet another tentacle, sometimes userspace is rather unhandy {{User:Foobar/templates/complexdeletiontest}} is gonna hurt your wrists if you use it a lot ^^;;

We might have a userspace dedicated just to templates, much as User:Ubx is dedicated to userboxes. Let's see, what acronym should we use? User:Tps or something? Can you give me a report on that idea first thing tomorrow morning? Yeah, that'd be great, thaaanks... (sips coffee) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Darn, I see someone already took that username. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Tpt? User:Template? etc... --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that we don't waste too much time on this. There is a thread running on WP:ANI about the antics of Obuibo Mbstpo

Mayalld (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, found it already :-) . Anyway, I think this is already moving towards resolution either way. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think that some have it backwards. Speedy deletion is a process which should enjoy wide consensus, it should continue, in every respect, to enjoy consensus. Templates that misrepresent policy should not be deleted, they should be edited. What a concept! Fix it, don't flush it. Edit the template so it does not misrepresent policy. Therefore, actually, Mbstpo is correct, and I intend to revert his change back. After a decent pause to ensure consensus, of course, no edit warring around here, nosiree. Now, esteemed and experienced editors, how long should I wait? Oh, one more question, while we wait. How do I know when there is consensus if the majority is presenting bad arguments? Is it a two-thirds vote? ninety percent? Wikipedia is founded on personal responsibility for actions, so if I think T2 should go, and I think the arguments are clear, seems to me that to wait a few days to see if any sound arguments to keep it appear should be enough. Right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs)
The templates that T2 is meant to deal with are ones that can only be fixed by deleting them. Much like an article on a non-notable topic can only be fixed by deleting/redirecting it, a template describing a process that has no basis in policy as a policy is similarly unfixable. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess we wouldn't have any of those to look at since they have been speedy deleted, right? How in the world could a template be unfixable? How about blanking it? Articles on non-notable topics can be fixed by blanking/redirecting, without deleting. In this case, T2 was applied, apparently, to a template that did not violate policy. It violated an opinion of policy held by the deleting administrator. There was no risk of use to violate policy. So what we saw was an abuse of T2. It was not "blatant" violation of policy. If there was a problem, it could have been fixed, I'm sure. Details of language. --Abd (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the criteria is for blatant misrepresentations of policy. If its just partially incorrect, it could be fixed, but if its totally wrong, just delete it, fixing would involve changing all the content and maybe renaming as well, it would basically be a totally new template when you finish. Also, you are now saying that T2 was applied incorrectly in the example cited (where it wasn't actually used), wouldn't that make it a bad example to use as justification for removing the criterion? Blanking would be silly, what use is a blank template? And redirecting wouldn't make much sense if there was no similar template or the title itself is contrary to policy ({{db-g13}}) To reply to Kim Bruning's comments above, yes, it does fall under common sense, speedy deletion criteria should be obvious why they are deletion criteria. (And you shouldn't be using userspace templates very much anyway) Mr.Z-man 05:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Consider the hypothetical {{db-npov}}, which is a speedy deletion template for something that is not a valid CSD criterion; while one could edit the wording of the template to make it correspond to a valid criterion, the title of the template would mean that it's not useful and any effort spent fixing it would be wasted. (As for blanking, why would we want to keep blanked template pages? That would only create confusion and consume the time of editors who want to find out why the template was blanked but not deleted.) Black Falcon (Talk) 05:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC) By the way, you write that "in this case, T2 was applied" -- could you clarify to which case you're referring"? Thanks.
Sorry, it's mentioned in the AN/I report mentioned above. I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. Blanking still allows ordinary editors to see what was there, possibly to recover useful content. Deletion is much more cumbersome.--Abd (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You are assuming there is useful content that would be helpful somewhere else. Using Black Falcon's {{db-npov}} example, a template used to mark pages for speedy deletion for not being NPOV, it would contain the basic info of every speedy deletion template plus something like "not written from a neutral point of view." What is there to keep that isn't already somewhere else that we would need to keep the history of an obscure deleted/blanked template? (it would be likely deleted within a few days of creation, not many people would even know it existed) Mr.Z-man 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A handful that I've personally deleted under T2: {{Medical Warning}}, {{Avitag}}, {{Classified-us}}, for the admins amongst us. What salvageable content is there to rescue from templates like these? Happy‑melon 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What I can see is that I will ask for restoration of the template deleted under T2, now that this discussion, initiated by Mbstpo under WP:BRD, has clarified the usage of the criterion. I'll get to that later, if an admin seeing this doesn't simply do it. If someone still thinks it should be deleted, it can then go to TfD, or, at least, we can examine it to determine compliance with T2. It could be restored to Mbstpo's user space, or to mine, or to the project space where it was relevant. (If it is not easy to find, I'll locate reference to it, but a little later.)--Abd (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what "the template deleted under T2" are you referring to? Happy‑melon
I think it's Template:Canvassing. Hut 8.5 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. By the way, I thought the Template a Bad Idea. But not contrary to policy.--Abd (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that template did clearly misrepresent policy, setting out that canvassing is okay so long as the user receiving it "opts in", which is false. However, this is an unusual case where that could have been fixed. If the template used different wording, it could make it clear it isn't trying to conflict with policy. Mangojuicetalk 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this template could ever not conflict with policy. Canvassing is not allowed, per WP:CANVAS, and the template's nature is to imply that the user has a choice about whether to be canvassed or not, which is a choice which is simply not available. Anything that says it is is violation of policy. Happy‑melon 19:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewording to conform to a consensus I have seen

CSD4 is a very touchy guideline when it comes to user subpages. There are definitely instances where users have made user subpages to subvert deletion discussions: and these subpages should not be immune from CSD4 as this is exactly why the guideline is in place. However, there are also plenty of instances of properly userfied content that superficially appears to be the recreation of deleted content which is just being sandboxed and therefore should not be speedily deleted. Also, if the result of a deletion discussion was "userfy", obviously this should not be speedily deleted. However, the distinction between proper userfication and improper subversion of WP:DELETE should be obvious from the edit history. I changed the criteria listing to that effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY#T1

I'd like to propose a change to this speedy criteria. I think it should be opened up a little to include all templates, rather than those in template namespace. There's a lot of userboxes created that whilst not attack user boxes, they are inflamatory in other ways to require speedy deletion - this is a perfect criteria to include it in and userboxes are simply tremplates that are often kept in peoples userspace. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, personally I feel that G10 sufficiently covers it; if it isn't an actual attack on anyone and is instead just mildly perturbing, there's TfD (if it even needs to be deleted at all; I can easily see someone saying "I personally dislike such-and-such" under a revised T1. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are devisive userboxes that aren't attack. I'm thinking something similar to the pedophile userbox wheel war - they certainly weren't an attaack, but were without a doubt inflammatory. I've seen a few lately that don't meet the letter of G10, but should still go right away because they're inflammatory. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that the namespace limit was included precisely to prevent userspace templates like userboxes from being deleted under T1. I suggest you look up that previous discussion (I can't remember any of the details) and reassure yourself that there weren't any arguments presented that still apply. Happy‑melon 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been rejected soundly before (see here for an example). A combination of the userbox migration and miscellany for deletion can handle inflammatory templates (with G10 handling the worst cases like the one you speedy-deleted recently). The userbox wars were far more inflammatory and divisive than anyone happening upon a template that didn't sit well with their political ideology. Templates that bring disrepute to the project (for example, a pedophilia userbox) can also be speedily deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I don't think it should apply to any userboxes - although I know it has in the past. All userboxes now go to MfD not TfD because userboxes shouldn't be treated differently merely because of the namespace they currently reside in (it was creating inconsistencies to have userboxes nominated at TfD during an RfC over userboxes) and b/c it eliminates the possibility of gaming by moving userboxes between namespaces. If they are problematic but aren't bad enough for G10 they should be either userfied per WP:GUS or taken directly to MfD (which often simply userfies them).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Point taken... all non-Wikipedia related userboxes should be in the User: namespace. I've never seen anyone play the move-then-delete trick though. It is such a blatant violation of WP:GAME (which is a behavioral guideline after all), that I doubt anyone hope no one would be stupid enough to pull it. I wouldn't hesitate to block an admin who persisted in gaming like this after sufficient warning (and yes, it would be a preventative block because it would stop the anticipated move). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it ever actually happened, but it was pointed out at WT:TFD that this was possible and that namespace shouldn't control which page something was discussed on. But the suggestion was rather that one could avoid deletion by preemptively userfying mid-discussion - and one could easily argue that it improved the page by moving it to the proper namespace and therefore was completely proper to do during a TFD. The real problem is that TFD would often delete a duplicate template whereas MfD would usually allow many different versions of essentially the same box.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ugh, please no. Part of how we ended the userbox wars was to curtail speedy deletion of userboxes under T1. I don't want to see Userbox War IV fought. (Or maybe it would be Userbox War III; at least one of those wars was before my time.) GRBerry 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

a possible problem with A7

I was preparing an article with {{db-person}} when I noticed a possible problem. A7 says:

  • An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

I added the bolding to the above paste. When previewing the article with the db-person tag I noticed the box it shows says:

The above line has a link to WP:BIO which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (people). That page has the following statement at the top:

✔ This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcut

I find it odd that the A7 description says it is distinct from notability and then the box it produces has a link/redirect to the notability page. Is there anyway we can change something to make it seem less odd? --Rockfang (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good observation, we certainly do need to clarify that somehow.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the template wording should reflect the policy, I have removed the link from the template. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this link removal is important to avoid confusion about the intent of the policy. Dcoetzee 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've revised the new template (discussed exhaustively above) to accord. :) I believe those are almost ready to launch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Criterion I1 - redundant images

Is Image:ColombiaCaldas.png, a user-created GFDL map which is redundant to Image:Republic of Colombia - Caldas.png (same file format, higher resolution), covered by criterion I1? (The images depict the same subject, but they are not identical in content and style.) If not, should the image be deleted through IFD or just moved to Commons? Black Falcon (Talk) 06:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not an I1, as the images are, as you say, different. Cases could be made for one over the other for aesthetic or other reasons, so both should be kept. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Your response reinforces my understanding of I1 - that it applies mostly to duplicate uploads of an image and not to alternate depictions of the same subject. There are probably hundreds of maps which have been replaced by more accurate and higher-resolution versions, but since they were uploaded under a GFDL license, I suppose that their continued existence is fairly harmless. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

C1 (empty categories)

Obvious question, and I apologise if it's been raised before, but is there any way of telling whether a category has been empty for four days? Or do we just check its empty now, and assume good faith on the part of the nominator? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for the most part, although there are two checks that can be done: (1) checking the date of the category's creation to see whether it has existed for at least 4 days, and (2) checking the edit history of the person who tagged the category for deletion in order to determine whether they emptied the category shortly before tagging it. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point though. Via an MfD I've identified a category that had only itself and a userbox in it. If the userbox is deleted (and it likely will be since no one is using it), the category will be empty (the userbox was responsible for the loop). There will be no record (except deep in my edit history where I killed the loop), since the box was transcluded as there will be only a redlink of the box on the page. In that case it may be just housekeeping, but the point is that you often can't tell. Maybe such tags should be dated like image tags to tell when they expire. It would be a lot simpler for editors to be able to tag the page when they find it rather than coming back in 4 days. And nobody wants to go through 4 or more days of edit history since you can't limit it to the cat namespace.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A category like you describe would be eligible for WP:CSD#C3 (populated by a deleted template) as soon as the template is deleted. Happy‑melon 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Good point! But the issue still remains for those that are populated otherwise, since there is no edit to the cat page involved in making it empty.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

R2 - shortcuts to user pages

For quite a while, shortcuts that start with WP: and point to user pages could be deleted under R2 (for example, if I made WP:CBM redirect to User:CBM). Now that WP: is an abbreviation for Wikipedia:, these no longer literally qualify. Has this been discussed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WP: was a pseudo-namespace and not considered part of the article namespace. Such redirects should not have been deleted under R2. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite being relatively well versed in WP deletion policy, I have never heard that argument put forward before. WP: was, until recently, in namespace 0, and fell under R2. Indeed, an important motivation for aliasing WP: to Wikipedia: was to remove the issue of these being cross-namespace redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that it's no longer possible to easily create the page WP:CBM, or navigate to it, how is CSD's take on their deletion relevant? Happy‑melon 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The page would now be created at Wikipedia:CBM, which by bad luck is now excluded from CSD:R2, but isn't any more reasonable than before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, you're basically saying "should R2 cover redirects from projectspace to userspace? My opinion would be "yes", as I can't think of any situation where such links would be useful. Happy‑melon 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
These occasionally get nominated at WP:RFD. Most usually are deleted, but a number have survived. WP:VPRF is one where the community overwhelmingly thought it was useful. I see no reason to speedy them. Any problematic ones can be handled by RFD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See my comments on WP:50k below. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
While it was in namespace 0, it was defined as a pseudo-namespace. See Wikipedia:Namespace which lists more. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but I have never seen written documentation of the claim that pseudo namespaces are excluded from R2. At the moment CSD doesn't mention pseudo namespaces in any way. If I made CAT:FOO redirect to a user page, that qualify under R2 as "a redirect from article space." That's why it's odd that WP:FOO would no longer qualify, even though CAT:FOO would.
There are a few exceptions to R2, it's true, but I think they are all for pages that could be in the Wikipedia space anyway (like Vandalproof). — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The pseudonamespace WP was explicitly excluded from criterion R2 in the early wording and in the long-standing understanding of that case. R2 was created to permit the automatic deletion of the redirect that gets left behind after userfication of a page. The intent was to eliminate any possibility of confusion among readers who might not notice that they'd been switched from an encyclopedia article to a vanity userpage. (R2 could also be used if someone maliciously created a redirect from the article space to a userpage but that would already be deletable as vandalism.) WP:-based redirects were never appropriate to delete under R2 because there is no possibility of confusion between the destination and an article. On the other hand, essays and guidelines often move quite fluidly in and out of the userspace. Some of our best and most heavily referenced essays are still in the userspace. People give them shortcuts because they are useful. Applying some legalistic definition of R2 in order to speedy-delete to those useful shortcuts was never appropriate. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the argument against deletion is equally legalistic - that, because this is a "pseudo namespace", the redirect isn't "really" a cross-namespace redirect. A WP: prefix should, with very few exceptions, indicate a page in the Wikipedia namespace, since "WP" is an abbreviation for "Wikipedia", not an abbreviation for "Shortcut". WP: prefixes aren't really appropriate for permanent userspace essays, especially since it's trivial to put the essay in wikipedia space if it is so commonly cited that it needs a shortcut. In practice, very few essays move out of wikipedia namespace once they are in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of redirects from WP:x to User space are the result of essays being userfied. Many of these essays are frequently referred to during process discussions - and the easiest way to refer to these essays is to use a shortcut. I admit to being slightly biased on this subject, as one of my user pages (User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people) is just such an essay, and a quick look at its "whatlinkshere" will show that its shortcut WP:50k is heavily used (and was, in fact, the subject of a RfD which was defeated for just that reason). For this reason I'd oppose any move to include "WP-space" in R2. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
At least I figured out why I was so confused - the "except for WP:" clause was added after I learned the criterion. So I do see why other people are used to it. But I'll maintain that it ignores the spirit of R2, which is that user pages are should not be passed off as other sorts of pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
An other reason not to include shortcuts ito the userspace in R2: There are some bot-generated lists in the userspace of the bots or their owners (such as WP:PRODSUM, WP:PERTABLE) - shortcuts to these is very useful. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Amendment of G4

I believe we should amend G4 to include images deleted at WP:PUI. I propose the rewording to be A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion or possibly unfree images, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This seems to be common sense: if an administrator has decided something is probably a copyright violation, it should stay that way. Please note that this policy has worked well on commons before, and I can't really think of any reason not to include it here. However, I have seen it be an issue in the past, where an image is continually re-uploaded. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If they've been deleted at PUI, that would be under WP:CSD#I9. If they're uploaded again, they can be deleted under I9 again. Simple :D. No need to change anything, as they're already covered. Happy‑melon 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to CSD G4 (or possibly better as an entirely new criterion)

At present, G4 applies only to recreation after an AfD. It doesn't address the situation where an opponent of the deletion creates a copy of the article under a different name during the AfD.

At present such cases are typically redirected to the original page that they are a copy of, and either the resulting redirect deleted by CSD R1 after the article has been deleted, or if the AfD fails deleted by PROD as a duplicate of another article.

Whilst such antics could well be regarded as vandalism deletable under CSD G3, it would seem sensible to expand G4 accordingly

Suggested text

The criterion should be reworded as follows (additional text show in italics)

Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, or currently subject to such a discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version (or version proposed for deletion) and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

Discussion

I'm not sure I like this change. As is, an article that is recreated during the discussion, and the article itself is deleted, then the subarticle may be deleted or is. Your text, however, could prohibit any sort of copying of the text during the discussion, and I'm not sure I like that.
Also, we should amend G4 to include images deleted via WP:PUI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I can envisage a scenario that would be problematic. G4 doesn't apply to recreation in user space, and only applies to copies that are substantially identical, so it wouldn't cover merging parts of the content into other articles. As far as I can see, it would only catch the practice of creating a duplicate article in mainspace with the intention of frustrating an AfD. However, I am very open to tweaking things to ensure that we don't get unintended consequences. I feel that there is an issue to be addressed here, and that it is the sort of issue that is usually addressed via CSD, so feel free to suggest improvements.
I wholeheartedly agree that WP:PUI should come withing the scope of G4 Mayalld (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Copies of articles created in the mainspace are usually deleted anyway - frequently under G3 - so there is no need for this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Userspace subpages of banned users?

There is no criteria for deletion of userspace subpages of banned users. Should there be? Note that I am not referring to the main user page or talk page (which are typically marked with {{banned user}}, per WP:Banning policy), but to sandbox pages or other personal work pages. I think there should be a U4 category for them, as the alternative (WP:MFD) seems like overkill for this situation, and G5 only applies to pages newly created after the ban. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly opposed to adding a new criterion, since it seems to cover uncontroversial cases, but perhaps PROD deletion suffices for these types of situations. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The only problem I have with that is sometimes those banned editors have supporters who can remove the prod tag for no other reason than ILIKEIT, and we're back to requiring MFD. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is this: Template:Temporary userpage. I have deleted troll trophy userpages a while after they were indef blocked many times and nobody has ever complained. (1 == 2)Until 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
PROD is only available for user pages for users with no recent edits AND few or no contributions to the encyclopedia. . As GRBerry notes below, most banned users have made substantial contributions, so PRODing their sub-pages is not appropriate. Other than throwing them down the memory hole, is there a reason to delete non-disruptive user sub-pages for banned users? Dsmdgold (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of WP:Deny recognition, although that particular essay is more about short-term vandals than banned editors with long-term contributions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There probably shouldn't be a special speedy criteria. I think this rule fails the test of "do all pages meeting this criteria merit deletion and would those deletions be non-controversial". Subpages created by sockpuppets after a user is banned are already speedy deletable, so the criteria would only cover those created before they are banned. At that time, they were contributors in good standing and were probably making valuable contributions, and may well have subpages reflecting their valuable work. (Very few users who last long enough to be banned, as opposed to merely blocked, lack a body of valuable contributions.) The average garden variety troll doesn't last long enough to be banned. GRBerry 19:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a need for a new criteria for them. I can't think of any page that warrants deletion just because its author has been banned. Lets say Admin X writes an essay about Wikipedia in his userspace. Some time later, Admin X is banned by ArbCom (for some particularly outrageous and unforgivable something). What about Admin X's banning makes the essay worth deleting? The key in pretty much everything on Wikipedia is that the content is more important than the author. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Very true. If material is clearly useless, it can be uncontroversially deleted through a (probably quiet) MfD. Happy‑melon 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not just stick the category into the banned user template and see if anyone objects. I have seen more than once on anti-Wikipedia forums links to trophy userpages "owned" by banned users(read timecop and colscott). (1 == 2)Until 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, sounds reasonable, can we just change the template to say idefinitely blocked or banned user and fix the cats. I just don't think we should tinker with {{temporary userpage}} - because it gets misused - I don't particularly care about {{indefblocked}} which has a clearer usage.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiding all CSD categories except the main one

I think that all the CSD categories, except the main one (Category:Candidates for speedy deletion) should be hidden. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This would make it more like other maintenance categories- the base category isn't hidden, subcategories are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A7 question

Should {{db-notability}} really link to the A7 template when the description of A7 includes "This is distinct from questions of notability", surely this just has the potential to confuse people and lead to the criterion being misused. Guest9999 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I will support anyone who takes a redirect to a CSD template to RfD (seriously, check out Category:Speedy deletion templates - we have plenty to go around!), so go ahead if you think it's inappropriate. Happy‑melon 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new wordings for CSD templates

This is a continuation of the discussion which has been archived here. I thought of another way to implement the proposed wording change to db-meta, i.e. leaving out "The reason given is" in order to reduce the number of unnecessary words. My suggestion here is to modify db-meta so that it behaves just as it does now, except that if a parameter is specified "nogiven=1" then it leaves out "The reason given is". People using the templates would not have to type in "nogiven=1"; that parameter would appear in the code of the other templates. With this method, the template speedybase would not be needed and could be deleted. The other templates could be modified one at a time with no disruption. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. The templates, although highly-visible, are not as widely used as some, and the change is not so great that while the transition is in progress the templates become unreadable. If we code up new versions of each template at Template:Db-xN/new, I can have MelonBot update all the templates from those subpages within a minute, two at the most. Adding more parameters to Db-meta is not really an ideal solution if we can avoid it, which I think we can here. Happy‑melon 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{db-meta/new}} with the new syntax, and a handful of new CSD templates at {{db-g1/new}}, {{db-g2/new}}, etc. If you are serious about completing this modification, you need to complete all the other /new templates with whatever wording you think is necessary; I'll instruct the script to replace "db-meta/new" with "db-meta" when updating the live templates. While you're doing so, please can you copy all the documentation and interwiki links to Template:Db-xN/doc subpages so that we can implement {{documentation}} at the same time, which will make the template pages look a lot neater. Happy‑melon 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Happy-melon. Except possibly for A7 and T3, which involve complexities of transclusion and time-dependence, it seems to me that there is no objection to the proposed new wordings.
I suggest that we implement the new wordings for all the others in the way you suggest in a few days, if there is still no objection. I created db-a1/new and db-a1/doc. Would you mind checking whether I did that right? And then I'll create the others. I also edited </b> into db-meta/new. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is looking for the proposed new wordings, they're here: general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals). --Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if the word "as" could be taken out of the deletion reason given if you click on the "deletion" link in the tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just changed them slightly - what do other people think about it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your changes are probably fine. I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by taking out the word "as" -- clicking where? but you've put "because it's" instead of "as", which looks OK to me, although I'm trying to make the wording shorter and that's slightly longer.
This can't be right: (in Template:db-a2/doc:) <includeonly>{{template shortcut|Foreign|Db-a2}}</includeonly> <noinclude>This template places the page in [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]. One of them has includeonly and one has noinclude??? But both are supposed to show up as documentation? How about just removing the includeonly and noinclude tags -- I think that works too. Happy-melon or somebody who understands how the {{documentation}} thingy works, could you comment on that please? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
About the word "as", if you look here you can see what I mean (if you're an admin). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I see the problem (although I'm not an admin). You had inserted the word "as" into Template:db-meta/new. I just took it out again. I'm sorry I neglected to call it a "revert" in the edit summary. db-meta/new needs to be able to handle at least two cases: (1) wording which continues " as an article which ..." or something along those lines (beginning with a space character), and (2) wording which continues ". It is an article which ..." or something along those lines, beginning with a period which is not preceded by a space, which ends the previous sentence. Now I'm wondering whether your "because it's" was inserted in order to try to fix this problem, and should perhaps be changed back to "as" which is briefer and which corresponds to the suggested wording in the discussion subpages. Also maybe "lead-in" is totally unnecessary -- it can simply be part of the following text as I originally had it. But is there some problem I don't understand that only admins can see? If so I'd appreciate an explanation of it. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The deletion tags all say "Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion". The word deletion links to the deletion screen, with the reason already in place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I get what you're saying. OK, so the leadin is needed. How about not the "because it's", though? I.e. let's use the proposed wordings in the subpages, such as "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." with the deletion reason given when the admin clicks "deletion" being just "a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". Rather than having the template say, with "because it's", "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, because it's a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article." If you think the "because it's" looks better in the deletion reason given when one clicks "deletion", then I suggest the use of an alternative leadin variable for that purpose; i.e. the leadin can be " as " for display in the template, and a separate variable (leadin2?) defined as "because it's " for display when one clicks on "deletion". I'm trying to reduce unnecessary words as much as possible, since the templates are read quickly and frequently by many people. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that Template:db-meta/new is missing the following code which is in Template:db-meta: {{hidden-delete-reason|Speedy concern: {{{1}}} {{{reason|}}}}}{{#if:{{{rationale|}}}| <span style="color:red; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold;">{{{rationale}}}</span>}} . There may also be other differences. I wonder whether this was intentional or by mistake? I'm trying to figure out how to word the reason that shows up when admins click "deletion". If the words "Speedy concern:" appear, then I think it makes sense to have lead-in2 equal to "because it's " when lead-in is "&npsp;as ", nd to have lead-in2 nonexistent when a new sentence is being started and lead-in is ". ". So it will look like "Speedy concern: because it's an article..." or "Speedy concern: This article..." However, db-meta/new doesn't even have the words "Speedy concern", so I'm not sure how to proceed. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the current {{db-meta}} includes the {{hidden-delete-reason}} template, which is passed the contents of the first parameter. It then includes that text again inside <span id="delete-reason" display=none></span> tags. The contents of the span is picked up by a javascript which preloads admins' deletion summaries with the relevant language. So what appears when the page is rendered is the reason text once, displayed, and then the text again, in display=none style. Normally that's fine, but look at the mess it made of {{db-t3}} before we changed it to not use wiki-bullets. {{hidden-delete-reason}} is a horrible way of providing the functionality, so what I've done with {{db-meta/new}} is to enclose the whole reason in <span id="delete-reason"></span> tags without the display=none parameter. So the text is only included once, and the javascript can still pick up the delete reasoning. This is what should have been done when the javascript was first created, rather than the awkward use of {{hidden-delete-reason}}. However, as you've noticed, it makes it harder to play around with what gets preloaded, as the text has to make sense when displayed after "may qualify for speedy deletion..." as well as when preloaded into the delete-reason field. I'm also slightly concerned about what will happen when a long criterion such as T3 or {{db-p2}} is preloaded - it might well overfill the delete-reason field
A more elegant solution would to have a separate parameter in {{db-meta/new}} for the preloaded text. This not only permits us to craft the default deletion summaries as we wish, but also avoids this problem of having to make them read correctly in two separate displays. I have made the necessary change to {{db-meta/new}}, allowing the contents of the delete-reason span to be filled with the parameter |summary=. I can't see why this wasn't done with the old CSD templates.
With regards the connection between the predefined "may qualify for speedy deletion" and the defined text, I absolutely loathe the inclusion of an extra parameter. Is is not easier simply to use an HTML space (&#32;) to force the display of a space before "as" where necessary, rather than a whole new parameter? I have boldly removed the "lead-in" parameter and recoded the A-series templates, using the HTML space where necessary. Although we're using HTML italics and bold already, if people think the HTML space is too obscure we could use the more familiar nbsp instead (I noticed that in one template, someone had loaded the lead-in parameter with a nbsp!). Happy‑melon 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining all that. Keeping the number of parameters small sounds like a good idea to me, so I'm OK with getting rid of both lead-in and lead-in2 if that's what you'd like to do. From what you say, your summary parameter allows the "as" to be suppressed as Od Mishehu wishes, so I guess it all works out. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this edit to Template:db-meta/new by Od Mishehu. If you want to propose a change to the proposed wordings, please discuss it here first, or on the subpages for that purpose (see hatnote at the top of this talk page). The proposed new wordings as they currently stand do not contain the word "because". I'd like to remove this word in order to reduce the number of words. If it's considered important to keep the word "because", please explain the reason here. Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've put links for convenience in the tables of the subpages (general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals)) to the new templates such as Template:db-a1/new and documentation Template:db-a1/doc. The documentation will become visible when we move the new versions of the templates to the standard names. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this looks bad. Parameter 1 should be set up in such a way that it can serve as a deletion reason. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You're working on the basis that whatever we do has to work with the current deletion preload script. There's no reason why MediaWiki:Sysop.js can't be altered. In fact, when these templates go live, in most cases the contents of the <span id="delete-reason"> span is irrelevant. The deletion preload script actually looks for templates - if it sees the template {{db-a1}} or any of its redirects, it loads the deletion summary for CSD#A1. Only if it sees a template it doesn't recognise, like our new {{db-xN/new}} series, does it load the template text. In some senses, this is a good idea, as deletion logs can't easily be changed and so a clever vandal could get something obscene loaded into the logs by appropriate modifications to the speedy templates. But in other senses it is less robust because if someone were to create a new redirect to {{db-a1}}, the script wouldn't recognise it.
I think that the best compromise solution is to include in the new templates a <span id="delete-criterion> span which contains the CSD criterion the template uses. In most cases (pretty much all bar G6), this should be sufficient for the script to pick it up and apply a deletion summary which is hardcoded in a protected page. Some modification to Sysop.js will be required, but there is no reason why we have to do this in isolation. I will post on VPT or somewhere and ask if the script can be altered in this manner. There's no reason why we should perpetuate a slightly ropey system just because changing it requires several operations working together. Happy‑melon 12:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't use this script - sometimes I like to use the default deletion message or the given one. prefixed by the CSD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, עוד מישהו. By "this script" I guess you mean the same thing Happy-melon means by "deletion preload script" (but I'm not sure what that is, either – maybe MediaWiki:Sysop.js.) I don't know what "default deletion message" you mean, and I don't know what you mean by the "given one", or by prefixing it with the CSD (with the wording from the CSD policy? or with a link to the CSD policy?) and I don't understand what you would be using it for. Sorry. Maybe you and Happy-melon can figure that out – maybe I don't need to understand it.
Happy-melon, is Template:db-meta/new supposed to support a "reason=" parameter? Apparently for the deletion reason displayed at the top of the template it does not, but insists on using parameter 1. (either the first unnamed parameter or "1=".) Yet later in the code, it says {{{1|}}}{{{reason|}}}, implying that it does support "reason=" as an alternative parameter name to 1 (unless that's something I don't understand about how the different wording for the preload script is passed in or something.) In Template:db-g12 it says <!--{{{1}}} blank, use {{{reason}}} to fix url glitch-->|reason=, which implies that maybe using parameter 1 won't work; although I suspect it does work if you say "1=" rather than just leaving the parameter unnamed. This may have to do with being able to pass in a url that contains an equals sign, or something. Anyway, I changed it in the new template to "1=" rather than "reason=" but am not 100% confident it will work e.g. with all urls and would appreciate reassurance on that. I think I did the same thing to one of the other templates, too. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what Od Mishehu is saying either. Although I can't show you unless you have the admin bit, when an admin clicks the "delete" tab at the top of a page, a "confirm deletion" page appears where they're prompted to enter the text that will appear in the deletion log. Currently there is a drop-down menu with most of the CSD criteria, and a text field for entering an additional or alternative rationale. If the script (which you're right is MediaWiki:Sysop.js) detects one of the CSD templates on the page, it automatically selects the appropriate criterion from the dropdown list and enters an appropriate additional rationale. However, I've spoken to the guy who wrote the current version of the script, and currently it doesn't use the <span id="delete-reason"> field, so it's a less pressing concern.
I believe that the reason= parameter was created by someone as a quick fix to the problem of URLs containing equals signs corrupting unnamed parameters. There is absolutely no reason I can see why this parameter is required, as adding 1= before any potentially problematic text will definitely prevent any corruption. I have removed the parameter from {{db-meta/new}}, but I'll need to look at that code more closely, as I think it's another way of preloading the deletion summary, which we'll need to be careful with. I'll have a closer look. Happy‑melon 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What I was saying is: At the bottom of the deletion templates, it says "Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion". The word "deletion" is a link to the deletion screen, with the deletion reason from the template already in the box. Here you can see what the result would be with the current version of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I see! It says "07:22, 5 March 2008 Od Mishehu (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:Db-a1/new" (& #32;as a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article (CSD A1))" with the edit summary beginning " as a...". I think beginning with "as" looks OK since if you read the whole line, it says "deleted "Template:Db-a1/new" as a..." which makes sense. The only problem I see is that the ascii space character & #32; doesn't display properly. I wonder whether we can just use an ordinary space character? Or possibly & nbsp;. I think an ordinary space character works fine except when you have to put "1=" or something. I can see how to get around that by defining an extra variable such as "lead-in=" but Happy-melon would prefer not to have an extra variable. Would the & nbsp; display properly as a space? Probably not (see edit summary of this edit). Maybe it's OK to have the & #32; sitting there in the log like that. Better to define an extra variable, I think. (I've inserted extra spaces in this paragraph to force things to display like wikitext.) Happy-melon, what do you think? --Coppertwig (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait – I think I solved it, based on a suggestion Happy-melon had made earlier. I edited db-meta/new to allow the parameter wpReason to be defined, and I edited Template:db-g2/new to define the wpReason parameter. I simply defined it as "test page (See CSD G2).}}"; i.e. I left out the "as a". עוד מישהו , as far as I'm concerned you may edit the wpReason to be something else if you like; I may or may not have an opinion on the exact wording. If you and Happy-melon seem happy with this, I'll implement it in the other templates too. Anyway, amazingly, it seems to work! as far as I can tell, although perhaps it would be good if you were to test it, עוד מישהו , the way you did the other one. I'm always amazed if I get the count of all those curly brackets correct the first time. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Template:db-p1 doesn't exist. Should we create Template:db-p1/new? --Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've put convenient links that open edit windows on the draft templates and documentation pages at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox4. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

DONE All the draft templates and documentation pages have been created. They may still need to be checked for mistakes etc. Links to the draft templates e.g. Template:db-a1/new and Template:db-a1/doc can be found in the left-hand column of the subpages for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals). --Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still checking them over, as is Moonriddengirl too (and other people too, I hope). --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A few minor changes in wording are being made in the draft templates and discussed on the subpages (Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates (general) and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Templates (images). On the "general" page is a discussion of whether to say "blatant" copyright infringement in the template wording.
Re Template:db-g6/new: Like the current template, it allows the user to specify "wording" providing a reason for the deletion. I suggest it may be easier for users to remember to use this feature if the parameter is named "reason" rather than "wording", or if the user can call it either "reason" or "wording" and both will work. Possibly the user should be allowed to specify an unnamed parameter and it would use it like that – or would that be confusing if the user thinks they're invoking some other feature? I suggest that an unnamed parameter at least be added after the end of the sentence, as an additional reason.
I'm adding another column at the right-hand side of the tables on the subpages, for the wpReason parameter. So far I've started on the one at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (general). This is the parameter that specifies what will appear in the edit summary of the deletion log. How about also having each template pass the wpReason parameter through, so that the user tagging a page can specify a particular deletion log reason? (Could be abused? Would rarely be used?) The wpReason may be similar to the regular template wording but might be shorter, and might have "because it's" (as I think Od Mishehu prefers) or just nothing instead of "as a". I encourage people to edit the wpReasons in the table. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on finishing the first drafts of all the templates. I'm finding this list extremely useful for error-checking. A few things I notice from browsing that complete list, in no particular order of importance:
  • There is a lot of whitespace which needs to be removed from before and after the templates, particularly between the "new wording is being discussed" notice and the start of the template. Edits like these ([2][3]) are necessary to ensure that the templates stack properly with other ambox templates on articles. The templates in the sandbox page permalinked above should form one continuous block.
  • {{db-u2/new}} is incomplete, I think
  • Do all the templates pass the |bot={{{bot|}}} parameter?
  • I had already created a parameter ("summary=") in a few templates which was intended to be the deletion log entry. This seems to duplicate the functionality of "wpReason". I have no preference for one over the other, but they need to be merged.
  • I think that the "see" in (see CSD G1) etc, should be removed.
  • The bolding in {{db-g1/new}} and {{db-g10/new}}, among others, is a bit wierd. I would suggest putting all the bold text together, followed by the non-bold - effectively move the CSD reference before the unbold text. At the very least, something has to be done about the brackets - one bracket is bolded, the other is not.
  • Are there any instances where the "notes" parameter does not begin with "<br><small>:"?? If not, this should be incorporated into {{db-meta/new}}.
  • The template wordings need a general and thorough copyedit to ensure they are consistent with respects to trailing punctuation, interface with the leading text, etc.
  • The subsidiary notes for the i-series are differently formatted to the g-series
The most important thing is to sort out the underlying structure, and what parameters have to be passed, and how they are used in {{db-meta/new}}. However, as the wordings are unlikely to change significantly, there's no reason why they can't be cleaned up at the same time. Great work so far, though. Happy‑melon 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Happy-melon, and thanks for your collaboration and feedback. I'm sorry I'd forgotten about your "summary" parameter: let's use that instead of wpReason. Does it work the same way, or differently? Do we just set db-meta/new to say something like wpReason=summary instead of wpReason=wpReason (modulo a bunch of curly brackets)?
Re "see": Two reasons for having it: One, I think it encourages people to click on the link. Two, I think it makes it less likely that people will think the reason in the template is being presented as an exact quote of the CSD. What are your reasons for wanting to remove the "see"? I'll reply to the rest at a later date/time. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Whitespace: I don't completely understand, since the draft templates don't have the "new wording is being discussed" thingy. I guess when I put the hatnotes in I didn't do it quite right. However, I see in your sandbox3 that there does seem to be some extra whitespace, and I can help later to try to remove it.
I already fixed db-u2/new. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Vis whitespace, this would be a better example than my fixes to the current templates - in most cases the whitespace is caused by a gap between the end of the template and the start of the noincluded documentation. My "summary" parameter is currently what fills the invisible <span id="delete-reason"> span, but it contains the same wording as should be preloaded in the direct deletion link. When creating text for this field, remember that the deletion log summary is limited to 255 characters, so brevity is important. In most cases, little more than a link to the CSD criterion and a two- or three-word summary will be required; some criteria like G6 or A7 may require a more substantial summary. Vis "see", my opinion is that having the "see CSD Xn" in brackets forms a sentence fragment, which reads poorly. I think that either the "see" or the brackets should be removed. For instance, "as a page created soley to disparage its subject (CSD G10)." and "as a page created soley to disparage its subject. See CSD G10." both read better than "as a page created soley to disparage its subject (See CSD G10)." At the very least, the "See" should be decapitalised. I am going to work on compartmentalising the "place XX on the talk page of creator" notes into their own parameter for increased uniformity. Happy‑melon 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The "See" isn't a sentence fragment. It's a separate, complete sentence, and if that's your concern, we can just make sure there's a period at the end of the previous sentence. Removing the parentheses is OK with me. I think it's not grammatically wrong to have an entire sentence inside parentheses, though.
I'm sorry that I don't understand the code <span id="delete-reason">. I've just modified Template:db-meta/new to use "summary" instead of "wpReason" as the parameter passed in from the other templates. That's near the end of the db-meta/new wikitext. The other use of "summary", which I don't understand at all, is in a completely different part of the wikitext, closer to the beginning. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I just removed a bunch of whitespace from the current templates, (displayed in [4]). --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd rather not have "because it's" in the deletion log summaries (as I think Od Mishehu suggested) for two reasons: one, it's extra unnecessary words, and two, it's present tense, which won't make as much sense after the article is deleted. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

I put short suggested deletion log summaries in the right-hand columns of the tables in the subpages (links to discussion subpages are at the top of this talk page). I don't have strong feelings about the wording of these summaries, so feel free to edit them or suggest changes. Moonriddengirl or Happy-melon, if you'd like me to go through and make them all into sentences or add/remove/move periods etc. I will, insh other editors, for either the template wordings or deletion log summaries, if you explain clearly what you want and do one as an example. I might even be convinced to put in all the "because it's's" for Od Mishehu. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few fundamental modifications to {{db-meta/new}}, and propagated them through the new templates. Separating the criterion out into its own paramater is useful for several reasons, not just for standardising formatting. It would be possible, if we wanted to, to remove the "self" parameter from the templates and build the functionality into db-meta - I don't intend to do this, but it's just an example of the extra flexibility that the extra parameter provides. For instance, I could easily code something into db-meta to only allow CSD templates to be displayed in namespaces where their criterion is valid. I've temporarily added an extra ambox to db-meta to display the preloaded summaries I've temporarily hijacked the "bot" parameter to display the summaries only - I'll remove this functionality before we go live. Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (gallery) now has a full list of templates and their summaries - feel free to edit any that you don't like, but try and keep them short. What's your opinion on suggesting two different variants of the same notification template (eg {{db-g10}})? I'd be inclined to just give the basic version, and only offer two when they are completley different templates. Happy‑melon 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Very good. I see you've made some changes that I understand and agree with, and some that I don't understand and won't worry about.
I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting two different variants. I guess A7 has variants, e.g. db-band etc. I don't know what the variants would be or how they would be made available.
I think the documentation for the category parameter needs to be changed to {{db-g1|category=[[Category:Example category for speedy deletion]]}} – unless you can figure out how to make the templates work using the current documentation, {{db-g1|category=Example category for speedy deletion}} i.e. where the user only needs to type the actual name of the category. I couldn't figure out how to get that to work.
I hope the usage documentation isn't confusing the way I formatted it. It could be misinterpreted to mean that you can't use the "bot" and "category" parameters both at the same time. That's not what I intend it to mean; it's just examples of usage. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the category syntax in db-g7 (old or new) make any sense? The second if clause seems to check whether there's a rationale or not and then assign the identical categories whether there is or not. The first if clause seems to check whether it's user talk space or not: why? Why not do the same thing for user space as for user talk space, for example? And is it assigning no category at all if it isn't user talk space, or what? I'd be inclined to get rid of both if clauses and have a much simpler category assignment, as in the other templates. I'm asking here first in case the syntax is actually doing something useful. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Same question for db-u1/new (or old). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all the draft templates pass the bot parameter. They all have the summary parameter defined (thanks to Happy-melon). I checked the categories: unless I'm mistaken, they all include the page in Candidates for speedy deletion (in at least one case, only under certain circumstances though), and the syntax for categories looks OK except as noted above and except that I can't verify that the T3 syntax is OK because I don't understand all of it, and except for a question mark that I don't understand in db-i3/new (<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|☘{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Non-commercial use only images for speedy deletion]]}}}</includeonly>) I checked the wordings for errors of grammar and punctuation and they look OK to me. I think the whitespace situation is OK, too. I still need to check over the documentation but am waiting to see if you have an answer to my question about the usage of the category parameter, Happy-melon. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Vis "different variants", I was talking about the user-talk notification templates like {{nonsensepage}}, which some of the CSD templates suggest should be placed by the nominator. For instance, {{db-g12/new}} suggests placing the {{sd-copyvio}} template. However, some templates (like {{db-g10/new}}, for instance) have two suggestions, which are different variants of the same template. This seems to me to be taking up unnecessary extra space, but I wanted to know your opinion on removing the variant with "header=1" and just leaving the basic version.
The category conditionals in {{db-g7/new}} and {{db-u1/new}} do not make very much sense, and are also unnecessary - I have removed them. I can see what they were trying to do - only add the page to CAT:CSD if the rationale parameter (which is required for deletions in the User Talk namespace) is specified - but the most likely outcome is simply that the tag will be added and forgotten, and will languish on the page without any admin action. As I said above, if we do implement any namespace-based restrictions, we'll do them centrally at {{db-meta/new}}. On a similar line, the idea of the category parameter is not really so that custom categories can be specified, but rather that adding of pages to CAT:CSD can be supressed when necessary. As such, I don't really think that the use of this parameter to specify additional/alternative categories should be documented.
Overall, and not to denigrate the work you've done on the documentation, the large amount of duplication between 40 separate documentation pages makes me wonder if it would make sense to centralise the documentation onto one page, with switches to include appropriate template-specific content. This would make it easier for the documentation to be standardised and updated - although I'll try and make it as user-friendly as possible, lest editing the documentation become as difficult as modifying the templates themselves! I'll have a play and see if I can come up with anything workable. Happy‑melon 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Re two variants of the same template: The "header=1" version simply adds a section header above the warning being placed on the user talk page. It doesn't much matter to me whether more than one option is displayed, but it's possible that there are a lot of people enamoured of one option or the other who will complain if one is deleted. If they don't show up in this discussion here, I suppose the only way to find out is to boldly change it. I'd mildly prefer the option with the header to be the default. An argument for this is that it would be easier for someone to delete "header=1" than to figure out that this is what to type and type it. Another argument is that it's arguably more conventional and tidier to include a header when posting to a talk page on a new subject, so that one's comment doesn't get lost among the posts of some other discussion. I guess that in most cases the user won't have looked at the talk page they're about to post on before they decide which version of the template to copy and paste, so it's an arbitrary personal choice; although since this is a consensus system, such personal choices, if there is strong feeling behind them, need to be respected, and I don't think two variants is too much space. More than about two or three would be getting to be maybe too much IMO. Space is not at a premium; time is at a premium, and two variants may save time for users who care enough whether they're posting a header or not to type in or delete "header=1" (if there are such users).
Yes, centralizing part of the documentation is probably a good idea. Not documenting the category parameter is OK. If it were really for adding a different category, I was thinking that as a default it should still always include Candidates for speedy deletion. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
On a fairly separate line, I wonder if building in (optional) support for delayed categorisation into those templates other than T3 (mainly in the i-series) that require time delays would be a good idea. Happy‑melon 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
According to Rick Block elsewhere on this page, apparently the delayed categorization is activated only when the page is next edited. It may be better to handle that using a bot or something. Most robust method perhaps: delayed categorization written into the template, plus a bot to do occasional null edits to everything in a certain category, in order to trigger the recategorization. That way, if the bot stops functioning, things would still eventually tend to get recategorized. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Pages are also recategorised when they work their way through the job queue, but pages are only added to the job queue when a template transcluded onto them is altered. A bot to perform null edits would be nice. Happy‑melon 10:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 3

I think we're ready to flash this across the various pumps, then go live. Anything we've forgotten to do? Happy‑melon 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Stop the press! I think we need to make new versions of these other templates too:
These ones may be OK already, I'm not sure:
As a minimum, they need their wording or punctuation adjusted slightly to fit with the new version of db-meta. At the extreme, for some of them we could either update the CSD to reflect them as recognized sub-criteria or else delete the templates as not supported by policy. I suggest a middle ground where we find some wording to make it more clear in the template that the wording in the template does not appear in G6, for example, but that G6 only says "uncontroversial housekeeping" and the template wording is expanding on that. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are links for some of them. I may create some of these in a few minutes, though not the odd-looking ones, which don't use db-meta:

--Coppertwig (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that looks like a fairly convincing reason why we shouldn't proceed!! I'd suggest that you try and retain the same hierarchy - so all the G6-related templates work off {{db-g6/new}}, all the A7-based templates work off {{db-a7}}, etc. I'll have a look at some of the wierder ones tomorrow and decide what (if anything) needs to be done with them - some of them I think we can TfD or just deprecate. Happy‑melon 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, maybe it's not that big an issue. Some of them already depend on db-g6 and just need minor adjustments in wording/punctuation. I edited db-g6 to say "Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance." if the "wording" parameter is used; this is invoked for example by these subtemplates such as Template:db-blanktalk/new. Hopefully that makes it relatively clear that the template is not quoting G6 directly. I'll continue working on them. Thanks for being willing to have a go at the wierder ones! If some of them are not used much, it would be good to get rid of them. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Example: Template:db-move/new used with {{db-move/new|name of page|given reason for move|category=}} looks like this: [5] --Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
db-movedab transcribes db-move. The only thing it does is append "(disambiguation)" to the page name. It doesn't need any modification. db-movedab still needs to pass through the bot parameter and a few other things, so I'm making a new version of it after all.00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:db-ccnoncom can be replaced by a redirect to Template:db-i3, in my opinion. Not worth creating a "/new" version perhaps; I suggest just redirecting it immediately – no need to wait for implementation of the other templates for that. Current wording of db-ccnoncom: "Image licensed under a Creative Commons license that specifies "for non-commercial use only" or "no derivative works" which was either uploaded after May 19, 2005, or is not used in any articles, and which lacks a permitted claim under our policy for non-free content. (CSD I3)" Current wording of db-i3: "Image licensed "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded after May 19, 2005, or is not used in any articles, and which lacks a permitted claim under our policy for non-free content. (CSD I3)" Wording of db-i3/new: "as an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" which either was uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 and has no fair use rationale, or is not used in any articles" --Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of them depend on db-g6/new, which will need to be changed to db-g6 when we implement everything.
I'm passing the bot parameter through. Are there any other parameters that need to be passed through, e.g. summary? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we can take the opportunity to make a few redirections and deletions:
Most of the others work as soft redirect to {{db-g6}}. Happy‑melon 12:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, except that Cfr-speedy should redirect to {{db-c2}}, not c1, and that discussion may be required with whoever (if anyone) is running bots using botnomain, since their bots would have to be updated to use the new template and syntax. (How to find such people? Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 2 run by User:Mets501: this may be (the only?) one)
I think I'm going to create a standard documentation template to be transcluded into all the template documentation pages, as you had suggested, Happy-melon. I hope I won't be duplicating your effort. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've looked through the existing new (does not include these:
Everything looks good to me, but I did a little clean-up on Template:Db-empty/new. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I've added some notes to the list of new templates in my post above. I suggest that db-blankcsd be redirected to A3. I just inserted "or page history merge" into db-move, and suggest that db-histmerge be a redirect to db-move. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I now have {{db-i7/doc}} transcluding a general documentation template {{db doc}} which in turn transcludes {{db doc usage}}. I only have the category usage in there as an example and will take it out later. I'm planning to make the other doc templates also transclude db doc. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited Template:db-i7/doc and Template:db-g6/doc to transclude {{db doc}}. I may wait for Happy-melon to comment before I change any others. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I had been hacking around with {{db-meta/doc}} to incorporate switchable content. You can see the implementation style I had planned in {{db-g1/new}}. I think my syntax might be a bit easier to understand, but I definitely prefer your choice of page name. What's the best way to merge these two systems?
Good work on the extra templates - they all look good. The more we can get hard- or soft-redirected to basic CSD criteria, the more systematic the system will be, so it's looking good. Happy‑melon 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
However you would like to do it is fine, Happy-melon. Oh, so you think we can manage with just one documentation template that covers all of them? I guess it looks as if that will work. OK. Just move Template:db-meta/doc to Template:db doc and delete Template:db doc usage. Don't delete the individual documentation templates e.g. Template:db-a7/doc yet. We need to look over them and copy any specific information into a switch statement in db doc, and then delete them. By the way, I like your "temp" parameter in db-meta/new. (though possibly its name could be more informative. I suppose "notificationTemplate" is too long, and "nottemp" isn't much more helpful than "temp". :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 4

OK, I've finished the documentation, as far as I can tell. What do you think? If I've missed anything vital from any of the docs, add it yourself if you can work out how, or let me know and I'll do it. How are the oddball templates going? How close are we to launch? Happy‑melon 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we're very close. I checked over the wordings again, comparing them to the CSD's. In G5 I changed "while they were banned" to "in violation of their ban" to match a change in the CSD that was done weeks ago by Od Mishehu. In G12 I added "Consider the possibility that a copy of the article on another website was obtained from Wikipedia" to the notes section. I'm satisfied with the wording of all the rest (except I3, for which I may propose a change to the CSD, but after the template implementation.) I'm doing stuff with the documentation now. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've gone through and fixed a lot of bugs with the documentation system; I think I might have to write a doc page for the documentation - how ironic!
If we're nearly ready to go, I just need an exhaustive list of pages to update, which I'm compiling at User:Happy-melon/sandbox5. Please add any that I've missed that need to be updated. My algorithm will simply consist of loading the text of {{db-xn/new}}, replacing "/new|"-->"|" and "/new}}"-->"}}", and then overwriting {{db-xn}} with that text. If you can see any obvious problems that that's going to cause, let me know before I start :D!! Happy‑melon 11:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a number of comments here:
  1. {{db}} - should automatically alliow for the reason given by the user to arive at the reason for deletion.
  2. {{db-histmerge}} - I think we should keep the old version. Since the page isn't really going to be deleted (yes, technically it is, but not really), no need for the template to look like the other CSD templates.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If a reason is specified, it is passed to the deletion reason.
Conversely, no particular reason for it to look any different. However, it's not a big problem, because it won't be broken by the update if it's not changed. I've removed it from my update list for now - we can discuss that separately. Happy‑melon 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy-melon, you seem to have deleted the following G4 documentation from db doc: "|G4=
*Note that this template is only for reposting of content previously deleted via an XfD-type discussion.
*If the page was previously deleted under a different name, or in a non-obvious location (such as a 2nd or subsequent nomination), please include a link to the discussion. For example, if an article had been deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WierdName (3rd Nom) use the template as:
:* {{Db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WierdName (3rd Nom)}}" I would (mildly) prefer to keep this wording in, or if not, at least some of the idea(s) expressed here which are not fully expressed in the documentation already. Some of it is redundant and some not. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I only removed the "If the page was previously deleted under a different name, or in a non obvious location..." bit, which I felt was redundant to the explanation of the "DeletionDiscussionLink" parameter below. I've expanded this explanation to include the jist of the material removed. Happy‑melon 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't feel strongly about any of the changes I've made today (so far at least). I tried to put "autobio-warn" into a7 as an alternative template, but maybe that's not what the temp2 parameter is for. Maybe only one author warning template is allowed per template by the db-meta/new syntax.
It was until this morning, but I commandeered it for something else (parameters to be passed to the notification template) because none of the templates now offer two warning templates. I can put it back if you'd like. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Not important, but probably better to put it back. Other templates might need it later. Just call the other parameter something else. I don't personally much care about autobio-warn but somebody might. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed the heading "Author warning" to "Author notification" because when I saw "warning" in big letters I felt as if the documentation was warning the reader of the documentation about something. You may change it back if you prefer.
No, sounds good to me. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Template:db-i1/doc lists a number of redirects. Perhaps we just don't need that information.
All of the templates have redirects of the forms {{xN}} and {{CSD-xN}}, and usually a few wierd ones too. I think after this is over I'll take a barrowload of the really odd ones to RfD. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The current db-t3 allows a parameter named "reason" instead of providing the template name. I just implemented it that in db-t3/new and got it into the documentation.
I was really hoping we could lose that in the conversion process :D. That parameter has caused a lot of trouble here and around (see this discussion, for instance. However I admit I'm not impartial on the subject, so I'll let you or anyone who is following this discussion decide whether allowing taggers to get around the requirement of naming the mother template when tagging for CSD is acceptable. If not, we should remove the parameter. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I reverted reason out and rolled back to MelonBot. :-) Fine with me. What about I9? I implemented the extra-wording parameter there too. (Though didn't get it into the documentation.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not verified that the lists of categories are the same (between old and new templates, and between templates and documentation.)Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I9 (old) also allows optional text. ... --Coppertwig (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved your code addition to the second parameter to give it different formatting. I hope you don't mind. Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me, but somebody might be used to using the template a certain way -- that's why I was implementing the same stuff. (What kind of creep do you call that?) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Overall, we seem to be on to the tidying-up exercises. Is there anything substantive we still need to say, do, or check? Happy‑melon 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
We're just tidying up. Nothing substantive. I've almost finished verifying that the categories are all consistent. I haven't added any templates to your list yet, though. they're listed above, anyway. I'll probably get to that soon. Deleting "/new" should be fine, not cause any problems. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I checked all the categories. Everything's consistent. You have all the templates on your list as far as I know. OK, you can go ahead!!!!!! (insh other editors) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is still a bug with {{db/new}}. Although the deletion log looks right (see here), the deletion screen only says "Deletion not based on a [[WP:CSD|CSD criterion]]". Please fix this before applying the new templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. What appears in the deletion log is what appeared on the deletion confirmation screen. My own test worked fine. Happy‑melon 10:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me like there is a newline character in there - doesn't show up in the logs, but messes things up on the deletion screen. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Happy‑melon 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But not for me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I restored and deleted your page, with no difficulties. I think it's probably a problem with your browser or cache. Happy‑melon 11:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vague guidelines that apply to CSD and A7

See this discussion . The guideline is very unclear ,its my interpretation that A7 does not apply to CSD at all and have been told as much by mods in the past , Bardcom is reading it the other way , can someone in the know clear this up and maybe tidy up the non criteria Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing but
1) A7 not applying to CSD is nonsensical because A7 is one of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, that's how it got the name A7.
2) A7 is not the same as a claim of "doesn't meet WP:N". Here's an example: Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. Now let's say you look at the references and find that he was a candidate from an inconsequential branch of the party and he received a total of 3 popular votes all in his home town and zero electoral votes and he was not covered in any national or regional media but since the East Anytown Daily with a total readership in 1920 of 300, is now archived on the internet, you were able to find this information. He's probably not notable and you should AFD the article. (Or, in some cases WP:PROD it).
3) On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability.
Understand?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but i would suggest this is very unclear still, i would suggest changing
  1. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.

Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability. Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are suggesting be changed to what.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria be changed to
  1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.
Consider this example an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7.
On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability and is eligible for A7 Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008
  • Well, I technically mis-stated them above as you've noted, the examples should use the words "importance or significance", but I think we treat those as essentially the same as notability as far as the assertion goes. I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability. What I can tell you is that the assertion of either does not equal notability and the lack of notability does not equal the lack of an assertion thereof. Are you suggesting that we should include the example? I made it up as I typed, maybe it should be thought through a little more if it's going to be actually used.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes we should include the examples if not the one's you suggested some examples .
You said I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability however i'm not sure that this is the issue i think the guideline is trying to state that any assertion of importance,significance or notability should go to AFD and only an example likeJim is from Ireland he is 10 where no assertion of importance,significance or notability is made should apply for speedy Gnevin (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that I see them as one and the same. One equals the other. What we probably ought to do is italicize the word assertion in the criterion description, and maybe remove the sentence that essentially says it has nothing to do with notability since that just confuses the issue.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you porvide an example of the new wording ? Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Modification to criterion A7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Current wording

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Proposed Wording

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Time required between article tagging, and the execution of the deletion is one hour.

*New text in bold.

Discussion

I've added the text "Time required between article tagging, and the execution of the deletion is one hour. ". The rationale for this: We don't really want to bite editors, which is what a CSD tag feels like. Additionally, editors need time to meet the requirement. Time ti write. One hour should be plenty. I propose this change, and a slight modification to the a7 tag to meet this new proposed changed. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I oppose such a change. There's no reason for an article like "Johnny Foote is the hottest boy in Your High School!" or "Joe Light is the greatest biology teacher at Your High School" to be sitting around for an hour. Metros (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I also oppose this because the editor can place {{hangon}} to the article instead. Malinaccier (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and then comes the issue with authors removing speedy tags from articles they created, and then re-setting the deletion period. It can also make it hard for the user who tagged the article as they would have to continualy re-tagg until the hour is up. Not the mention how backloged CAT:SPEEDY would be. Tiptoety talk 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Also oppose - however I would like to separately suggest that when maintaining CAT:CSD, admins should respect the hangon tag - I've seen (and been victim to) deletions where it's clear that author was in the process of writing a hangon rationale when the page was deleted. Hangon tags should be given at least an hour's leeway. But, 99% of A7 articles won't be improved in the space of one hour, and as Metros says, I can see no reason to leave them lying around. Happy‑melon 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No. While there are technically ways to arrange this it would just create another backlog.Genisock2 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also oppose. Does this mean an administrator must tag the article then wait an hour? 50% of the A7's are "Tommy Smack is a 12 year old kid from Wisconsin. He plays soccer...". We'd have to wait an hour on that? The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also oppose. 90% of what gets deleted as A7 is obvious instant-delete material. For the other 10%, admins are already willing and able to give some leeway. -- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since this, after all, is speedy deletion. Most administrators are sane, (<humor> The WP:RfA process reduces this slightly, but that's beside the point </humor>), and will know to delete quickly most of the obvious deletions, while giving the borderline cases more time. ffm 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the vast majority of A7s are just not going to be improved at all in this time period. Editors can have as much time to write as they want, either through using the preview button or by creating a draft version in userspace. Hut 8.5 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - how about we trust admins for a change? As for ignoring hangons - generally you can tell whether or not the rationale is going to be any good without actually waiting for them to give it. --Tango (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What's to stop the hangon template? Talking to the admin? Asking for an undelete? WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Everything I tag tends to be junk, and I'm finding more and more often even warning them about the fact that their 'article' is going to be deleted just means I now have to watch the article for tag reversions by the author. HalfShadow (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We could just as easily delete the student pranks as vandalism--we do not need A7 for them. What we really need is some way of characterising the facebook-type material to speedy delete it under a rule that does not apply to other things. My experience with A7 here does not support the experience of some of my fellow administrators here. Agreed, most admins do it right. Not all do. In recent non-systematic looks at the deletion log, i have been seeing increasing carelessness here, including deciding correctly that something should be deleted, but then using any deletion rationale however inappropriate to the article. At this point,I wouldnt say 90% do it right, & certainly not 99%. Further, tagging will throw off a newby even if an admin later declines the speedy. some of the comments here assume great sophistication in newbys. My feeling is that our survival requires the active encouragement & gentle education of the unsophisticated. In recent passes at AfD, I have found myself declining an increasing proportion of material. I'd like to suggest a modified change, to see how it works: that the waiting period apply to empty and no-context, A1 and A3.----and that it be one day, not one hour. A1 and A3 are never really that much in need of speedy action as some A7s. DGG (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree here, I'll rethink this as I edit more. If I can think of something better I'll post here in a new section. Perhaps a new criterion, or a re working of the criterion are needed. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ideas: To get over the problem of authors reverting the speedy tag: instead of just adding a speedy tag to an article, the tagger could add the article to a (semi-protected) list of articles to be deleted, or perhaps some other method could be used to keep track of them; a bot could maintain a list, perhaps. Maybe there's some way to maintain a page such that anyone can add a pagename to a list on it, but only admins or only a bot can delete them from the list. A bot could keep checking the list and re-reverting unauthorized removals from it.
    Instead of requiring one hour from tagging to deletion, we could require one hour (or 30 minutes, or 15 minutes) from page creation to tagging. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've also seen lots of cases where articles that turn out to be on notable topics get tagged for speedy-deletion because a person outside the field didn't understand they were notable. I personally think that "Joe Schmoe Rocks!!!" can be speedy-deleted under some other category (e.g. vandalism) and that for articles at the grey edge of the A7 category -- articles on subjects which aren't obvious vandalism or patently non-notable but just simply don't make clear why the subject is notable -- we ought to have a waiting period and a slower process. I believe there really are two distinct kinds of articles that tend to get put under A7, I agree that the importance-not-clear articles tend to have a lot more error cases than the obvious-vandalism ones, and I agree that Wikipedia would be better off if they were put under two different categories and treated differently. If an article isn't vandalism but is simply a subject where the description doesn't adequately explaim the subject's importance, giving the author an opportunity to clarify is usually better than simply deleting on sight, even though the majority of the time (but not always) the borderline articles will end up being deleted anyway. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose the change. I agree that it does feel like biting. I've found some of the welcome templates which point to common mistakes can help to soften the blow. At the end of the day there are some awful vanity and such pages that should be gone as soon as they go up, but if an editor wants to debate it that's why we have the hangon tag.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Wow, that was a bit more participation than I had initially expected. I understand that this is not the way to go for the reasons above. Thank you folks for cluing me in. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what Wikipedia is all about. You try something, people disagree with you, you listen to their comments, and everyone learns a little as a result. Happy‑melon 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of Speedy Tags on Articles at AfD

I recently had a discussion with another editor about the merits of keeping a speedy deletion tag on an article during an AfD debate. Is there a consensus on keeping speedy tags on articles while they are being debated? I personally think it would better serve the community to remove the speedy tags during an AfD debate as a matter of courtesy to both admins searching for speedy deletion candidates and editors / admins debating the article at AfD. Any thoughts on the matter?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. I see three scenarios, all of which seem pretty simple to me and all of which result in the removal of the speedy-tag one way or the other.
  1. If the speedy-deletion criterion clearly does not apply, then it should be removed regardless of the AFD. Any good-faith editor can do so.
  2. If the application of the speedy-deletion criterion is ambiguous, it should not have been applied in the first place and the AFD discussion is the right answer. Again, any good-faith editor can fix the mistake.
  3. If the speedy-deletion criterion clearly applies, then the AFD discussion is moot. The page get's deleted (taking the tag with it) and the AFD administratively closed.
What am I missing here? Rossami (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much. I'd have worded the response differently though. No, it is not appropriate to remove a speedy tag because there is an AFD underway. Some articles under AFD are discovered, or thought in good faith, to merit speedy deletion - sometimes the AFd causes someone to realize this. An example would be an AFD regular noticing "hey, we just got rid of this at title X" and tagging for G4. If so, the speedy deletion should occur and then the AFD be closed. If it is unclear whether or not speedy should occur, post a hangon and let the processing admin decide. If it is clear that the speedy deletion criteria does not apply, then the speedy tag should be removed because the criteria doesn't apply. In short - the AFD is never a reason to remove a speedy tag (this is different from the rule for PROD tags). GRBerry 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
the question, obviously, is about Rossami's case no. 2. In ambiguous cases, where the matter is under discussion at AfD & is not blindingly obvious, I have often been been removing the tags, since speedy is for unambiguous deletions only. DGG (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm talking about section 2 and I appreciate the comments. This has been helpful.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes

I was wondering what people might think about having blatent hoaxes fall under G2 rather than G3; assuming good faith a hoax is just as likely to be a test as it is vandalism and it seems kind of harsh to tag what are likely new users who don't really understand Wikipedia as vandals. Any thoughts? Guest9999 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure... the difference between testing and vandalism is simply the amount of good faith you assume. I think that most (but not all) blatant hoaxes are in bad faith though (although that is ultimately a judgment call). Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The distinction between G2 and G3 does not concern me. My concern is that too many "blatant" hoaxes are neither blatant nor even hoaxes sometimes. Suspected hoaxes really should go through AFD. They should not be speedy-deleted unless there is strong supporting evidence such as a pattern of vandalism and other patently bad-faith edits by the contributor. (Which, I suppose, is an argument that vandalism is the better tag if only as a reminder that the bar for hoaxes is very high.) Rossami (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on use of criteria I2 empty image

The file File:Birlinn Limited.pdf has been uploaded by User:Birlinn. It is a pdf containing text about the company Birlinn Limited. Although it is not "empty", it is not an image either, and not suitable for Wikipedia. Can it be speedied under I2? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with this material is that it is not easily editable by other users, which runs counter to the fundamental wiki ethos. I suggest you ask that the uploader instead adds the text to the Birlinn Limited article, whereupon it can be edited by other users. Once that edit has been made (and obviously User:Birlinn needs to do it, the pdf should be deleted under G6 or I1. Happy‑melon 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
While the image question is an interesting theoretical one, I believe that page can be deleted as a clear copyright violation (though perhaps not speedily). A google search for an exact match of the first line returned a hit to a copyrighted page. It's possible (especially given the uploader's chosen username) that the author intends release but to my limited knowledge, the required confirmations have not been sent to the Foundation confirming release. Between that and the probably conflict of interest issues, this page does not seem like a page we should keep around. Rossami (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem with I3 notice template

When I used the notice template provided {{subst:idw-noncom|(PAGENAME)|header=1}} ~~~~ it had a few issues[6]. The "Image:" prefix was left out in the heading and the body of the message so it lead to a red link and the message was signed twice. Did I do something wrong or is it a problem with the template? Guest9999 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a template problem. I've fixed the namespace omission, that one's easy. The signatures less so. Because these templates were recently standardised, there's no guarrantee that all the warning templates (which are not standardised in any way shape or form :D) are similarly standardised with respect to whether they include the signature tildes in the substituted code. Unless and until the warning templates (of which there are quite a few!), I can't make any guarrantees that you won't get duplicated signatures. If anyone is prepared to go through and make that standardisation, I would be extremely grateful (not something I could stomach myself :D!). Happy‑melon 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and action. Guest9999 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New CSD?

I saw this new CSD template create {{Db-section}}. Where is this documented? MBisanz talk 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh... that's a kinda stupid template. Deletion (including speedy) is something that only an administrator can do; anyone can delete a section of an article, unless it's fully protected, in which case nobody can add the tag... I'm going to be bold and delete it under G6, as it just doesn't make any sense, and the author is highly suspect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew there were changes going on at CSD with cats and all, but that one just didn't make sense. MBisanz talk 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also game T2 material (blatantly wrong speedy templates going through TFD for an entire week was one reason T2 was made). GracenotesT § 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hehe that's a laugh! How utterly pointless :D Happy‑melon 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, G6 works just fine for both this template and the author's other contribs. All junk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Genesis of WP:SD ?

I have been looking but have not been able to find the actual origins of the Speedy Deletion policies. Was it always part of WP? If not then when did it become official policy? What events triggered its necessity? Can anyone point me to discussions / essays / etc that reflect the genesis of WP:SD? Thanks in advance. 66.102.200.100 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to look in the archives of the old Votes for Deletion and Deletion policy pages to find the true origins. The discussion began in 2004 if I remember correctly (though earlier descriptions of the problem were going on in 2003). Speedy-deletion was proposed as an answer to the perceived problem of unmanagable growth of the "normal" deletion process (which was then the only process). Every page got days of discussion by a significant number of people and carried a significant degree of process overhead.
People started recognizing patterns - categories of pages which inevitably received unanimous consensus to delete - and asking if the administrative costs of the discussion-based process were necessary in those cases. After a great deal of discussion about whether this was a good idea, the community did find a small number of narrowly defined cases where we conceded that deletion was always the right answer. The categories have evolved some since then but the principle still applies. CSD categories are narrowly defined such that essentially every good-faith editor with a modicum of experience would agree that the project is better off without that page. If the case is in any way controversial or if the page doesn't fit one of the narrowly-defined cases, the old discussion-based process applies. Rossami (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just going along with that, WP:PROD was created to lighten the AfD process, as CSD was created to lighten the deletion process. It's necessity is made quite apparent, looking at Special:Newpages :) Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying BLP to fictional characters

I was just getting ready to redirect an article about a fictional character to the article about the story when, "poof!" it was gone. What's worse, the creator received an attack page warning. Are we not doing a basic Google search before tagging for deletion? It can really help one make an informed decision. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation of CSD warning templates

I suggest replacing all the CSD warning templates with one template, and passing in the criterion e.g. "G1" as a parameter, based on which it selects a summary of the reason for deletion using a switch statement. Other parameters could be allowed, e.g. "G6-A", "G6-B" etc. for more detailed subcriteria. An option to pass in arbitrary wording could be provided. I can write such a template, I believe. (It may require modification of how the "temp" parameter is implemented in db-meta/new.) --Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is ugh!! That is the most horrible collection of templates I think I've ever seen. You're welcome to work on a new template - it's not something I have much interest in - but remember that it'll have to substitute cleanly, so the syntax will probably be a bit of a mess (lots of <includeonly>subst:</includeonly>). Can I suggest that we get the implementation of the new CSD templates out the way first - it's beginning to suffer from mission creep. Happy‑melon 18:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK -- I'll hold off attempting it until the CSD templates are implemented. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There are also times when the same CSD has a number of templates (see G6 and A7). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. The parameter passed in can be usually just the criterion e.g. G1, and in more complex cases can be G6-A, G6-B etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have an actual crticism of a particular template then please state your case. Lumping them all together and saying these are bad is unparticularized and opaque and I see no analysis whatever. Some have been vetted over a long period of time, with language collaborated on by many different users, fought over and debated to reach consensus. The very opposite of what you are proposing is crucial: CSD warning/notice templates must be particularized so that users are given relevant disclosure of the reason for tagging. New users confronted with a tagged article are so often confused. A warning notice which tells them the actual reason for deletion, and in many cases, what they can do about it, not just generically, but to address the actual basis for tagging, avoids a great deal of flailing around which causes collateral drama and damage, hurt feelings, work for others, sometimes results in saved articles, even keeps users that might otherwise have left and so on. You are likely not aware of it, but all of the -notice templates are for Twinkle usage, made to function properly with that program. Once use of that program began to account for a great portion of the tagging going on, great pains were taken to make sure a template existed for every CSD criterion and which carefully tracked that criterion. These were created for the specific purpose of avoiding what you appear to be proposing: generic warnings. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates. Making a generic template that just links to the CSD section it is tagged under would be an awful plummet backwards. That is not to say that all templates in this category are fine. There may be some that are now defunct, poorly worded, etc. Again, a case-by-case analysis is needed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with some of your points here, although I think you may misunderstand a few others. Certainly I also do not want to see a regression to or towards "your article has been listed for WP:CSD#G1. See WP:CSD#G1 for more details". I don't think it will be possible to combine them all into a single template while still making it possible to substitute it practically. However, there is truth in the claim that the templates need work. With the CSD templates now standardised at {{db-xN}}, for instance, there is no reason why its corresponding warning template shouldn't be located at {{db-xN-warning}}. That would make it much easier for automated tools to handle tagging and notification. As I've said in a thread below, they desperately need to be standardised WRT signature inclusion, parameter formatting, etc. so while I agree that one template is perhaps not the best way to proceed, but there is certainly a lot of work that can be done to improve the system, in suitable collaboration with the Twinkle admins, etc. Happy‑melon 12:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, I think you misunderstand what I was proposing. I guess I didn't explain it very well.
However, I've just looked into the situation a bit and I see that much of what I was proposing has already been implemented a long time ago as Template:db-notice. I therefore propose simply that the wording and look of the templates be kept just as it is (unless there's any reason to change anything) but that more of the code be shifted into db-notice, including moving the individual wordings into db-notice so that a simpler parameter (in many cases simply the CSD criterion alphnumeric label) can be passed in to select the appropriate wording. I don't see why this wouldn't work. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy I7?

I've run across a few images that have been deleted for I7 (improper copyright tag), but have not been tagged for this fault or given a 48 hr notice before deletion (eg Image:ApolloJustice.png). I know we're under the Foundation Resolution now in terms of images, but I haven't seen anything that says we have sped up the process. Am I mistaken on this? --MASEM 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've read it, but I believe the resolution does allow us to set the grace period for such things as a part of our EDP. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And IIRC we've set the grace period at 48 hours, so immediate deletion under I7 is inappropriate. Perhaps leave a polite note on the admin's talk page? Happy‑melon 10:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a message on the user's talk page but he pointed to the last sentence of I7, in that Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time.. Technically, this was the case for the images deleted that I saw, so I see where he's coming from. So I wonder if this is the intent of this part of I7. I will note that the default image upload page does not list every non-free copyright tag, and newer users will likely not know all the various ones out there. If the sentence above is taken as word, I think it needs to be changed to allow time for users to correct it, particularly if it is simply a matter of correcting the copyright tag to the right one. If this is not the intent of that sentence, we may want to remove it. --MASEM 16:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Duplicated Topics

I've come across several articles which are just poorly written versions of established articles and there aren't really speedy deletion criteria I can see that fit. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to handle these types of articles?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect. Simple as that. Unless the pagename is utterly ridiculous, there's no reason to delete. If the page name is ridiculous, redirect and then tag for R1 :D. (Don't actually do that or you'll be slapped for WP:GAME, use {{db-g6}} with a suitable wording= parameter). Happy‑melon 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been doing redirects, but some of these are just strange (read: repeated letters and all kinds of weird commas) spellings. I'll consider the other options. Thanks.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If Happy-melon's good suggestions of redirect or {{db-g6}} aren't useful in a specific situation, you might also consider WP:PROD or WP:AfD. You can also try contacting the creator if a page is recent and explain why it is inappropriate in a friendly way. Sometimes creators have responded to this approach by willingly placing {{db-author}} on the page. Inappropriate page gone: no fuss, no drama, no trauma. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless the duplicated title is deliberately inappropriate, redirect is always the right answer. First, remember that deletion has no advantage over redirecting. We don't save any money or space by deleting a page. People say they're "cleaning up the database" but it doesn't really clean up anything.
But second, remember that even if the spelling mistake or extra comma seems weird to you, it probably made sense to the person who created the page or was a good-faith mistake. Redirecting points the original editor(s) to the correct page where their contributions will be most appreciated. Deletion can often leave those original contributors confused about where their page went and lead them to incorrectly assume that we have database stability problems.
Best of all, though, redirecting requires no discussion and no administrative overhead. You can do it in a single edit. Even the fastest of the alternatives above requires 4-5 times the effort. This is what redirects are for. Rossami (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, more excellent pointers by all.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has mentioend: for bizarre typos, redirect and then use {{db-r3}}. Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Two points:

  • Redirect is not always the right answer; sometimes "merge" is.
  • PLEASE don't say "a criteria". It's "a criterion". The word "criteria" is the plural.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand/Change CSD I4 to include "incomplete source"

While CSD I4 covers "No Source", "incomplete source" or "insufficient source" do not explicitly fall under this category (or anywhere on CSD). Renaming "No Source" to "insufficient source" or simply adding "insufficient source" case would be beneficial because it would more accurately describe the problem with the image. For example marking an image "No Source" when it states "Source: US Census Bureau" is confusing to new (and old) uploaders. Many admins will agree and apply and understand that the sourcing information is not sufficient and delete the image, but the uploader may not understand why they are getting the message when they provided a source. There are thousands of images that fall in this situation, there doesn't really need to be discussion (hence listing at IFD is pointless) and has a definate criteria: Does the sourcing information justify the license? This should only apply to free images, as for fair use, the source is largely irrelevant, only the copyright holder matters. Further, the answer may not always be a website, if someone says "from the book "Happy Day" by John Bookstone" that would be valid, though we can't easily verify that, but it would be complete until verified. To further complicate matters, the WP:IUP (incorrectly) states: The copyright holder of the image or URL of the web page the image came from can be provided as a source (I'm working on changing this to be more accurate). My preference is to rename "No source" to "Insufficient source", but renaming may be complex and lots of work (especially with bots and scripts) where just adding "Insufficient source" be easier. MECU≈talk 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Although, I don't involve myself in image deletion much and so may be unaware of some of the nuances, it seems to me that "insufficient" is too vague of a term to be used in a speedy criterion. Speedy deleting is always a bit of a bite, and should be reserved for cases that clear and unambiguous cases. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm unclear on all this as well. What some people call an incomplete source will be considered sufficient by others. Could you give more examples? There should be a central place to co-ordinate and discuss image tagging work by bots. I'm aware of several such bots, and I'm aware that source tagging is distinct from non-free content tagging, but I'm not aware of any complete list. I made a start on the central co-ordination for non-free content at WP:NFCC-C, and would support an extension to include all image work (sources of free images as well as non-free). It would help if we could require something like {{information}} to be used at upload. MECU, do you run an image sources tagging bot? If so, could you add it at Wikipedia talk:BAG#Image bots? And could you notify any other bot operators you know of? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not run a bot, despite being called one several times. I have thought recently that all image processors (like me, and maybe bot runners too) should have a place to discuss problems and work together on issues. I formed WP:IMG last summer, but it never took off. I'd be happy to coordinate and work on the project again with others as well.
I understand your comments that "insufficient" is perhaps too vague, though I think it's the best term to describe the problem. In short, the policy should be the sourcing information should be sufficient so that anyone could verify the license tag is correct with the source provided. (I would even recommend that the WP:IUP clearly state this under the requirements, sourcing section at the top.) So, if a book is listed, full information about the book should be given so someone could verify it. Much like "replaceability" for NFCC (which has a CSD reason, and someone could think it is and another disagree). An example of this currently is Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG. There is no sourcing information provided on the page, but if you edit the page, the uploader claims the sourcing information provided under "location=" (which is an invalid field in the tag) provides the source, but it's largely generic information that doesn't help and could/would take hours of work for someone not familiar with it to find the true source (if they find the true source at all), where it may take the uploader seconds. The information isn't always a URL, but most of the times it is. I've tried marking images as "better source requested" using {{bsr}} but it's mostly failed. There are cases it has worked, but if you look in the category, there are images still from last summer.
I'd like to point out that "speedy" isn't always fast. In this case, users are given 7 days to comply, seek help, ask questions, most of which never do despite being told in the tag(s) how and where to ask for help. I've always helped when asked.
Lastly, this has largely been enforced already by myself and other admins who generally have understood this is the requirement, but it has flown under the radar as "no source". (this is evident by the many deletions of images marked as no source that fulfill the requirement.) This is confusing to many (especially newcomers) and as such, in trying to help them, I'm trying to create this new class. Imaging uploading an image where you thought you provided a source, but then getting a message of "no source". Would not a message that says "insufficient source" be a better term to relay the problem? MECU≈talk 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes you need image specialists to come along and help. See what I did here and here. I found those in that image category you pointed out: Category:Images with poor sources. It's not that difficult, but then I know my way around the license tags and several of the large image collections online, such as the Library of Congress. I also tend to know which ones are really free and which aren't, which helps. Part of the problem is that a lot of people who do this work are at Commons, and getting them to help out over here is not always easy. Seriously, if you try and get people involved in a constructive project, you will likely make much better progress, and get less negative feedback. Then again, it does sometimes pay to look a little further before repairing an image. Sometimes it is much easier to find a suitable replacement. I realised that Commons must surely already have a large collection of Bodmer paintings, and so they do. See commons:Karl Bodmer. And there we find the two images, in colour, that are equivalents of the two B&W prints I just improved the sourcing information for. Compare Image:Bodmer bison dance.JPG and Image:Bison dance of the Mandan indians in front of their medecine lodge 0051v.jpg, and Image:Bodmer mandan males.JPG and Image:Mandan indians 0053v.jpg. Ironically, the Wikipedia images I just repaired now have more precise sourcing than the Commons images which have a generic link to the description page of the 1840-1843 French book containing some of the Bodmer paintings. Which is a better source? Would you be tagging the Commons images for deletion? If not, why tag the Wikipedia ones for deletion? Anyway, I hope you will agree that getting people to fix images voluntarily by persuasion and cajoling is better than tagging for deletion, though I realise that you think tagging for deletion is one way to get people to fix things. Would you consider stepping back and analysing the overall picture before doing more tagging? Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is going off topic of my proposal above involving the discussion on my talk page. I listed the problems I have with other editors correcting the sourcing information on my talk page, but another reason is that we're then not teaching the uploaders to fish. There is no feedback or helping image uploaders in providing all the required image information. No, a book is a valid source on Commons (LOC can be too). You hit the nail on the head when you said: "though I realise that you think tagging for deletion is one way to get people to fix things." Perhaps folks shouldn't take the "no source" tag as a "OMG! YOU ARE SUCH A RETARD AND COULDN'T EVEN PROVIDE A SOURCE! YOU ARE SO A NOOOOOOOB!" and more like "Hey, I think there's a problem with the image, you wanna maybe fix it? You've got 7 days at least." Perhaps the design of the template (red on orange background) is part of that (with sometimes big red red shiny ! warning sign). But all this isn't part of my proposal above. I'm trying to clarify that "insufficient" sourcing information is a valid CSD I4 and that these images should no longer go under "no source" since it is confusing to users. MECU≈talk 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of articles with sources

Michael Hardy's peroration above has raised for me a topic I would like to see discussed. When EqWorld was tagged, the article had three references (diff). It has been my practice, the few times that I have encountered it, to decline any article that has tagged for A7 that also has any sort of referencing. In addition to the articles with reference or source sections, or footnotes, I count articles with references written into the text as being referenced. It would seem to me that referencing third party coverage is a de facto assertion of notability, even if the text of the article does not make any other explicit assertion of notability. Whether or not the references are sufficient should be a matter for a wider review than speedy deletion. Ideally I would like to see this written into the criterion itself. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and think that a clarification of the CSD page would be beneficial. We should not be deleting an article for failing to assert importance when it actually asserts notability. That said, I think we should only consider sources that do not clearly fail the reliable sources guideline: in other words, a link to a MySpace or IMDb profile or to a corporate website should not prevent speedy deletion per A7. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - any article that cites something that looks like a reliable third party source shouldn't be deleted under A7. Hut 8.5 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed as well. Citing a source is similar to asserting notability. However I ran in to one article I speedied today (can't remember which and too lazy to look) that at first glance had references but they were actually non-existent. The references should exist or the assertion falls at the first hurdle IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I thought this was so obvious it never needed to be said. Of course citing to reliable sources constitutes an assertion/indication. Well if it needs to be spelled out, count me as a fourth in agreement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to just parrot everyone else, but I agree that it might be a good idea to clarify it; sources more or less negate any A7 argument (though it of course depends on source). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; anything doing a passable imitation of a reliable source (ie not a link to MySpace, YouTube or someone's blog) should disqualify an article from speedy deletion. I'd also have thought this was obvious, but apparently it's not. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a little note about this to the A7 template, saying that "citing reliable sources might be an assertion of notability". ViperSnake151 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree in spirit, but sometimes a source does not assert notability. Sometimes, it does the opposite. Having said that, I generally go looking for notability and verifiable sourcing there of before I delete, even when I think it is obviously, desperately deletable. Amzing what I've learned that way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
#Vague guidelines that apply to CSD and A7 relates to discussionGnevin (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins identifying and deleting speedy canditates in one go.

Is it accepted that a single admin can decide that an article is a canditate for deletion and instantly delete the article? Rather than tagging the article for deletion and letting a second admin look at the situation? Taemyr (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the instance of a clear cut G10 (outrageous attack) or G12 (total cut and paste of another site) yes, certainly. In all other instances I personally prefer to tag an article rather than make a unilateral decision. But that's my personal standards. Pedro :  Chat  07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've identified and deleted in one go a few times, and I don't see any problem with it; the nature of speedy deletion is that it's supposed to speedy (i.e. without necessarily giving anybody the chance to respond) and clear-cut. If a case is clear-cut, it shouldn't matter whether the deletion is performed by the same admin as the one who identified it or not. In those cases where admins speedy delete a case that isn't clear-cut (it does happen, although I find that admins generally exercise more restraint that recent change patrolling non-admins in that regard), there's WP:DRV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(All of that said, if there emerges a consensus that admins shouldn't do that, I'll obviously abide by it.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's clear cut, sure; I sometimes do tag articles to get a second opinion, though. The key question I think is "Should it have been deleted?" more than the precise chain of events by which that deletion happened to occur. If an admin is repeatedly making bad deletion decisions, that seems to be a problem in itself. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Luna's nailed it. There's no particular chain of events, as long as deletions are in policy and don't cause (too much) upset to good faith editors. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Another key question is: "Can the underlying problem be addressed?" If the answer is possibly yes (as in not so few A1 / A3 and A7) I prefer and would advise to rather tag and inform the creator. After all speedy does not mean fast but refers to a simplified decision and giving a chance to respond seems to be the better choice in such cases. And if I delete a good faith attempt directly, I try at least to leave a {{subst:[[template:Nn-warn-deletion|nn-warn-deletion]]|Article}} type notice. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely yes, an admin can identify and delete a proper speedy-candidate immediately. That's the very nature of the speedy-deletions. The criteria are so narrowly worded that any reasonable editor with a modicum of experience can immediately reach the same conclusion that Wikipedia is better off without the page. If it's a judgment call in any way, then the page isn't really a good speedy-candidate and should be taken to XfD instead. If people are misapplying the speedy criteria (and some inevitably do), then we have to educate/retrain the editors and admins who are doing so. And if we've got "speedy" criteria that require judgment, they probably either need to be rewritten or weren't good speedy-candidates in the first place. Rossami (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely, sometimes speedies hang around when there's a backlog (which we generally consider a bad thing) and sometimes they are gone before the tagger has even copied the warning to the author's page. As stated above, the only reason to not delete on site is to get two pairs of eyes on it and that's only necessary when the admin isn't sure. I rarely look to see who tagged an article (and then only when it might be unclear why I declined the speedy - so I can notify the tagger), so I don't know if any particular tagger has any idea what he or she is doing. We delete based on policy, not based on whether there's a tag on the article (and I often delete for an entirely different reason than that for which the article was tagged).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I've been called an evil deletionist by some, I figure it is better to be moderate, and not be both prosecutor and executioner. I will nominate or delete from others' nominations, but not do both myself. I gather from the tone of this discussion that the consensus is that this need not be followed in the case of the truly blatant attack pages, etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Back in the old days when I actually still had an admin flag and did speedy deletions routinely, speedy deletion was *only* for those things that an admin could identify immediately (vandalism and patent nonsense). (my 2 cents) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to use their discretion to delete articles when doing so improves the encyclopedia. One way they can find such articles is to look for CSD candidates, but there isn't a requirement that the article has to be tagged first (or even that it must fit into one of the CSD criteria). If it's better to delete an article immediately, doing so is within their mandate. In other cases, of course, discretion will dictate that the article should be tagged instead of deleted immediately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That is basically what speedy delete means, it can be deleted without consulting others. Any user has the authority to instantly delete an article that meets these criteria, but admins have the ability. (1 == 2)Until 13:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Carl's point above that even the CSD tag is unnecessary but must disagree with his parenthetical comment. If the page does not clearly and unambiguously fit within one of the existing and deliberately narrow CSD criteria, it must be taken to XfD (or perhaps prod) no matter how obviously bad the page appears to you. Admins who apply WP:IAR to the speedy-deletion process do significantly more harm to the credibility of the project than the vandals who find a temporary loophole in the policy. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, I'm really not sure how we can be debating this :D - only articles which inequivocally satisfy one of the CSD criteria should ever be deleted, no matter how they are found. Any article which is not a clear member of a CSD category should be PRODed or AfD'd, whether it's CSD tagged or not. Happy‑melon 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's only what certain members of Esperanza AMA I mean CSD or AFD (or DRV) would have you believe. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
IAR means IAR, it's not an expansion of CSD, it's just IAR - and it can most certainly justify a deletion, if there is a rule that needs to be ignored it can be ignored - any rule, but that's not the point of this thread. Nor is CSD the place to have it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding Disambiguation to G6

Tonight I came across an editor who kept mirroring a page they created as "article name (disambiguation)". I noticed that G6 doesn't make a specific provision for this kind of deletion. Maybe the wording in G6 could either be loosened or a provision for improper use of disambiguation could be added. Thoughts?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be included in the wording - the examples in G6 already are not intended to be an exhaustive list. If you explain what's going on (perhaps using |wording= in {{db-g6}}) any reasonable admin would be happy to delete something like that under CSD#G6. Happy‑melon 08:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, just a thought.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder numbers.

This is more of a technicality than anything, but do we really need to reserve the A8 spot as a "placeholder to preserve numbering" when there's no numbers currently beyond 8 and no references to A8 that I can find? --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A8 was a previously existing criterion which was merged, but links will remain in the deletion logs and other places, where they can't be easily altered. It's not a problem now, but if a future A-series criterion is created which goes into A8, then the old deletion logs won't make sense as they'll reference a criterion which doesn't support the deletion. Happy‑melon 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
There are also other places where it would make past discussions confusing. I find 124 hits using a Google search restricted to "Wikipedia:" ([7]); 43 restricted to "Wikipedia talk:" ([8]), and in the user and user talk spaces, though there are many false positives: 375 restricted to "user:" ([9]); and 194 restricted to "user talk:" ([10]). Make of that what you will. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break 5

AKA Discussion of new CSD templates, as introduced 2008-03-14. (Link to Previous discussion --Coppertwig (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, all the new templates are live across Wikipedia. I've been watching the deletion logs, and can't see any problems (the fact that the di-series of templates consistently causes the insertion of an extra colon is no concern of ours :D!). I've fixed one bug in T3 that only appears on templates that have been in place for seven days. I think in a couple of hours we can give ourselves a well deserved pat on the back. Happy‑melon 11:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have lost one element of {{db-u1}}: It won't categorize pages in CAT:CSD if they belong to the User talk: namespace and there is no rationale. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere in the vast amount of discussion above we saw that and decided that it was just asking for pages to be tagged and forgotten about, never to be dealt with. The huge number of User talk pages that have just appeared at CAT:CSD is, I think, confirmation of this. Happy‑melon 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A not too important question about preserving edit histories: I see that the new templates were created on "/new" pages. I assume that they were copied from the original templates then edited (i.e. that they weren't created from whole cloth). Then when they were ready they were copied to the regular page. But looking at the history of (e.g.) db-meta I don't seen any mention of the edit histories that occurred on the /new pages. The appearance is that Happy-melon is the only editor who made the last change. Wouldn't it be more proper for the history to say "copied from db-meta/new" so that anyone reading the history would know that there is more edit history on a different page? Sbowers3 (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We could always merge the histories - I think they're almost entirely non-overlapping. It's just a bit of a pain. Happy‑melon 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting a full merge of the histories because I imagine that would be a pain. But it might be good for the histories to have an edit summary that pointed to the /new pages. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to do it by having an edit summary pointing to the /new pages. I think the /new pages should eventually be deleted. I suggest either merging the edit histories, or else doing a null edit with an edit summary which lists the names of the contributors. Note that there may be contributors to the new wording (e.g. Moonriddengirl, and in a few cases others) who may not currently be attributed in the /new templates but whose contributions may be evident at the discussion subpages. If it's decided to do it via edit summary rather than merging the edit histories I would be willing to do some or all of the work. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we want people to be able to write their own reasons like this? Maybe when the resaon parameter is used, extra words should be added making it clear that this is not one of the standard template wordings. (Or maybe admins are quite smart enough to see that for themselves). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought that {{delete}}, or {{db}} I should say, was completely useless for exactly that reason. But the overwhelming consensus seems to be (or seemed to be at the time of its several TfDs) that no wikimedia project could be complete without a template to request deletion at Template:Delete or its translated equivalent. Happy‑melon 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of the templates don't have the ability to explain why the tagger thinks it fits the criterion, I've used {{db-reason}} (aka {{db}}) before simply because the particular tag available for the applicable criterion was too inflexible.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Most/all admins check the history prior to deletion or removing tags, and I always look to see if the nominator has left an additional note in their edit summary, which is fairly common. Happy‑melon 13:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that the following wording be added to db, as italic, non-bolded wording immediately after the tagger's reason, i.e. passed in as parameter 2 to db-meta: "(custom wording by tagger.) For valid criteria, see CSD."
Thanks to Happy-melon for copying the new versions of the templates into place, and thanks to all who participated in developing the new versions of the templates: Moonriddengirl, Happy-melon, Od Mishehu, Ozzieboy, Allstarecho, N, White Cat and R'n'B. The deletion log looks great: it's cool that those are the words we put in. I think you're quite right, Happy-melon, that the wording in the deletion log summaries needs to be short; otherwise the deletion log would be clogged up and repetitive. Detailed wording isn't needed at that stage, and the link to the whole criterion is given, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I GFDL-ified the templates by doing null edits mentioning the contributors in the edit summaries. I think I covered everyone. (A few names appear on only one template.)
I've also inserted "(Custom wording by tagger.) For valid criteria, see CSD" into Template:db as I had suggested above. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I had missed some of the templates, but I think they're all GFDL-ified now, with Happy-melon's help. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for U4

See also WP:AN#Talk pages for indef users. In a nutshell, I think we should clarify the issue of when to delete or not delete talk pages for indef. blocked users. I think there are situations where we do and should delete them, such as for vandals or trolls who might use them as "trophy" pages (or some other situation where WP:DENY would be a fair argument), but there are times when the talk page should simply be blanked and with the history preserved. I'm not sure how many people agree on this thinking, but I'm hoping we can find a criteria for what to delete and what not to delete that will be acceptable and functional. Thoughts on how we could word this? I wasn't sure what page would be the best to make this proposal, so if anyone feels this should be proposed to another page other than CSD, feel free to suggest one. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Except there's clearly a reason to not delete all of these pages. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody (that I know of) has ever wanted to delete all of the pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought too, but it seems people regularly go through Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and delete pages indiscriminately. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not speedy. Indef doesn't mean forever: indefs are often unblocked. Even if permanently blocked, the user may have left valuable encyclopedic contributions in userspace. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There might be an argument for deleting the page but I don't think that it should be a speedy deletion criterion. There aren't all that many such cases so it would appear to fail the third bullet above and I'm not so sure that there's even a clear consensus on bullet 2. I recommend taking the decision to either the more general Deletion policy page or even the Userpage page first. Once there is a clear policy on exactly which pages should and which should not be deleted, the question can be brought back here to determine whether it can be effectively implemented via speedy-deletions or if the decisions should remain at MfD. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points, taking this to WP:DP or WP:USERPAGE first is likely a better idea. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There was also some (somewhat off-topic) discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_29#Userspace_subpages_of_banned_users.3F - The issue Ned brings up is relevant though, CAT:TEMP works as a sort of "slow speedy" in that it takes about 4 weeks but it's more or less automatic, there's no discussion, much like CSD.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking these pages to MFD is just silly. The way its set up, its basically like a month-long PROD. If no one edits the page for a month after the indef block template is added, and its not needed for sockpuppet tracking, it will be deleted. If someone edits it, the month timer resets. If you think the page should be kept indefinitely, remove the category. Mr.Z-man 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is more like a month-long PROD. Of course, many people, admins included, don't know that placing an indef block notice will categorize the page in CAT:TEMP so it's a little much to ask them to remove the cat.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was the right place to make a proposal, so if anyone can think of a more appropriate page, I'm all for it. My thinking was that it would be weird to proposed when to not delete something, rather than just make it clear when to delete something. Some of the templates that populate the category are ones that shouldn't be removed (such as {{Uw-block3}} and {{Uw-lblock}}), so it's not really like a prod, but more like a "slow speedy". -- Ned Scott 01:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose another idea would be to make those templates not use the category by default, but instead require a trigger, so only "trophy" or other such pages are placed in the category. -- Ned Scott 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Besides the various scripts and programs used to fight vandalism that would have to be changed (not to mention the fact that people who don't use the scripts probably won't even notice the change), we should tailor the templates for the most common usages, and those are vandal-only accounts, blatant username policy vios, and blatant trolls, all generally blocked within a day of account creation. I should also note that there is now a bot that removes the category from all pages that transclude {{do not delete}}, which is included in all the sockpuppet categorizing templates. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is a good enough reason to change things, then the scripts and programs will have to be changed. And if people using the templates manually don't notice the change, then they aren't paying enough attention. When setting up a deletion process, the default should always be keep. The real problem, though, is probably the admins clearing the backlogs of temporary Wikipedian pages. If they are deleting indiscriminately, then they are misunderstanding their role. They should be checking that the template was correctly placed, and if the person has a history of contributions (ie. is not a throwaway vandal account), then the talk page should be kept. The other problem is that the template conflates the different reasons for indefinite blocks. To work out which talk pages should be deleted, you need to spend time investigating what happened. The best person to do that is the original blocking admin, who should use the template with a parameter "|delete". That way, the admin who eventually comes along to do the final bit of tidying up knows that the original admin reviewed things and said "if no contribs after a month, delete". Sometimes even then, there will be reasons to keep, but in those cases, the original blocking admin can use "|historical". All it takes is a change in the template coding, and a warning sign can be made to appear to remind those who forget to put the parameter in. The warning will say "delete is not always the correct option. If you can justify deleting the pages, put "|delete", otherwise, put "|historical". After one month, other admins will clear the pages where there has been no activity. Carcharoth (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've yet to see such a good reason. The majority of these pages are throwaway vandal and troll accounts. I see no good reason to have admins do extra work when blocking vandals just because a few pages of indef blocked accounts that aren't sockpuppets, vandals, or throwaway troll acconts that for some reason we might want to keep get deleted. The CAT:TEMP category has been around for close to 2 years. Pages of blocked users have been deleted for 2 years and I've seen no evidence that the project has been damaged as a result. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We don't toss around deletion lightly because of minor convenances. You might not see the damage, but it's already been done. The vast majority of Wikipedias are unable to review thousands upon thousands of indef blockings, as well as thousands of messages and conversations are lost, and in no way trackable that would allow a Wikipedian to request undeletion. It's been in place for two years because the people who created the page didn't have enough foresight to anticipate this, and the discussions to implement it were extremely lacking in any real community input or consensus. Most people assume there was such a discussion, and think "well, there must have been a good reason" and then don't bring up the issue. I'm not one of those people, and I'm saying we should review this situation, with good and rationale thinking. I'm obviously not alone, as noted from the AN thread. I'm really getting tired of your "nothing's broken, not going to budge" attitude. It's not your decision, it is a big deal, and there's a ton of reasons to change the way we do these things.
I don't see a single good reason in your reply that says why we shouldn't change the default. Updating bots or scripts is easy, very easy, and we do it all the time. In fact, it would be such a non-issue that I'm having a hard time understanding what your objection is. Trophy pages get deleted, others do not, it doesn't cause any more extra work (it actually causes less work), everybody wins. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal moved to WT:USERPAGE#Proposal to not delete talk pages for all indef users. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD I9: "Blatant?"

I'm confused by CSD I9. What does it mean for an image to be a "blatant" copyright violation as opposed to just a coyright violation? The text seems to pretty clearly indicate that non-blatant violations shouldn't be handled this way. And other criteria jibe with that: an improper fair use tagging, for instance, gets a grace period. So what is a "blatant" copyvio for images? Mangojuicetalk 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an image which comes with a watermark asserting copyright and the name of the website it's been lifted from tagged as pd-self (I have seen this)? Or alternatively, a famous image like this one tagged as pd-self? Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I read "blatant" as meaning "clearly obvious" in this context. Images from wireimage, for example, when the user is not asserting fair-use. Also, pretty much any image that the user is claiming as his or her own but which obviously does not belong to him or her. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Those make sense to me. But right now, the text of the criterion is confusing. I propose that it read:

Blatant copyright infringement. Images that are claimed by the uploader to be self-created images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. Blatant infringements should be tagged with the {{Db-imgcopyvio}} template. Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.

This clarifies that (1) copyvio cases are ones where the user claims the work as their own, (2) any FU claim, including just a tag, makes I9 not apply, and (3) avoids the "with permission" thing which is kind of a red herring. Mangojuicetalk 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I support your suggested changes. I believe they are clearer without altering the underlying meaning. --Yamla (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if a non-free image is uploaded as a GFDL image, with no FU claim, I think that it, too, is I9-deletable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PUI might be a better location to discuss these. I agree with Od Mishehu, the images don't have to just be self-licensed. The way Mangojuice states it, it sounds like an image that just has {{GFDL}} on it wouldn't be eligible. There is also unclear wording in this sentence: Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. should probably be: Includes images that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia which include, but are not limited to, stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. MECU≈talk 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I would have no objection to dropping the words "self-created", though that probably does describe the bulk of cases (even ones with just a {{GFDL}} tag, which does tend to imply that the uploader owns the image). Other change - no objection from me. Mangojuicetalk 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Handy CSD template

For anyone who patrols Special:NewPages and needs a cheat sheet:

— Bob • (talk) • 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm niot sure it's necessary. Take a look at CAT:CSD, and you will see a brief list. In addition, many of them use Twinkle, and there are also names for the tags ({{db-ban}}, {{db-nonsense}}, etc). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vague guidelines that apply to CSD and A7

See this discussion . The guideline is very unclear ,its my interpretation that A7 does not apply to CSD at all and have been told as much by mods in the past , Bardcom is reading it the other way , can someone in the know clear this up and maybe tidy up the non criteria Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing but
1) A7 not applying to CSD is nonsensical because A7 is one of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, that's how it got the name A7.
2) A7 is not the same as a claim of "doesn't meet WP:N". Here's an example: Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. Now let's say you look at the references and find that he was a candidate from an inconsequential branch of the party and he received a total of 3 popular votes all in his home town and zero electoral votes and he was not covered in any national or regional media but since the East Anytown Daily with a total readership in 1920 of 300, is now archived on the internet, you were able to find this information. He's probably not notable and you should AFD the article. (Or, in some cases WP:PROD it).
3) On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability.
Understand?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but i would suggest this is very unclear still, i would suggest changing
  1. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
  1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.

Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability. Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are suggesting be changed to what.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria be changed to
  1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.
Consider this example an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7.
On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability and is eligible for A7 Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008
  • Well, I technically mis-stated them above as you've noted, the examples should use the words "importance or significance", but I think we treat those as essentially the same as notability as far as the assertion goes. I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability. What I can tell you is that the assertion of either does not equal notability and the lack of notability does not equal the lack of an assertion thereof. Are you suggesting that we should include the example? I made it up as I typed, maybe it should be thought through a little more if it's going to be actually used.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes we should include the examples if not the one's you suggested some examples .
You said I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability however i'm not sure that this is the issue i think the guideline is trying to state that any assertion of importance,significance or notability should go to AFD and only an example likeJim is from Ireland he is 10 where no assertion of importance,significance or notability is made should apply for speedy Gnevin (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that I see them as one and the same. One equals the other. What we probably ought to do is italicize the word assertion in the criterion description, and maybe remove the sentence that essentially says it has nothing to do with notability since that just confuses the issue.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of the new wording ? Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Still not sorted Gnevin (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Based on my memory, (and a read back through the archives would confirm or counter), A7 does not use the word "notability" because editors felt that word has a unique (to say the least) meaning in WP. I don't think it is a question of less or more, just different. And the most improtant word in the A7 guideline is "assertion," IMHO. Articles (those falling into A7's "families," anyway) must assert something, not just describe it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
and the assertion does not have to be in the expliit words, but has to at least indicate something that someone might reasonably think notable. "X is member of the A state legislature" is an assertion of importance even if there is nothing else about his career said in the article. DGG (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not assert notability .Note this is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources and once an assertion of notability is made the article is ineligible for A7.

An example of an article that qualifies for A7 is User:Gnevin/A7, while [11] asserted notability and A7 didn't apply.

A7 does not apply too articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead. Gnevin (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability should almost always be decided at AFD. The issue in A7 is importance, it's important to realise that this is a distinct concept. This is because the term 'notability' on wikipedia is jargon and means coverage in multiple independent sources. Taemyr (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'bot madness

Competing regulations are conspiring to make the image tagging process even more annoying than it was previously. It works like this...

1) someone tags a message for deletion for some reason or other. 2) the first bot comes along and deletes the image from the pages it's used in 3) another bot comes along and tags the image as being orphaned

Now that the image has been artificially orphaned, the deletion becomes less contestable and the deletion goes through. Since this happens entirely by 'bot, the admins apparently forgo any attempt at actually examining the images or attempting to resolve the issues -- "orphaned non-free? goodbye!"

One or the other 'bots has to either be turned off, or the system has to be changed to prevent this.

Maury (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is widespread, this is certainly a matter for concern. Can you give us some examples of the bots and images involved? Happy‑melon 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The only examples I can provide are my own; check my talk page (if the 'bot hasn't fired). The images in this case are very old, before any of the new tagging rules came into being. Maury (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the image being referred to here is Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg. This was never actually deleted, but User:ImageRemovalBot removed it from its article, leading to the orphaned message. This is completely wrong. It should be noted, though, that no source has yet been provided. The ultimate source (back in the 1940s) is given, but the proximate source (where it was obtained from today) hasn't been provided. This latter sourcing is needed to allow people to verify that this is a genuine picture and not a fake. Carcharoth (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that. I was looking at the article deletion log, not the image deletion log. It was deleted, and the deleting admin restored it, so I presume Maury is talking about another image? Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If Image:Hs 129B-3.jpg is the image being referred to, the bots aren't at fault here. The timeline of what happened is:

  • Kaiba (a human) marked the image for deletion because he didn't think it had an adequate fair-use rationale.
  • RememberTheDot (a human) marked it for deletion because he didn't think it had adequate source information.
  • Maxim (a human) deleted the image because he felt it didn't have an adequate fair-use rationale.
  • ImageRemovalBot (a bot) followed up on Maxim's deletion by removing the leftover image reference in Henschel Hs 129.
  • Maxim (a human) undeleted the image, but did not put it back in the article.
  • BJBot (a bot) noticed the image was non-free and not used in any article, so it marked the image for deletion and notified the uploader.

--Carnildo (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is still confusing and probably not ideal. I think the lesson here is more communication, and not just leaving things for bots to deal with. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, my watchlist is HUGE so I missed this thread even though i started it. Yes, the later summary is fairly accurate, but that's actually not the image I was talking about -- the waves of tags appear to have been archived (I've been trying to get an archiver working for a while now...) A better example is this one is a better example. It was first posted over five years ago, and has resulted in a continued stream of messages since then.

The main concern is that it is not entirely easy to upload an image, but anyone can post a single tag and have it deleted. I realize that this is appropriate in the vast majority of the cases, but we put humans in the loop specifically to weed out those leftovers where a little imagination is called for. However, as the 'bots are now both tagging AND pulling images from the articles they're part of, the human workload has be so reduced that it appears judgement is no longer being applied in many cases.

I realize there is a catch-22 here, because we really need tools to lower operator workload. However, if we automate too much we might as well just let the robots delete everything on site. I think what I'd like to see is a "second level" of either tags or logic, so that "questionable" images that are not clearly copyvio undergo more extensive consideration. In the meantime, I think the competing 'bot problem should be addressed. Maury (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ingo Dammer-Smith

This is given as an example of an article that indicates notability and as such is inelligble for A7. Where does it indicate notability? Taemyr (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its indicates importance, not notability. So A7 doesn't apply , if you think its WP:NN and AFD is required Gnevin (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S but if you can find a better example please add it Gnevin (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a better example on this very page. [12]
Great stuff! Really clear example ! Thanks for the changes you made to , A7 should be a lot clearer now Gnevin (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I feel a bit uncomfortable about having one example that is an obvious A7 candidate and one article that indicates notability. Makes it seem like every non-notable article is deletable under A7. Leaving this to more experienced editors. For indication of importance Ingo Dammer-Smith might be a better example, although we then would need some explanation of why this article indicates importance. I think the claim that the article on Ingo indicates importance because it says that he had a part in a notable television series is one that it's going to be difficult to get consensus for. Personally I think this article should be an rd to Oscar Scully. Taemyr (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

an rd? In my opinion the Ingo Dammer-Smith doesn't really assert Notably and would properly fail an AFD but he is an actor in a international soap which shows some importance,perhaps a 3rd set of eyes could help out hereGnevin (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this series of changes is an improvement; if fact I think it muddies the waters somewhat, and I don't think the subtlties of this can be explained simply by links to a couple of examples. However, I've seen a couple of comments at DRVs and RfAs which make me think that some editors don't understand the distinction between importance and notability, or even think that importance is a higher standard than notability, so I agree some clarification might be merited. As CSD A7 was introduced mainly to deal with the most blatent "vanity" articles about obviously non-notable people ("Joe Bloggs is a teenager from Somewhere who supports Manchester United"), not second-guess what might pass WP:BIO, any realistic indication that the subject might be notable should disqualify an article. Being an actor in an international soap obviously passes this criterion, even though I doubt a five year old who was in a few episodes would actually pass an AfD. So I suggest

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

Thoughts? Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the examples are helpful as this is a grey area , so showing what clearly fails A7 and what doesn't is helpful. Your example I find it difficult enough to grasp. Where are the current wording is quite clear, this failed A7 ,this didn't Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I like Ians wording, it is clear and gets the point across. The problem with examples is that there will always be grey areas, so putting up examples that are clear candidates will in general draw the lines at the wrong places. As I said earlier putting the examples of one article that is an obvious A7 candidate and on article that establishes notability gives the impression that notability is needed for an article to pass A7. This would be a bad thing. On the other hand I am not so sure that everyone would agree that Ingo Dammer-Smith passes A7. The rd is a seperate issue, I feel that when there is content to redirect to then redirection is in general preferrable to deletion. Redirects are cheap. Taemyr (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposal: Unsourced articles about living people

I propose that either criterion A7 should be expanded, or a new criterion introduced, as follows: 'Articles about living people that do not include any references or sources'. I believe speedy deletion of such articles would be justified under the biographies of living persons policy: since any unsourced contentious information about a living person can be removed, and any biographical article typically contains something contentious, arguably the whole article should be deleted. Such articles would in any case be in violation of one of Wikipedia's basic pillars of policy, WP:V; and as such would almost certainly be deleted at AFD. This proposal would simply speed up that process, and because of the requirements of WP:BLP, I believe such a change is urgently needed. We simply can't allow articles like Ingo Dammer-Smith or Jerry O'Neel to exist indefinitely, and this proposal would ensure that they get deleted. Please comment on this proposal below. Terraxos (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, based on the failure of a proposed PROD process for unsourced articles (see Wikipedia:Requests for verification) to gain support, I do not believe this proposal will be adopted. In addition, I think there are at least two problems with making "unsourced BLP" a speedy deletion criterion.
  1. The assumption that "any biographical article typically contains something contentious" is not always accurate (in fact, I would say that it is generally inaccurate). An unsourced article stating: "X Y is a German politician and jurist. From 1987 to 1994 he was a member of the Bundestag." does not contain any contentious information and is probably about a notable subject.
  2. With regard to WP:V, the requirement of the verifiability policy is that information in articles be verifiable, not that it be immediately verified. An unsourced article about a notable topic that is nominated for deletion is not likely to be deleted at AFD, as long as it can be shown that sources exist (even if they are not in the article).
I might be slightly more inclined to support a modified proposed deletion process for unsourced BLPs (maybe with a 14-day delay, instead of a 5-day delay), but even that is problematic... Black Falcon (Talk) 05:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Observations:

  • You don't know what statements would or would not be "contentious" (or worse, blatantly false) unless you are at least somewhat familiar with the subject.
  • You don't know for sure whether "BLP" applies (i.e. whether the name given is that of a non-fictional, non-deceased person) unless you are at least somewhat familiar with the subject.
  • You won't be (and won't become) familiar with the subject unless you find (or have already found) sources of some kind.
  • If you have found sources, the article should promptly be updated cite them and conform to them.
  • If you can't find sources, the article should promptly be deleted regardless of what it is supposedly about.

You don't know whether information is "verifiable" until you "attempt to verify it", after which the information is either "verified" or "deleted". Asking whether or not it is about a "living person" misses the point. Until statements (like "X Y is a real, living person known for ZZZ" or "X Y is an anthropomorphic cartoon character who died in the 46th episode of ZZZ") in the article are verified, they should be taken with a grain of salt and, quite frankly, not be the basis for decisions such as whether this or that genre-specific policy is applicable. You don't know whether or not it's really about a living person or a cartoon character until you've found a source, and... and... I'm probably talking in circles here (feel free to refactor) but in short, all unsourced content should be treated equally, as other considerations become moot once a source is found (or isn't). — CharlotteWebb 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with your comments up to the last bullet where you said that "If you can't find sources, the article should promptly be deleted ...". I have no trouble with that assertion in the context of an discussion where there is opportunity for multiple people to make the attempt but I am troubled by that assertion in the context of speedy-deletion. The fact that I was unable to find a source is not reliable evidence that sources are unavailable. I could make a good-faith effort but either not know where to look or not have access to a reference that others might. AFD and even PROD allows more people the opportunity to conduct their own research. Only after multiple people have attempted and failed to source a topic can we can make a reasonable presumption that no sources exist.
Lack of sources can be a valid reason to delete, just not speedily. A current lack of sourcing alone does not meet consideration #2 of the new criteria requirements at the top of the page. Rossami (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing and do not intend to propose any new criteria, rather rebutting the proposal above. Apologies for confusion over semantics and intent. Let me summarize and hopefully make more sense:

  • If you are able to confirm that an unsourced article is actually about a living person (which would qualify it for deletion under this proposal), it is probably because you have found a viable source for the article's content (which would disqualify it for deletion under this proposal).
  • If you have put forth a reasonable effort and cannot find a source, it doesn't matter what the article is about (I can't stress this enough). Such articles should be dealt with promptly. By "promptly" I do not mean "as part of some new speedy-delete criterion", but rather "under existing policy (and without dragging your heels with {{fact}} tags and the like)".

Depending on the circumstances, applicable "existing policy" might include a different CSD reason, or PROD, or AFD, or IAR. — CharlotteWebb 11:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

G5

Note: Section title changed from 'C5' to 'G5' for clarity.

What is the purpose of this? If it was a vanity page or spam etc then it could be deleted as such, but why this? Perhaps the user's sock was acting in good faith of creating the article. This can only cause deterioration to the project. Editorofthewiki 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no criteria WP:CSD#C5. Did you mean WP:CSD#G5? Ie. pages created by banned users. If so note that a ban is different from a block. A ban in effect says that any contribution from the banned user is unwanted, hence pages that has been created and mainly edited by a banned user is unwanted and can be deleted. Taemyr (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, G5 is what I meant. However, what if a banned user created pages in violation of his ban but it was a legit article? Editorofthewiki 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There are those who suggest than any contribution by a banned user, whether positive or negative, ought to be removed. After all, a ban is intended to convey the sentiment that a particular user is no longer welcomed to edit the encyclopedia. Some have argued that there should be an exception for removal of material that contravenes the biographies of living persons policy. In other circumstances, it may depend on the circumstances of the ban. For instance, here it was argued that an article created by the sockpuppet of a banned user should be judged on its merits due to the fact that the article's topic is unrelated to the reason for the user's ban. There is also some discussion of this issue above: see #Change to G7, to keep good contributions by banned users?. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What in hell is wrong with you people?

Look at this edit.

Lately people who spend their time marking pages for speedy deletion have become unbelievably irrational. TWO MINUTES after this article was created by a Wikipedian who is also a world-famous researcher, it was marked for speedy deletion. There wasn't even a hint of a reason for that. "Gee, 'mathematics'? What's that?? Never heard of it! Delete!" It really doesn't make it easy to "assume good faith" when you see something like this. The article got deleted. Shortly thereafter, it was restored. If the Wikipedian who created it had been a newbie, he probably would have gone away and never come back. Why has the speedy-deletion crowd lately started trying SO HARD to convince us that they're all a bunch of morons, lunatics, and juvenile delinquents?

This edit is the most offensive and idiotic edit ever done on Wikipedia. Speedy deletion as spam! The page was created at a time when Wikipedia was unknown and the web site that the article linked to was famous and regarded as the leading authority on its topic on the web. Obviously, there could have been no interest in using the unknown Wikipedia to advertise such a famous web site. Nearly 1500 Wikipedia articles linked to it. Most of those links were created by professionals who had expertise in the subject and no interest at all in advertising the company that sponsors the site. There were no links to the company; only to the informational web site that the article was about. All that was crystal-clear to anyone who looked.

Why must the allegedly important job of protecting Wikipedia from spam be done only by people paying no attention to what they're doing, and not caring? One might LIKE to say that an edit like the one above was just a mistake, and we should forgive and forget since it's been rectified. It might even be true. But it's just impossible. No one will ever forget. Many decades from now, some historian who hasn't been born yet today will write a book about the early days of Wikipedia, and devote a chapter primarily to that one edit. It can't be avoided, no matter how saintly everyone is while urging to forgive and forget; that would be a case of trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're going a bit overboard here. Was that diatribe really necessary? The nature/profession/longevity on wikipedia of an article creator is categorically irrelevant when the article is written as it was in the diff your provided. If it meets the SD criteria, it gets tagged. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think this was a wee bit on the uncivil side? Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In general, there's always the option of improving the article instead of deleting it after 2 minutes. We're here to create and expand content, that should be the first option that's considered I'd think. RxS (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So I am going overboard. But the point of my comments above is that a lot of people are going overboard. Lately they've "improved" (a euphemism in this case) their software so that they take only two minutes to mark every article for speedy deletion unless they understand everything in it without ever having studied anything. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's right on the mark. There are people out there who make no contribution what so ever to the site but if you look at their deletion logs it's at a rate of several deletions per minute. Something about that just isn't right. Zenasprime (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Few admins are promoted who haven't been the main writer on a Featured Article or participated at ANI, UAA, RFP etc, for many months. Believe me, the admin bit is not something you just ask for and receive. Happy‑melon 09:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't been at RfA recently, have you? Drop by sometime and get a nasty surprise. Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The last time I was there was in February. Happy‑melon 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Presumably too busy to see who else was being promoted on the strength of six months of vandal reversion? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with people who are involved in that line of work being promoted - I certainly wouldn't consider six months of RC patrol "[making] no contribution what so ever[sic] to the site", as Zenasprime claims. Happy‑melon 09:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps. I merely think that you should recognise that many people are being promoted now who have never actually written a full article or participated in dispute resolution or in any way been exposed to anything beyond the ordinary. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
<EC>Well, maybe Michael you aren't being so unreasonable. Like Strangelove says, it might be better to improve rather than delete. See below. Dlohcierekim 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
At least look into improvement, I know that a lot of crap comes through but there's no damage done if an article sits untagged for 8 minutes instead of 2 or 3. I know it's easier to tag something right out of the chute but any or all of three things may happen when people don't dig a little: You make someone else do the quick research work before possible deletion, a legitimate article gets deleted and/or a newbie gets bitten. It's not a race, right? RxS (talk)

The two tags here were evidently in error, but neither was deleted, which to me suggests that the system is not working so badly. In the first case, the references should have suggested that this was not an article to be deleted out of hand, and the admin making the decisions caught this; the second case was plainly absurd and reverted quickly. It is difficult to regulate the quality of article tagging because anyone can do it, but hopefully the admins who are pushing the button are being a bit more careful. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we were discussing the idea of delayed speedy tags (for notability) at one point, but I can't remember what talk page it was on. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V, if I remember correctly. Happy‑melon 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I found it, it was Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Time switch. Seems the discussion on it died down, but I still think it's a great idea that would help issues like this. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points, Michael. Near the top of this page it says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." I would like to see this idea repeated within some of the CSD criteria and on the templates; I think it tends not to be noticed enough where it is. Alternatively, it could be moved closer to the top of the page and perhaps put in bold type.
Deleting and then restoring a page doesn't necessarily get the toothpaste back into the tube: consider the case of Ggggggggggggggg12, a valuable contributor who has apparently been permanently lost to the project after the user's first article was speedy-deleted. The article has been restored, but the contributor has left, with a very dim view of Wikipedia. And here's another example of a knowledgeable person who left Wikipedia when their article was deleted, even though the article was restored again: "An admin later restored my work and reprimanded that editor, but this ended my active involvement in Wikipedia; it simply seemed to bothersome to spend time on it."
People need to be careful. Other than attack pages and perhaps copyvios (and ?) there is no reason to rush to tag or delete articles within minutes of creation. Is it a race to get to be the one to tag or delete an article before someone else does it? Even just tags can be off-putting to an article creator. When doing new page patrol, you can look at pages that are an hour or so old. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:RFA culture now places much weight on accurate C:CSD tagging. So yes, sadly, it has become a race to place the tag first. That's not good. But I'm afraid it's true. Given the ammount of G12 and, worse still, G10 pages, to restrict quick tagging is both problematical and would require a technical change to the software. This thread is deeply concerning. I believe the solution is for admins to be far slower in deleting and more willing to advise the editors who have tagged a page that they got it wrong (tactfully of course). An editor looking to seek adminship with a bunch of "speedy declined" comments on their talk page is likely to be far more circumspect and will hopefully look to WP:AFD to demonstrate policy knowledge instead. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    There is no reason for it to "become a race to place the tag first." There are thousands of non-patrolled articles more than a week old. That is more than enough time for any creator to not only demonstrate importance but also demonstrate notability through references. On New pages patrol I used to set a high offset to find the oldest non-patrolled pages. I'd regularly get up to 14,500 but the software is so slow at finding those high offsets that I switched to smaller offsets. Still it's not at all hard to switch to non-patrolled pages that are a day or two old instead of a few minutes old. It would be a big help if Special:Newpages made it easier to get a list of older non-patrolled New pages instead of by default showing the very newest New pages. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem of biting people would be reduced if more of us used templates like {{nn-warn}}. I do if I'm using automated tools. You should too! :) Sceptre (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people do tag things too early and without looking carefully. Ranting here isn't going to do anything. You could try leaving a note on the taggers' talk pages. That might actually accomplish something. Mr.Z-man 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Michael's peroration (i.e., a "rant" you happen to appreciate) has the potential to do quite a bit of good. It raises awareness of a growing problem among those of just dropping by, those of us who have not been directly affected by the problem (yet), those of who may well be motivated to help in addressing it nonetheless. This is clearly another ugly symptom of the deletionist virus whose spread has manifested itself in many different ways around our project. Thanks for the eyeopener, Michael.—DCGeist (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What in the hell is wrong with you people, giving all this deference and coddling and praise to this repugnant post that starts with "What in the hell is wrong with you people" and continues from there. There is nothing new about boneheaded CSD tagging happening and also nothing new about it being sometimes acted on by certain admins. The wonder is that we get it right most of the time (and we do get it right most of the time). This post ignores the fact that we are a volunteer run project with over a thousand separate admins and many more users each of whom are editing by his or her own lights. This post was spitting into a fan we are all standing behind. Of course there will be errors given the nature of what this place is and how it exists. Don't for a moment think I am defending the deletion or the tagging. But examine the tenor and tone of the original post ("Why must the allegedly important job of protecting Wikipedia from spam be done only by people paying no attention to what they're doing, and not caring?"). That is not to say that we shouldn't strive to reduce the tendency of these types of poor deletions happening. It's always good when that conversation takes place, but it taking place here is in spite of the nasty way this post started. All of you thanking this user for bringing this up as if these concerns are even slightly new need to first look at the archives here and elsewhere and realize we are retreaded matters that have come up over and over. Yes, we should encourage people not to tag at the 1 nanosecond mark and start new pages patrol later than the first page of newpages; users whould be consistently informed of tagging, etc. none of this is new either, far from it. The conversation should be focused on how to implement these well worn suggestions. And where is the evidence that this is a growing problem? What I see is consistent errors over time in tagging by newpages patroller, of which some smaller subset of articles so tagged are actually deleted. That is an inevitable result when you're dealing with a cast of thousands. If someone provides evidence there has been a statistically significant increase in these errors, then that would be something to examine, but just saying it is so is mummery.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate some of (11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) the points Michael brings up regardless of whether these points are new and regardless of whether the current problem is greater than it has been in the past or just big. I agree with DCGeist that just posting here as Michael did can do a lot of good in itself, raising awareness among all who read the post. I don't necessarily either condone or condemn the wording and tone of either Michael's or Fuhghettaboutit's posts; I'm simply expressing agreement with some of (11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) the content of Michael's post as distinct from its tone.
The main reason I just spent weeks (along with other users) developing updated versions of the speedy deletion templates was to try to have a small positive impact on this very problem. By making the wordings of the templates conform more precisely to the CSD's, I hope that we've achieved a slight reduction in wrongful deletions by those who might read the templates more often than the CSD's. Some of the changes in the template wordings are also intended to try to encourage (at least a slight!) increase in the number of people who click on the link and actually read the CSD rather than just looking at the template wording. It would be good for people to try to think of additional ways to help with this problem. Thanks again for your contribution, Michael. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
And I have spent many, many hours writing posts to new pages patrollers explaining why their tagging was improper, improved the language of many of our warning templates, and created 30 of our most high use warning notices because I am very concerned over these issues. That does not mean I divorce the post from its context and thank a user for indiscriminately lambasting all admins and newpage patrollers while painting with a giant brush.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I expressed my meaning inaccurately. I meant I agree with what I see as the underlying message in Michael's post (not necessarily what anyone else sees as the underlying message). I don't agree with all of the statements in it; there seems to be some overgeneralization there and I didn't intend to reinforce any inaccurate or emotional criticism of volunteers. Thanks for the work you've done on this, too, Fuhghettaboutit. I'm sorry any hard feelings caused by my reply above. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The trick is to _start_ each article about a company with some assertion of significance. That should be the very first step. Looks like a good tagging to me, that is why we have the {{hangon}} template. (1 == 2)Until 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is, when you do that, it gets deleted under G11. :-\ --Coppertwig (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In my new page patrols I usually try to use improvement tags when it's borderline, but I have noticed that most articles won't get a speedy tag if they include a reliable third party source right off the bat. Part of the G11 trouble is that the majority of articles I see tagged as G11 don't reference anything outside of the subject. Sometimes you'll even see things like links to alexa to show "importance" of a website. Also, I've seen that the under construction tag helps a great deal in avoiding immediate tagging. I think it might be a good thing to push the importance of the various under construction tags on new pages.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I personally don't feel that there's anything wrong with tagging articles right off the bat. Speedy deletion is a system of checks and balances and I think that when an administrator reviews the deletion tag it falls to that admin to do a small amount of due diligence. I've always thought of the concept of speedy deletion tagging as an alert system for potential problems and although there should be more restraint used by some editors in tagging for speedy deletion the choice to keep or delete is ultimately made by a higher authority or a peer review. I don't think we should bite the taggers on bad deletion calls unless there is a blatant misuse of the CSD tag.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally feel that there is something very definitely wrong with speedy-tagging articles right off the bat, in some cases. If they're attack pages or copyvios, no problem. If they're one-line articles that have existed for only a few minutes and the main problem with them is that they're too short or missing context, assertion of significance, sources etc., then I feel it's important to wait to give the creator the opportunity to continue adding to the article. The CSD policy says "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." Note that in the case of Ggggggggggggggg12 a valuable contributor apparently permanently left the project after their first article was speedy-deleted before the user had time to finish typing it in. If there isn't something "wrong" with that, maybe we have different POV's about the definition of "wrong". :-) (Note: I mean "wrong" in the sense that something needs to be fixed, not in the sense that anybody is doing anything in bad faith.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting into bold type this part of the 3rd paragraph of this policy: "try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation". --Coppertwig (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a bad idea, mostly because both "try" and "too soon" are so vague as to be of dubious value— let alone emphasized. — Coren (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the reason for your revert, Coren. Your point is valid. Perhaps at a later date I'll suggest a change in wording. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Mathworld speedy is a great example of why I believe G11 is an unacceptably subjective CSD, and is frequently misapplied to articles that "sound like spam" rather than actually satisfy the criteria (there's nothing in that article that makes it sound promotional, and "fundamental rewrite" doesn't even come into the picture). Those who claim users have "adjusted" and stopped nominating poor G11s aren't paying attention. This CSD is error-prone, ineffective, and needs to be not altered but repealed. Dcoetzee 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to G7, to keep good contributions by banned users?

Meta currently lists as one of its general deletion criteria:

Any thoughts on whether we might adopt a similar provision, in order to have a more nuanced approach that could be beneficial? Many banned users have a mix of good and bad edits; see also m:Bans_and_blocks#The_hole_in_the_policy. 129.174.91.119 (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

the question is whether the gain in decent contributions will be outweighed by the difficulty in maintaining and enforcing a flexible but adequately protective policy. I just don't know. I'd like us to be able to do it, but I can think of too many users who would take unfair advantage of it. DGG (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The above IP among them, in fact. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That IP is for George Mason University, and thus the user is very likely Sarsaparilla. The large majority of his edits would be useful. With edits to existing articles, there is no problem. The edits may be reverted on sight, and restored at leisure if anyone cares to review them, which would ordinarily be the case with Sarsaparilla, when I become aware of them. But with deleted articles, only administrators can review them. If I know about the articles, I'd be happy to review them or to ask someone else to do so. With article edits, I've brought back in some of Sarsaparilla's parlipro edits, and another editor reviewed the bulk of them. I'd suggest this: existing policy, articles from blocked editors are deletable on sight. But an admin *could* userify such articles to the user space of a volunteer who would then take responsibility for reviewing them. If they seem good, the user could then move them into article space on his or her own responsibility. but the edit history would be intact. I'd be willing to do this with Sarsaparilla's contributions, I think his contributions are worth the effort. This would protect the encyclopedia from problem edits and article creation, and still allow some level of continued contribution by a blocked user, perhaps leading to rehabilitation. Or not. But I don't see how it could hurt. I do think it important to keep in mind that block and deletion policy are not intended to be punitive, only preventative. Of course, once the blocked user sees this is happening, he might just create the article in the volunteer's user space, thus making less fuss, one less task for the administrator.--Abd (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The CSD G5 policy is strict because banned users are not welcome to make contributions at all, good or bad. Users that are merely blocked are not treated this way. But this was really designed for users that were banned for a LOT more problematic behavior than Sarsaparilla. I think some others regard Sarsaparilla's contributions as more problematic, though, and you should be wary of making edits on behalf of a banned user, or you could be blocked for proxying. I have seen cases in the past where a G5 deletion was declined because it was discovered too late and the contribution was worthwhile and others had already built on it. So yes, in some cases these contributions may not be deleted, but it's the exception, not the rule. Mangojuicetalk 05:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
However, what if a banned user created an article on George Washington etc? Would we delete that article simply because a banned user made mistakes in the past? Editorofthewiki 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are deleting a page simply because it was made by a banned user, then we are missing the point of Wikipedia. We're greedy here, greedy for any good and free content we can get our hands on. And there's nothing stopping any other user from reposting the same content, since the banned user has already released that content via the GFDL. Blocks and bans are to protect the project (and sometimes as an extension of that, to protect other editors). Who are we protecting when we're using their block or ban as a reason to remove good content? -- Ned Scott 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this: the real problem and the implementation problem. The real problem is that if a user is indef blocked or banned (and sometimes the difference is difficult to discern, so I'm not holding to it), for reasons that there is doubt about the safety of the project if they are simply allowed to post, there is a risk that if nobody examines the edits, they may contain serious problems. A blocked editor may be angry with Wikipedia, for example, and so plant subtle (or not so subtle) BLP violations or other problems. They may do this in the midst of many good contributions. If the editor was blocked for vandalism or other egregious offense, this may be a strong possibility. Now, Sarsaparilla's contributions were being deleted because they were his, ipso facto, without regard for their content. I started reviewing them and reverting them back in, sometimes with modifications to satisfy myself, if the sources checked out or, in a few cases, if the edit was reasonable on its face (and where I could not check a source I flagged it in Talk). Another editor joined me in this, and thus we were able to restore much content. I didn't find any article space content that was truly problematic. However, Fredrick day rather continually complained, through his IP socks, that I was a meat puppet for Sarsaparilla. Because this user was seriously uncivil, actually vicious, and one of the instigators of the Sarsaparilla block, I decided to do with him what he had been urging be done -- and which he had actually personally done as User:Fredrick day, with Sarsaparilla edits, -- start reverting his edits routinely, someone else could review them. Well, he planted some traps. He went to bios of porn stars and removed some material that was BLP violation -- or at least that looked that way, some of it was actually solid. I reverted it. Now, all this was very visible, and where I reverted something that was thus bringing back in an apparent BLP violation, it was promptly reverted again to take it out. The general advice on AN/BLP was that one should always examine the content to make sure that one is not bringing back in BLP-violating material. Problem is, this takes time. A lot of time. In one of these articles, there was a claim that the porn star had been infected with AIDS through filming with another specific porn star, and that other actresses, named, were infected at the same time. And it seemed that this was unsourced. It took perhaps a half hour for me to find sources and verify that they were reliable. Turns out the incident was actually famous. Fredrick day, through another sock, took it out again.... and so it stands. Given the flap at AN/BLP, I'm not willing to risk a block over the loss of some information in a porn star article, and I'd rather not be combing through the sources on this, thank you very much. It is pornography, after all.
So, the implementation problem is that examining the edits to determine if they are appropriate or not is not necessarily the same job as identifying that the edits are made by a blocked editor. My position was that we should, in fact, revert all such edits, routinely, but that this should be documented in some way to specifically bring it to the attention of those who might be concerned about removing violating material thus brought back in. Technically, I was bringing in BLP violating material, but, in fact, this was material that had been standing, often, for quite some time, months or longer, and was only brought back for a few minutes in most cases. What I liked about the solution was that it made edits by blocked editors into "submissions," as if they were, say, posts to a moderated mailing list by a user on moderation. Any user then could take responsibility for reviewing them. So a blocked editor who was a useful contributor could indeed continue to contribute, in a fairly efficient way. However, what I see as a rigid interpretation of BLP policy stands in the way of it. And if all the contributions have to be reviewed for content, sourcing, etc., by the one who would remove them, it becomes impractical. What I'd prefer to see would be a procedure for reviewing such almost-automatic reverts for violating material. (They can't be fully automatic because someone has to identify the account as a sock of a blocked user, but once that has taken place, they could be bot-assisted.)
So, in theory, we should keep good content contributed by anyone. In practice, for some kinds of blocked users, someone must review that content. Should it be allowed to stand until reviewed, or should it be removed, and allowed to return upon review? If we mean "block" by "block," we should be, I'd suggest, willing to take the risk of BLP violating material standing for a little longer, there is no need for it to stand a lot longer. User:Fredrick day, it is pretty obvious, was only searching for apparent porn star BLP violations as a trap. He apparently stopped immediately once I was warned and stopped reverting him. At least as far as I know, he has created at least one new account since, about to be unveiled....--Abd (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We're getting a bit off topic. Deleting a page is never a violation of BLP. The question here is: should the fact that a page was created and edited completely as a violation of a ban, reason enough to delete it without looking into the content? Here, unlike with edits to existing pages, we don't need to worry about violating some other Wikipedia policy by deleting it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable Internet TV shows, and criterion A7

I recently tagged The Real Life Henderson for speedy deletion under CSD A7 as non-notable web content. However, jonny-mt correctly pointed out that A7 does not apply to TV shows which, it could be easily interpreted, this article is about - its subject is a Youtube channel. I discussed it with him [13] and we agreed that the db-web template for A7 doesn't quite seem to cover non-notable YouTube content. I'd appreciate any opinions on whether A7 is indeed applicable for online TV shows that don't assert notability. Thanks ~ mazca talk 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of "web content" that has been used earlier is "content that is only available on the internet". Under that definition YouTube channels could be speedy deleted under A7. Hut 8.5 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I interpret web content as "content only available on the web" - the idea seems to be that if someone has spent money making something available in another format, it ought to be more important. Of course I disagree with A7 in general, but such is my interpretation. Dcoetzee 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
YouTube content is web content. The fact that it's video in format is irrelevant; a YouTube "channel" definitely falls under the A7 language, just like a website or forum. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the others above that some random YouTube video would be deletable under A7. However, this article doesn't describe the show as a YouTube video or channel, it just describes it as a TV show. So it does deserve checking out and PROD seems appropriate to me. Maybe calling it a "TV show" is false or misleading... but hoaxes aren't deleted via speedy deletion. Mangojuicetalk 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling it a TV show doesn't make it one; that's sloppy thinking. In fact, it was clear that this was web content, and subject to the rules for web content. I can't call Steven Brust a book and expect other editors to apply WP:BOOK to an article about him. (And in fact hoaxes are speedy-deletable under G3; have been for a while now.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Common hoaxes are not and never have been speedy-deletable. The wording on the page requires that the hoax be "blatant and obvious" examples of vandalism. Making that determination usually requires that the hoax demonstrably be part of a pattern of vandalism by the author. For any alleged hoax which does not meet that deliberately high bar, prod or AFD are the only appropriate deletion processes. See the second bullet in the Non-criteria and WP:HOAX for more detail. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial pages. If there is any doubt, as there clearly is in this case, just PROD it. The exact wording of the various policies isn't important. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems mazca beat me to raising this issue here after all :) I think part of where this gets fuzzy is when you run into things like webisodes and online series--for example, would a short article consisting of "Quarterlife was a short lived online drama" be speedyable under A7 because it's web content or would it be excluded because it's a TV series that just happens to be online? Likewise, my understanding is that video games are excluded from the A7 criteria, but can we delete something like "FOOMUD is an awesome online RPG" under A7 because it's online, or does the fact that it may have an offline component in the form of client software exclude it from this criteria? --jonny-mt 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's on a cathode-ray tube (or a LC display) doesn't make it "television"! "Webisodes," "online series" and podcasts are not television (or radio), because they are not broadcast; they are not film, because they are not shown in theaters; they are web content, pure and simple. There's nothing ambiguous there. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Orange Mike on this one. In practice, there are a substantial number of absolutely and obviously non-notable such items submitted. Any one which has any indication that it might be important should of course go to prod instead. That they are prepared with flash or whatever does not make them into computer programs, any more than Wikipedia articles written with firefox. DGG (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Events and other uncategorized likely candidates for speedy deletion

Has there been any discussion about non-notable events? This is a legitimate concern as local events appear here all the time without even an effort to claim notability in some form, yet we can't legitimately utilize CSDs; they may have to be dragged through AFD when it's clear there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the article would survive. I'm sure there are other possible candidates that do not fall into the criteria as they stand now.

Thoughts? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? I have very rarely if ever seen this kind of thing come up. I generally am firmly opposed to expanding A7 beyond its existing categories because it is already over-applied. At the very least, I would want to be convinced that this kind of article is currently putting a significant burden on WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Mangojuicetalk 04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Frequently, such articles can be deleted as G11, articles whose only purpose is to obtain publicity. DGG (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD I2 clarification

The DB-I2 tag used to state "This is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image." before it was modified recently. Even the user page notice tag still states that Commons hosted images for "empty description pages" could be deleted under this. I've been deleting image description pages for images under CSD I2 before I double checked and was shocked that this wasn't covered there explicitly. When was this changed? It seems the editors at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates (images) changed it but don't seem to have consensus. I see no valid reason to have an image description page here for an image on Commons. Mostly they are being used to categorize images here, but we are not Commons, and that is Commons' function and purpose. Having it categorized here is useless and duplicate efforts. I would therefore like to clarify CSD I2 be stating that any image description page for an image that exists at Commons may be deleted. This is not duplicate to CSD I8 since the image for that would exist here. This is solely for pages where the page is here but the image is on Commons. Since I believe this was the consensus previously and am not aware of any change regarding this and see no valid reason this shouldn't be the case, without any opposition, I shall make the change after a few days. MECU≈talk 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a reason. Keep asking and someone will tell you. Sorry I don't have time to look it up myself, but I would advise not making the change until you get some response. It might have been to do with the featured picture process here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A page with categories isn't empty. Where did you get this idea? There are a number of reasons for image description pages for Commons images, most of which are fairly obvious. --- RockMFR 05:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked in the IRC admin channel and several had agreed with me. One did point out the WP:FP and WP:FPC use, but categorizing images that are on Commons isn't helpful or relevant here. That's a Commons task. We should link to the Commons category, but not have a page here that just categorizes an image on Commons. That is the essence of duplication and redundancy. I agree and am willing to have the WP:FP exception, and write it into the rule, but otherwise there isn't a valid reason to have an image on Commons categorized here. No one has given me a reason yet. MECU≈talk 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. But be patient. The last time you made a change "after a few days" I don't think it was long enough. I'm waiting on a discussion above about G6, so patience is a virtue here. Plus keep asking. Someone might still come up with a reason in the next few days. I used to be bold with policy pages, but I find slower is better now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't really my full qualification: "...without any opposition, I shall make the change after a few days." Now that someone has objected, I will definitely wait longer. Seems odd to me though since it used to be this way and changed without a discussion and to get it back we have to discuss? MECU≈talk 18:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14#Category:Needed-Class articles --NE2 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering adding U4

U4 would read:

User alleged misconduct working pages. Users often use subpages in userspace to prepare evidence related to sock-puppetry, edit warring, or RFC and arbitration matters. However such pages should not exist indefinitely, or when there is no active case anticipated from them. Pages that document the alleged misdeeds of other users but are "stale" (ie, appear not to be actually in use for an imminently likely case), may at times be appropriate to request blanking or deletion. See WP:UP#NOT.

Thoughts? I think blanking's more useful (and less confrontational) but still feel somehow, a CSD entry for this is sensible due to the widespread use of such pages that then linger indefinitely. If the page is in use, HANGON would work. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd be hesitant to add things to groups other than images that wouldn't be "shoot on sight" criteria. I would suggest asking the user if he still needs it, if not to tag it for U1, and if necessary go to MFD, unless there are a so many of these that it wouldn't be practical. Anything that was bad enough to be considered personal attacks though could be speedy deleted of course. Mr.Z-man 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is for pages that unquestionably can be deleted as they provide no added benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. The pages in question would be better off for U1 / G7 or PROD. I'm very hesitant deleting subpages of established users -- people can be quite protective of them. And determining inactivity level sometimes has embarrassingly false positives. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MZMcBride. Better to use PROD and other existing methods. Perhaps better to discuss with the user in whose space they are. If such pages are currently hanging around indefinitely, I take that as a sign that there is no strong community consensus to delete them: therefore they are not good CSD candidates. One problem with trying to speedy them: you have no way of knowing whether the user is just about to open an RfC/U or something. If the user is not online when they're being speedied, they have no chance to put "hangon". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, This exact case has historically been covered under G10. (It doesn't seem to be in the wording now, but I know I've seen it there before, and pages really have been deleted that way) A new criterion might be beneficial to avoid accusing good-faith users of creating "attack pages". In any case, it'd be a split rather than a new criterion for pages that weren't "speedyable" before. --Random832 (contribs) 16:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"However such pages should not exist indefinitely" Why not? And before anyone responds, realize the point of me saying that is that the concept (that we need to delete these pages) is likely to be disputed by most of the community, in a speedy or an XfD. So it certainly won't fly as a CSD. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all types of userpages like those should always be sent to MFD and never be speedily deleted. Maybe the user just forgot about ir or something and dialogue with them would be more effective (and you might get 'em to U1 or G7 themselves). It doesn't fit into the quick, simple, noncontroverisal glove that I've come to regard CSD as. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fails #2 and #3 of the "Read this before proposing new criteria" section. I agree with Hbdragon88 that MFD is far more appropriate for these. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A7 for products?

Is there a reason why A7 applies to articles about companies (which do not assert notability), but not to articles about products? (Software products seem to be a quite frequent case.) They're handled in the same guideline WP:CORP, and otherwise these two cases seem very similar as well. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And a related question is why does A7 apply to bands but not albums? (I'm not saying it should or shouldn't, I'm just curious as to why.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is by no means exclusive: for past discussion see here, here, here, here, and here. This does not mean you can't reopen the topic and argue for expansion, but I would scour the archives before you do and have any proposal address any objections that come up over and over and, of course, fold in the gist of goods arguments for specific expansion when and if you make your case.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Specifically mentioning albums here would be instruction creep. If a band legitimately qualifies for speedy deletion, so do the band's albums. Likewise if a band is deemed article-worthy, so are the albums. It is ludicrous to suggest that a "non-notable" band can have "notable" albums, and vice versa. — CharlotteWebb 10:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel that not all albums are notable; indeed, that's one of the problems here. Somebody seems to have concluded that all albums are notable by definition, and any effort to delete one, no matter how obscure, is met with uproar by the band's fanbase. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bands, as I understand it, were added to A7 in order to deal with a flurry of garage bands wanting articles. Releasing a real record on a real record label should be regarded as a claim of importance (which is not the same thing as proof of meeting WP:BAND or other guidelines), so a band with albums shouldn't be an A7 candidate anyway. Of course, if an "album" has only been released on MySpace or similar, an article about it can still be deleted as non-notable web content. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 03:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who answered my related question. Reading the links provided just confirms my gut feeling that quite a number of bands and albums need to be dealt with via prod or AfD rather than speedy. (With the obvious exception of articles like "Jerry's Ant Vomit was started by four friends in school last week and is going to release a demo next year when we learn how to play an instrument.", which just cry out for speedying.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Though I'm not an expert in this area, i will delete the most obvious garbage, and I more of less use Iain's standard. If they have not yet made a recording, or played in some established venue, they cannot possible be notable. so if there is a recording, then neither it nor they can really be a speedy. (I interpret YouTube release as speedy-deletable internet content). We really need to continue doing this, as every day there are at least a dozen or so very clearly in the speedy category-- Step I: give the band a name. Step II: write a WP article. DGG (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You forgot step Ia) create a MySpace page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am also speedying albums belonging to bands that either don't have an article or whose article should be speedied (i.e. "albums" which have sold around 7 copies, were released only on Bebo, and so on. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Move protection?

Is there any reason why this page still has move protection on it? -- kenb215 talk 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because every time we lower the protection level, the page jumps to near the top of the most vandalized pages list. And for a while, that included a lot of pagemove vandalism. Is the protection getting in the way of anything? Rossami (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's just strange to see a page with only move protection. I don't recall ever seeing move protection without autoconfirm as well, and was wondering why it was like that. -- kenb215 talk 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:AN and WP:ANI both have permanent move protection, most of the time without semi. Happy‑melon 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Same for WP:AIV, WP:RFA, and probably a few others. Hut 8.5 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Albums

If a band or musician are deemed non-notable, surely their albums should also qualify for speedy deletion? I am sure this has been discussed before; just point me to the conclusion, please. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One concern I'd have about speedying albums of non-notable bands is how that lack of notability is determined. Just having the band as a redlink wouldn't be enough. In fact, I probably wouldn't be comfortable determining speedily that an album was by a non-notable band unless the band had been deleted through AfD already. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You may want to look two sections down. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have looked. Have proposed. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD G6 clause "cleaning up redirects"

Could someone tell me when the "cleaning up redirects" clause first appeared in CSD G6? I will look back through the history, but was wondering if anyone else knew? Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I tracked it down to this edit (September 2007), which moved the "redirects created by vandalism" (G3) to "housekeeping" (G6), but also changed the wording from "reversing a redirect or moving an article over a disambiguation page that has only one entry." to "cleaning up redirects". I submit that this vagueness has led people to deleting redirects that should have been discussed at WP:RFD, and it needs to be made clear that G6 only applies to redirects that need to be deleted to allow housekeeping to take place (eg. page moves over a redirect, or redirects left behind while temporarily moving a page history around). It should not apply to normal redirects created by a page move, unless a case has been made for a new speedy deletion criterion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(inserted out of time sequence to respond directly to Carcharoth) - As the one who made the edit to insert that phrase, I don't think I had anything in mind other than trying to simplify and shorten the language of CSD without actually changing anything. It seemed to me that "cleaning up redirects caused by vandalism" was a simple matter of housekeeping and didn't need to be explicitly listed. However, vandalism and other pointless items (including page moves and presumably other redirects) could be cleaned up as a matter of housekeeping, as long as it was "non-controversial." If it's controversial (meaning, subject to good faith objection from an informed editor) I don't think it qualifies as housekeeping, so I didn't see the trouble. I certainly didn't have orphaned talk pages in mind one way or the another. I was not thinking in that level of detail. Wikidemo (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If such a case has been made, I missed it; I agree with you on this one. There's a reason we have redirects left behind by a move by default, and the wording can now be read as very permissive in terms of when redirects can be deleted ("any time I can call it 'cleaning up'" it seems to be, now). SamBC(talk) 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I should probably mention that my scrutiny of this CSD came about when it became apparent that it has become practice to delete orphaned talk page redirects. See here (may be archived soon). If there is consensus for this practice, it should be discussed here and at WP:RfD, and added to the criteria under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think redirects are particularly sacred. G6 is basically a measure for those with knowledge of a subject or its requirements to delete articles or pages which are no longer needed and which are uncontroversial. Probably about 75% of the deletions I do are in this category, and as one of the main (in terms of activity) volunteers on the Australian WikiProject I'm in a fairly good position to know what is debris and what is meant to be there when it comes to maintenance in my area. Tightening up the rules in this regard is probably not advisable - I think most volunteers would agree there is already too much bureaucracy. Orderinchaos 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Does saying "I don't think redirects are particularly sacred" qualify you as someone with "knowledge of [redirects] or [their] requirements". I think you are saying that you feel confident about deleting redirects to do with articles covered by the Australian WikiProject. The trouble is that redirects are not really to do with the topic of an article, but are often navaigational aids, bits of software connection. Redirects are not "debris". Orphaned redirects may be, but this is not clear. And finally, inexperienced people do come here looking for guidance. I think "cleaning up redirects" will be vague enough to confuse people. That is as good a reason to tighten up the wording as anything. Personally, I think redirects should be dealt with only in the redirects part of CSD, but that might be more difficult to gain consensus on. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, tiredness probably led to an omission there (I did say "in my area" but didn't make it clear what I was referring to). This is orphaned redirects of talk pages, of which the targets are rarely more than a project tag, sometimes not even that. I don't think anything should really obstruct people who wish to see that particular rat's nest tidied up. Redirects in mainspace can be dealt with by R1, R3 or, in the case of what I would call orphaned original redirects (as opposed to move redirects), G6. It is *always* a judgement call, it shouldn't be blanket in either the keep or delete direction. Orderinchaos 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this a "rats' nest"? There are over 1.8 million redirects, nearly all of which serve some sort of function and are, as the cliche goes, "cheap". What is the expense of keeping these redirects? My main point all along has been that the deletions East carried out were turning blue links in lists red. That had the potential to confuse people. See here. Truly orphaned redirects, I have no problems with. But deleting redirects with incoming links is a judgement call that should rightly go to WP:RfD. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos said above that "G6 is basically a measure for those with knowledge of a subject or its requirements to delete articles or pages which are no longer needed and which are uncontroversial." That is absolutely and unequivocally untrue. All speedy-deletion criteria including G6 are designed to be limited to those situations where any reasonable editor looking at the page would agree that the project is better off without the page and its history. If a page requires "knowledge of the subject" to decide if deletion is appropriate, then it is not and never has been a speedy-deletion criterion. Furthermore, a redirect being "unneeded" has never even been a valid reason for regular-deletion, much less for speedy-deletion. As it clearly says in Wikipedia:Redirect#k5, just because it doesn't appear useful to you doesn't mean that it's not useful to someone else. Rossami (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
so I went here to research why a rude person (see User_talk:Edmund_Patrick#Simply_untrue_fabrications continues to "protect" a subject by removing referenced facts, from Thomas Browne etc. Only to find that 04:26, 27 December 2007 User:East718 deleted "Talk:Library of Sir Thomas Browne/Delete" ‎CSD G6: Housekeeping. To quote - just because it doesn't appear useful to you doesn't mean that it's not useful to someone else. End of research, end of story, stupidity or conspiracy. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That page you were looking for still exists. It was moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Sir Thomas Browne which is the newer naming convention for the archiving of deletion discussions. I don't see anything controversial about the move to the new naming convention but don't understand why the automatically generated redirect was deleted. That did appear to break at least one relevant link. I don't see anything deliberately malicious in this case but it was a mistake. The redirect has been restored. Rossami (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the prompt answer, and work. One thing I will say is that the noticed left does say deleted for good housekeeping reasons, not that is was redirected. Once again thanks. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so anyone have any ideas for how G6 should be rewritten? It seems people agree that "cleaning up redirects" is too vague. Should that bit just be dropped, or should we revert back to the old wording? Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Maybe people who use G6 to clean up redirects could tell us how they decide whether a redirect needs cleaning up or not? If people disagree, it can't really be a speedy criteria. I reiterate, the previous meaning was clearer and directly related to the creation of redirects during housekeeping actions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Given Wikidemo's response above, I'm happy to change the wording of G6. But embarassingly I find that this change took place five days ago. Slaps self with trout! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What to do when an article creator deletes a CSD tag?

IWantToJam.com was created by Cybertones and I added CSD A7. Cybertones then removed that tag, against the information in the Speedy Deletion notice. See [this diff].

A similar thing happened with Youth Entrepreneur as can be seen [it was created] by Efferstine who then in [this diff] removed the Speedy Deletion tag.

I've just got into nominating articles for Speedy Deletion, and don't want to get into any problems with things like this, so what's the best way to proceed?Julesn84 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a templatized warning you can use, to keep it totally business-like. I'll look it up in a second. But yeah, basically you just put a template on their talk page, revert them, and continue in this process until they get a final warning, and if they do it again you report them to WP:AIV.
That said, if they give you a legitimate reason why the CSD is incorrect, you shouldn't just go blindly re-adding the tag. But that doesn't happen very often :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's easy not to read the part that says the creator shouldn't remove the tag. Point it out a few times, mention the {{hangon}} tag, give the article some time to develop, and if it's still deletable bring it to the attention of admins some other way. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, found it. The templates are {{subst:uw-speedy1}}, {{subst:uw-speedy2}}, {{subst:uw-speedy3}}, and {{subst:uw-speedy4}}, in order of increasing severity. Just add those to the user's talk page, and if after the uw-speedy4 warning they still do it again, then report them to WP:AIV. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and like zzuuzz says, the idea is to just let them know what they did wrong in a nice, polite way. I prefer to use templates, because then I don't let my personal bias come into it. If I were to do the warnings manually, I must confess that I would be much more polite to someone who created an article about something I thought was cool but subject to CSD vs. something I thought was totally lame and subject to CSD -- and that's not fair, so I just use the templates so that way my personal bias never comes into it.
Some people are better at putting aside their biases, though, and it definitely is nicer to give a personal warning rather than a template if you feel up to it. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers all, I've used the first step template, and put the tag back in place.Julesn84 (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoax confusions, part 325,879

Looking through the archives, I see this has been brought up a number of times before, but the situation still exists.

WP:HOAX says "Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates", while G3 says "Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation, and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." From the archive discussions it seems that what G3 refers to is along the lines of "Jason was the 15th president of the United States, invented chewing gum, cured cancer, and is dating Angelina Jolie." Works for me.

However, I've encountered a number of editors who read G3 as meaning most or all hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion. This tells me that G3 is not as clear as it could be. Any thoughts on how to improve the wording of G3?--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think having the word "only" might serve to highlight this more clearly, and placing the hoax detail at the end so we sort out those not reading the full criterion. Maybe:

This includes misinformation, redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism, and hoaxes but only those that are blatant and obvious.

:Ultimately we can never insulate ourselves against all misapplication no matter how clearly worded the criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Or howabout something like "hoaxes which are immediately obvious to any reader"? My view is that if it's so obvious that any reasonable person can tell it's not true, like Fabrictramp's example above, then it should be speedied, but if it's obvious only with specialist knowledge or significant research then it should be subject to wider scrutiny, so it would be nice to convey that somehow. But as Fuhghettaboutit says, experience shows that no matter how well worded it is, someone will still try to misapply it. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Fuhghettaboutit might be on the right track. I hesitate on the "immediately obvious to any reader", because what's immediately obvious to one person isn't to another. See-through frog is a good example -- before it was referenced, it was tagged as a speedy hoax. Luckily I have a policy of always doing a gsearch (except in my above example), and was able to quickly find that it was real. But it sure seemed like a pretty silly hoax to me at first glance, as it did to the nominator.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with any of the above, but we should note that, ironically, the most malicious misinformation (that which is not obviously a hoax to all readers) is destined to hang around WP longer than misinformation in an article that consists of patent tomfoolery. We will need to rely on the hoax tag in these cases, and hope that the tag doesn't fall off. Chris the speller (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather take the clause about hoaxes out altogether. If you can show that the contributor is making a pattern of vandalism and this edit is part of the pattern, fine. Speedy the page under the vandalism case. But without that level of substantiating evidence, the chances of a false-positive have proven to be too high. The {{hoax}} tag and a prompt AFD are the better answer. Rossami (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rossami, if a hoax is obvious enough to be deleted under G3 then it is also obvious that it is vandalism and the fact that it is a hoax is immaterial. Another way of putting this, if AGF leads one to entertain the possibility that an article might not be created as vandalism then G3 does not apply. Wether or not the article looks like a hoax is not important. 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC) user:Taemyr mis-signed this comment
It would certainly help with the confusion if hoax was removed altogether...--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree about this. In my early days here, I nominated one or two article for speedy as a hoax, and someone caught them, because they were just in a field I was unfamiliar with and were in fact very strange indeed, but real. Given an equally ignorant admin to delete them, they would have been gone. Better that people have a chance to see everything that doesnt fit into G3 as straight-forward vandalism. DGG (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree also. No hoax article should ever be speedied because it's a hoax; it should match one of the other criteria, like vandalism or attack page. This clause appears to have only been added to appease those who say "but if hoaxes aren't speedy-deletable, are you saying this obvious hoax isn't speedy-deletable?" The correct answer is, yes it is, by existing criteria. Dcoetzee 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To sum up, does anyone have an objection to me boldly removing the word "hoax" from G3?--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done by me, since it looks like everyone agrees here. I'm not so sure about the "misinformation" clause, so I've left it. Off to change the template as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so long as we still agree that "Jason was the 15th president of the United States..." (etc.) is still speediable under G3, and there is no substantive change in policy. Personally I'd rather qualify vandalism-type-hoaxes rather than omit them entirely, but no one seems to have come up with the right language for that, although leaving "misinformation" (as was done) should be OK. --MCB (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this is still being reverted over, today; the supported wording is "blatant and obvious misinformation," which will wind up covering some hoaxes, but pretty specifically does not cover all of them and doesn't mention hoaxes for fear of giving people ideas. My understanding has always been that this is an intentional exclusion, not an oversight in policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD A3 - Disambiguation pages

At present disambiguation pages are excluded from A3. A number of DMB pages are created that consist just of red links, sometimes for promotional purposes and sometimes because it seemed a good idea at the time. However, they are contrary to the purpose of such pages which is to distinguish between the ambiguous titles of articles. My proposal is that red link-only disambiguation pages should be speediable under A3. TerriersFan (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be a couple of different scenarios here. In the easiest scenario, all the pages to which the disambig page points were validly deleted. During the deletion process, the deleting admin is supposed to clean up all the inbound links. (It's often overlooked, but any editor can finish the cleanup.) If that act of cleanup removes all the entries from the disambig page, I think it can be uncontroversially deleted under G6 (housekeeping). The second scenario would be vandalism/spam - people adding entries with no intention of ever creating the underlying article. If there is substantiating evidence (usually found by looking at the contributor's other edits), it could be deleted under G3 or G11 but you'd have to meet a reasonable standard of proof in my opinion. (And, again, if removing the vandalism leaves a blank page, that would probably be uncontroversial housekeeping.)
The last scenario, though, is one where all the links are redlinks but the target pages are plausible. They may be newly created or have stayed red for some period of time. In this scenario, it is a judgment call about whether the target article(s) will ever get created. Remember that regardless of how long the link has been red, Wikipedia has no deadline (though in extreme cases a long time as a redlink may indicate that no one has anything encyclopedic to say). If it's reasonable that the target article will someday be created, then the disambig page is useful to readers and the disambig page should be kept in place. That kind of judgment typically belongs in XfD, not CSD. Does this scenario really occur often enough that MfD can't handle the load? Rossami (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No dab page should consist of just red links. Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Red links states that any entry that contains a red link should also contain a blue in order to send readers to a meaningful article. It also implies that entries could exist despite there being no chance of an article beeing created on the subject(in which case there should be no red link), although I would question how much consensus this actually have. Taemyr (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
One example I created was Charles Hopkins. The Union Civil War guy is here. Though obviously I wasn't paying attention at the time. User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography/07 links another, more notable Charles Hopkins, who appeared in the DNB:

"Charles Hopkins (1664?- 1700?), poet; son of Ezekil Hopkins; friend of Drydeu and Congreve: of Trinity College, Dublin, and QueensCollege, Cambridge; B.A. Cambridge, 1688; published Epistolary Poems 1694, Whitehall 1698, and three tragedies."

You could argue that the disambiguation page has been actively impeding creation (via redlinks) of these two articles. I will try and do stubs for them later. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Updated 12:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When you take out the pages speedy deletable by other means, I'm not convinced there are enough of these left to create a CSD for. If there's only a small number of them it's always better to go through AfD (and who knows, give the opportunity the article author and/or other interested parties may be able to expand it with blue links, as in the case where red links are typos). Dcoetzee 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

new wording of db web tag

"web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content " I removed the tag from No Warning (Science Fiction series), but I'd like some opinions about whether what i did is a correct interpretation? I dont think it really matched any of the items listed. We may need to look at the wording again. We did agree that online video content via flash etc could be speedyable web content. (In any case, the policy should match the template.) There are earlier discussions at "30 Online games and A7" in Archive 28, and in "43 Non-notable Internet TV shows, and criterion A7" in Archive 29. I do not have a firm view on how to do this, except there's a lot of stuff of this sort that needs deletion. DGG (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Images and media, #1 should give template to use

Under Images and media, item #1, helpfully indicates what template should be used for a speedy based on dups on Commons, but it does not indicate the template to use when the dup is in Wikipedia. Suggest revising as shown below in italics:

  1. Redundant. Any image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution, of something else on Wikipedia, should be tagged {{isd|Full name of image excluding the "Image:" prefix}}. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of license issues; these should be tagged with {{subst:ncd|Image:newname.ext}} or {{subst:ncd}} instead.

-- Mwanner | Talk 12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but the page was locked at the time. I have since made the change. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. {{editprotected}} should be used to call attention to such edits in the future. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Troubling deletion

18:29, 14 April 2008 TexasAndroid (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "David M. Young, Jr." ‎ (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance) (restore)

This article had an absolutely explicit assertion of significance of the person from the moment it was initially created. It said:

known for the SSOR method.

The link to SSOR worked.

For a couple of months this was happening frequently: people would delete on the grounds of lack of assertion of significance when the assertion of significance was there for all to see, when the real reason for deletion was that the article was very short. Then for a while this seemed to stop happening frequently after I complained about it. Are we back to this again? Michael Hardy (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm. Where is your WP:AGF? You are imagining things when you claim to know any sort of real reason beyond what was stated. I gave the reason for my deletion, and I meant the reason I gave. Any other reason is only in your head, and to assign such reasons to me is to fail AGF.
The page in question said he was "known for" an acronym. An acronym that redirects to a fairly obtuse mathematical page with only a casual mention of the acronym, and no mention of the original person. So we have no information on how he is "known for" this thing, and no real information that the thing he is "known for" is of any real notability, given it barely gets a mention on the page in question. So putting these all together, I made the judgement call that this did not add up to a viable assertion of notability.
Was this a correct judgement? Now, in hindsight, likely not. But that hindsight now includes a much broader page on him, including things like publications and references, and a much fuller explanation of exactly what he is "known for". So I'm still not convinced that, given the lack of information at the time of deletion, that deletion was not the correct choice then. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I certainly hope this sort of twisted (and lazy) logic for speedy deletion is not common (though like Michaeld Hardy, I fear it is all too common). older ≠ wiser 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by "twisted", but as for "lazy"... I checked the pages linked to on the project. Is it now the deleter's responsibility to search the rest of the internet before each and every speedy deletion? If so, then deletion is going to become much, much more backlogged than it currently gets. If not, then how often *are* we supposed to check, and what criteria do we use to know when to check? I'm sorry, but IMHO it is just not our responsibility to do the work of the article creator. It is the responsibility of those that want the articles to stay to make sure that they meet the site's policies, not the responsibility of those doing clean-up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is your responsibility to do at least a cursory search, when the criterion is A7 and the article contains something that could plausibly be an assertion of notability that you need some additional knowledge to evaluate. If I'm on speedy deletion patrol and I see something saying that someone is a high school senior known for telling jokes to his friends, I'm not going to run a search, but if I see something like this one ("known for the SSOR method") I think it's clear that it could be an assertion of notability and I'll run a search to help me figure out more. "Speedy deletion" doesn't mean that it should take the deleting admin only a quick glance (although sometimes that's true), it more means that we don't need more than one person to decide because the decision is so clear that all reasonable people would agree and debating it would be a waste of time. It wasn't as clear as that in this case, and I think the speedy was wrong. By the way, the search you should have run was this one: nearly 15000 Google scholar hits for SSOR. Or maybe this one showing nearly 1000 citations to one of his publications. If you're not familiar with Google scholar you shouldn't be speedying articles about academics. (Note: I am the one who undeleted the article in question, and then expanded it to its current blatantly-not-speediable state.) —David Eppstein (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've written and deleted my response here several times. Hard to respond well when I feel I'm being told to do someone else's job. Not sure I'll respond much more on the subject, but I will continue to read and consider any more responses. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I do as David E does--if there is anything that might conceivably be plausible I do at least a quick check. This was not a good speedy. There are enough admin eyes on speedy that we have time to actually examine articles before deleting them. DGG (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure why TexasAndroid feels he's "being told to do someone else's job"; if you're deleting articles because they don't assert notability, it's your job to make sure they really don't. If you want to do the job well, it's also a good idea to check that there's no obvious evidence of notability outside the article's claims — and yes, I think that evidence available through a simple Google search is obvious enough — even if that's not strictly required. There are user scripts that will let you do that with a single click, you know. And if that's too much, why not work on something you find less tedious? It's not like A7 is anywhere close to being the most backlogged CSD subcategory. (That honor would have to go to one or other of the image categories, hands down.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) A little assumption of good faith goes a long way. The most difficult speedy deletions are A7s. And, admins (for the most part) have belly-buttons. Live, learn, revert. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

TexasAndroid probably did make the wrong call here, as he admits, but I don't see this as a pillory worthy deletion. Seems to me that something like this ought to be discussed first with the deleting admin before being brought here. We don't bite newbies and we shouldn't bite those who do the mostly thankless work of clearing backlogs.--Kubigula (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think of this as pillorying, but I think it's an example of the sort of thing those involved in speedy deletions need to be careful about. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Feedback promotes a healthy learning process, and I'm all for raising the issue if you think an admin made the wrong call. I just think it's better to first try a discussion on the editor's talk page.--Kubigula (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new speedy category

Recently, I have noticed an increase in articles about albums. These album pages, the ones that I am talking about, are albums for bands who either do not exist, or have been deleted on wikipedia. We currently do not have a speedy for albums and I think that it's about time. AfD is a long process for a simple matter of an album minus the band. Please voice your opinions. Undeath (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this process should include other published media lacking any claims to notability that are from non-notable or missing creators. Creators should at least be established as notable before their individual works are considered for inclusion. Completely absent of this, unqualified individual albums/songs, books, and other media without reasonable claims to notability should qualify for speedy deletion, even as we speedily delete articles about people/organizations/web content with no assertions of notability. The reason for this could be that people pushing bands or authors may have caught on that there is no CSD for precisely these things and plug their interests via the media produced instead of directly about the one producing them. By creating a CSD for these as well, they don't have a loophole. It's too broad of a range of material to keep snowballing these items: we need a defined reason. I don't think this proposal is wikilawyering so much as it's fixing a disconnect in the previous line of thinking about how people promote non-notable subjects. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
an example of a type of articles I know well where this would fail is children's books. I have removed speedy and prod tags from many articles about individual books where the book was in fact notable, sometimes extremely notable beyond question as the recipient of major prizes, but the tagger was unaware of it because the writer of the article didn't mention the fact--generally because it was added by a unsophisticated user. For the sort of people or bands this criterion can be used for it is often easy to tell that the subject is hopelessly non-notable, and this can in my opinion also be quite obvious for some web content. For a book it never is until you have done a search. (children's books are exceptionally vulnerable both because of the likely immaturity of the author of the articles and the difficulty that any one person is usually aware of a limited chronological range of such books from that person's own childhood and perhaps the childhood of his children or close relatives.) But I've certainly seen this for other books also--I don't usually try to find material for other media due to my own inadequate knowledge. Now, it is true the fault lies initially in the author, who should have written a better article, yet such articles are very easily developed--and we want to encourage young authors, by explaining how to find proper information, rather than deleting their first article. Albums might be a special case because of the relationship with bands, but i wouldn't extend this beyond there, and I'd limit it to the original proposal of ones whose articles had been deleted. It was suggested to me a while back by someone else, I think JzG, that this could usefully extend to individual songs from deleted albums DGG (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
DGG's got some good points there (note also that what's a notable kid's book in the U.K. might be totally obscure to a Yank). I would limit this to albums and songs. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I could support a speedy criteria limited to albums and songs along the lines of:- 'An article about an album or song that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where no article exists for the band/singer.' The wording obviously needs cleaning up but that would be the general idea I would say. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I support simply adding songs that don't indicate their importance or signifigance, but WP:NMG#Albums says that most albums by notable bands are themselves notable. I'd hesitate to allow users to speedy them so easily, unless the band article itself is missing. WP:PRODing or an WP:AFD would be better for albums that don't tell us why they're important but where the band that produced them exists. I'd prefer adding songs to A7 and encouraging users to PROD albums. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I would opose this, for albums, books, or other media. Books by notable authors and music by notable musicians have an de fatco claim to notability. It is impossible for any one person to know all of the notable authors and musicians in every genre. Speedy deletion should limited to those things that any reasonable editor would feel needs to be deleted, and should not be require any special knowledge beyond an understanding of our deletion policies. Note that I am not arguing that we should have an article on every book or album ever published, but that the determination of whether or not such an article should exist needs more review than is possible with speedy deletion. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The album speedy should be very easy to spot. If the band that released the album is a red link, the alarms should go off. I get tired of taking albums to AfD, it takes too long for the exact same result as a speedy.(deletion) It is very easy to look for notability in albums. For one, if the band is notable, the album is notable. Undeath (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I would go for a simple "red-link or no-link band = speedy". We have the hangon tag and deletion review for cases where a notable album looks speedyable because of cack-handed editing. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This assumes that we have articles on all notable bands, a doubtful assumption when it comes to mainstream genres, and obviously false when it comes to less mainstream genres. Dsmdgold (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A problem could also arise if a band is notable, but the article about it is deleted for some reason (blatant advertising, copyright violation, etc.)... In these cases, there is nothing to be gained from speedying articles about albums produced by these bands. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could there be cases where an album released by a non-notable band is itself notable (e.g. the band produced a single successful album before disbanding)? Also, one of the main arguments for this criterion seems to be the inefficiency of starting AfD discussions that are virtually guaranteed to end in deletion. If this is the case, why is PROD not used instead of AfD? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many CSD categories as it stands. At this rate, everything will be included for SD. Zenasprime (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If the album is notable, the artist is notable. There is no way an album can be notable and not the band. And to Zenasprime, if there is a SD cat. for everything, that is not bad. Things need to meet notability criteria to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Including a SD for albums is not bad. We already have one for image copyvios and regular copyvios, so why not have one for bands and one for albums? Undeath (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Comparing a copyright violation to an article about an album from a non-notable artist is... not something that should be done. Apples and elephants, more than apples and oranges. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not comparing this to copyvios. I was stating that we have two very similar SDs now but they are both needed. I'm pointing out that, as we already have the band speedy, we need the album speedy too. Undeath (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. In fact, except on the occassions of obvious spam and copyright infringments, there are no good criterea for SD. CSD give editors and administrators too much power, a power that often abused. I'd rather see new articles be confined to some sort of userspace until consensus is reached regarding it's encyclopedia value then the contiuation of this wholly destructive policy of speeding deleting. Zenasprime (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Undead warrior, I also disagree that "if there is a SD cat. for everything, that is not bad". Good intentioned new editors can find contributing to wikipedia a bit daunting, and getting bitten by speedies left and right can make good people leave. If an article really needs to go, most of the time prod and AfD are sufficient and give people a chance to evaluate and address the issues. Speedy deletion should be reserved for cases where it really is important that the article be disposed of quickly.--Fabrictramp (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
To the editor who believes all SDs are bad: While some believe they are too powerfull, others, like myself, think of them as an easier approach. For example, there are many, many new pages being created as I type, and half of them are either spam, self bios, or attacks on other people. If it were not for speedy deletion, those articles would remain the full five days for PROD or AfD. Speedy deletion is a necessary tool. If an editor thinks he or she was wronged by speedy deletion, he or she can take that up with the admin who deleted the article. Biting via speedy deletion is not intended, but, even if an editor feels betrayed or bitten, then they can ask why things were done the way they were. As for albums, many qualify for SD.(the proposed one) I have already nominated two for AfD. Also, PROD is not as effective anymore. Many editors just delete the prod tag and say in the edit summary "it's notble." Speedy deletion solves for that. The editor can contest it. Anyway, if speedy deletion bites people, why would AfD not bite them? It's the same thing basically, only one takes longer. In the end, an admin will delete the article or keep it, just like Speedy deletion. Undeath (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, this will seem bad, but the above editor, Zenasprime, has been banned multiple times for vandalism. He has also made a number of pages that have been speedied and deleted via AfD. I believe that he/she is a bit bitter towards Wikipedia. (note the whole section of "elitism" on his/her talk page) An example would be here. Undeath (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree regarding the utility of and need for the current speedy deletion criteria, but I can also see how speedy deletion may be more bite-y than AfD. AfD nominations involve a hand-written deletion rationale and five days of discussion, whereas speedy deletions involve a standard notice and little or no advance notice. Black Falcon (Talk) 06:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It is almost always more of bite than PROD or AfD. It is not uncommon to have articles speedy deleted within minutes of creation. This is not a bad thing for the "Bob Rocks" type articles, but for good faith submissions, it is a problem. I fail to see why having bad articles around for five days that PROD and AfD take is a serious problem. PROD is also more effective than many people assume. Dsmdgold (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Then how about this: If the new SD cat. was created, how about making a new version for a warning template. Instead of the old, Warning, your page might be deleted type of stuff, how about this one say why it might be deleted. Something like, "The recent page you have created might be deleted. The reason is it is about an album whereas the band's page has been previously deleted or there is currently no page for the album artist." Now, the wording is not the best, but that should help decrease the bite. Also, it should have a link to a page that helps describing the proper way to make an article/album page. Undeath (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea to change all the speedy warning templates to read sort of like that. Less bite-y, at least. I still think that WP:PROD is a better solution for these sorts of album articles, however. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I haven't seen it brought up a little while, where do we stand on speedying articles about songs? I suggested above possibly adding them to A7, since it seems that individual songs have to have more of a claim than just being produced by a notable band. On the other hand, from what I remember of my WP:NPP time, articles about songs themselves don't come up often enough for this to be as useful. Still, I'd like some more input. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently we do not speedy songs, but they do get deleted via PROD and AfD. However, if the editor is new, and is active at the time of the tagging for PROD, then the tag, or at least as I've found out, is mysteriously removed with the summary of "it's notable." PROD tags are removed all the time without warning. I think that a speedy would check that. You can remove a speedy, yes, but those are checked closer and are monitored faster. In other words, an admin is more likely to see an article requesting deletion via speedy deletion rather than a PROD notice. AFD is a long version for deletion, but, I still think that Speedy deletion is needed. AfD would become cluttered with a number of articles if SD was abolished. Also, some albums, like a certain Miley Cirus karioke(sp?) album to be released in 08/09, and another album with no band, had to be taken to AfD, where they could have been deleted. Album pages like that have a snowballs chance in hell at being left alone. Especially albums where the band was deleted through Afd. Undeath (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it the article creator removing your prod tags, or another editor? --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the creator. Undeath (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's always an annoying possibility with prodding. :) Personally, I'd still rather have more at AfD than have stuff being speedied in error, but that's just me. (Guess I'd better go clear out some expired prods and close some AfDs in order to put my keyboard where my mouth is! *grin*)--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy should reserved for those things that there is no doubt that it needs to be deleted. It is better to have bad material around for a few days than it is to delete material that the project should keep. Many songs are likely to be merge candidates to the album or performer than they are to be pure deletions. Dsmdgold (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
But many songs are made up by the person who wrote the article, and some bands are too. Some band pages are just little bands that a few friends created. A speedy would keep the articles, that will be deleted anyway, out of AfD which would keep it less cluttered. Undeath (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest should never be speedy criterion. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What I feel to be the strongest criterion for songs/books (albums have a preliminary inherent notability if the artist is already notable) the total lack of qualification, that is, unqualified means the creator of the subject of the article is not notable and/or does not have an article, and a quick search reveals no reliable notability criteria met. Certainly we have articles created about notable people that get speedily deleted, where a quick search would reveal some notability. Still we practice this speedy deletion without a dutiful check: is this not acceptable practice? An article about various media, with no assertions of notability and is not connected to someone we know is notable, should have matching criteria as applied to the creators of various media. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, articles on books by certain authors have a automatic claim to notability, by virtue of their article. For example, "Across the River and Into the Trees is a later work by Ernest Hemingway, which follows a day in the life of a retired US Army officer in Venice, notably his relations with his far younger Italian mistress, and his plans to go duck hunting. This novel was generally received unfavourably by critics.", has a claim to notability. It is by a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. All of his books are notable. (This, by the way, is the actual first version of Across the River and Into the Trees diff.) Hemingway, of course, is known to most people, but Harold Pinter, Seamus Heaney, Claude Simon, and Patrick White, might not be, yet they are also Nobel winners. All of their books are notable. An article that read in its entirety "The Dwarfs is a novel by Harold Pinter." would have a claim to notability, it is by a Nobel Prize winner. But would you know that? I wouldn't have 10 minutes age. It is not reasonable to expect deleting admins to know which authors are of such a stature that their books are notable and which are not. But AfD The Dwarfs article and it will be speedily kept, which is how it should be. The same argument can made for songs, songs by certain artists have an automatic claim to notability. We can't expect admins to know which artists. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." So a speedy is inapropriate either way. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's start really slow: "Songs from an album whose article has been deleted by AfD, and albums or songs from an artist whose article has been deleted via AfD and which make no claim to notability individually." If anyone is unhappy, the advice should be to try to get the article about the artist or the album reinstated. DGG (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It has been my experience that band fans and or members create the band page, the album page and the song page all in one rush. A single AfD should be able to take care of all of them at the same time. Is AfD being bogged down by songs and albums from bands that had been deleted by AfD? If not, then this is not necessary. 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that on yesterday's (April 22) AfD log, there are three album or song related AfD's out of 130. One has album and artist folded into the AfD of a record label, another was speedied as recreation of previously deleted material, it was deleted the first time for Crystal Ballery, being about an as yet unrecorded album from a notable band. The third one is about a compilation album. None of these would be eligible for the speedy recommended here. It may be that yesterday is not representative, or it may be that this is a solution in search of problem. Dsmdgold (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Those three albums don't even need to go to AfD though. It would be far easier to just delete them. Snow gives a good reason. The album stands no chance. Also, I like DGG's wording above. Undeath (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It may be easier to delete "to just delete them", but to quote above, "If a situation arises rarely, it's probably easier, simpler, and more fair to delete it via one of these other methods instead. This also keeps CSD as simple and easy to remember as possible.", since there was not a single case that would have been covered DGGs wording on the 22nd, it is hard to argue that there is a pressing need for this. Dsmdgold (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
one thing we should not be doing is speedy deletions by "Snow". snow applies to a decision during a discussion that the result is altogether inevitable and absolutely certain. It certainly makes sense often at AfD after two or three comments, including for items such as some of these, but its not a reason for deletion. If we don';t keep the criteria narrow, they expand to "whatever i think should be deleted".DGG (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to waste time in AfD for an album page minus the band. We could even go to the music project and expand on it. Something like "Album pages are only to be created if there is a page for the band." I think that we should just delete/speedy the bad albums. Undeath (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about this wording: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, or an article about a product or service (including a book or album) whose creator would also be subject to deletion under this criterion. This is distinct from..."? Stifle (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If the article on the work or product gets created first, or the article on the creator is deleted for non A7 reasons (copyright violation for example), then there is no way determine whether or not the creator is eligible. I, for one, am not going to do Google searches, especially Google searches on anything something other than the article title, to determine whether or not A7 should be applied. This is not to imply laziness on my part, but a firm belief that if I cannot tell the applicability of A7 from the content of the article alone, then A7 does not apply. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      I see your point, but if the article on the creator was deleted for another reason, its deletion log will say so and will flag for an admin to check it out. And admins are supposed to do Google or other searches before speedying pages anyway. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, Google search not required. To quote from the how-to "If something looks like a candidate for speedy deletion but has a page history, you must check the history before deleting it. The revision you are looking at could be just a vandalised version of a real article. After you have deleted it, check whether it has a talk page and delete this too; usually a prompt will show up on the action confirmed page. If the page is being deleted because it should not exist, check that nothing links to it to prevent it accidentally or easily being created again." Nothing about a Google search. If an article needs to be Google searched, it is not an A7, pure and simple. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Another problem that finally occurred to me. If someone has released an album or published a book, that, in my opinion, is in and of itself an assertion of notability, unless the article makes explicit that that the means of publication is non-notable. However most articles do not do that. The publisher is usually not described as a vanity press, for example. I will grant that some garage bands will describe their album as "self released" or as a "demo-tape" or some such thing but, they rarely create an article for that album. An article that says "Joe Blow is a musician(or author) who has released Album Name (or Book Name) on Record Label (or Publisher)I Never Heard Of" has an assertion of notability. Dsmdgold (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kept vs Survived

I think that a no consensus result at a deletion debate should not automatically provide a bar to speedy deletion. A no consensus indicates the very fact that the community could not agree on what to do with the article, rather than being of the opinion that it should be kept. This seems to be in line with what's already done — pages have been deleted after AFDs due to violations of CSDs G10, G11, G12, T1, and no doubt others — so I've boldly made this edit. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No sorry, CSDs are only for completely unambiguos deletions - something having survived an afd is not speedyable under those criteria. ViridaeTalk 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If consensus to delete can not be determined in an AFD, then it's been confirmed that the deletion is not clear and uncontroversal. IMO that correctly puts it outside Speedy criteria.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally I side with Stifle on these matters, and some people class me as an evial deletionist; but I have to concur that this is not a good idea. Speedies by definition should be clearcut and non-controversial. Failure to reach a consensus in prior AfDs definitely means that there was no such clearcut status. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the change. CSDs are, by design, limited to those situations where every reasonable editor looking at the page will agree that the project is better off without the page. In a no-consensus debate, at least some good faith editors must have argued to keep the article (otherwise, it shouldn't have been closed as no consensus). Once a page has been through an XfD discussion and ended in anything but a clear "delete" decision, the case is no longer unambiguous. There are a very few exceptions such as a copyright violation discovered after the AFD took place (G12) or an OFFICE action (G10) but I would disagree about advertising (G11) and T1 (divisive template). The exceptions are rare enough that I think they should be left to WP:IAR rather than itemized. Rossami (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
second time OM & I have agreed in the last few weeks. If there was no consensus for a delete, then it cannot be reasonable said that a deletion is unquestionable or without controversy. As Rossami says, there are a few rare exceptions, but they're obvious enough without changing the rule-- Copyvio and Office actions clearly take precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Disagree like all the others so far here and this was clearly attempted to circumvent long standing policy after the article CarDomain was inappropriately deleted in direct contradiction to this policy and it's being called on in a current DRV. This user even stated they intend to change this policy in that current DRV .[14]. We're not going to dismantle the most basic tenants of WP:CONSENSUS just because a small group of users realize consensus and policy doesn't agree with them.--Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
C'mon, Oakshade, AGF here! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly OK to bring a general policy point to the discussion page for the policy and try to see if there is support for one's view that it is time for a change in policy. As it turns out, there isn't support for changing this one, but I cannot see that it was wrong to ask here and find out. In my opinion, shows good faith to do it this way as an open discussion. DGG (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Open discussion is good and essential, but the proposing user made the change prior to any discussion and, after it got correctly reverted, went on to revert it again after only one user had responded (negatively) to his proposal. [15] --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If there was "no consensus" for a delete, then it cannot be reasonably said that the deletion nomination should have occured. Having ambiguous statements such as "survived" complicates in clarifying policy.--Hu12 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Survived is clearly the correct wording. Speedy deletion should only by for obvious and non controversial cases, if there was no consensus in an AFD then it is not an obvious, non controversial deletion (except obviously for the copvio and Office exceptions). Davewild (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As it reads, Any act of nominating including Bad faith nomiminations would exempt that content from CSD, as "survived".--Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have never read the clause that way. A bad-faith nomination is speedily closed purely because it was in bad faith. No actual discussion ever took place so there's nothing to "survive" and no opinions expressed on the content to be concerned about. Rossami (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Is still "survived", and many BF noms do have discussion (as do withdraws).--Hu12 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If a bad faith nom has a discussion with good faith users supporting a keep, then the article should be excempt from speedy. (baring office or copy vio) It's deletion would not be clear or uncontroversal. To re-argue it, bringing it to AFD in a good faith nom would be the proper step. I'm not seeing the problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If there's actual discussion, then of course the discussion must be respected. But that's more than the mere bad-faith nomination (which is how I interpreted your earlier comment). Rossami (talk)
If a redirect results from a previous nomimination, then content developed on this redirect would exempt that content from CSD, as "survived".--Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two ways to interpret your comment and I'm not sure which you intended but I think the answer is going to be the same regardless. Scenario 1) A page is nominated and the conclusion of the AFD is to turn it into a redirect. Remember that a decision to redirect a page is a form of "keep" in that the pagehistory is not deleted. If the community saw enough value to keep the pagehistory, then the future CSD can not apply. That will be true regardless of the wording under discussion. Scenario 2) A redirect is discussed at RfD and survives. Someone later turns it into a stand-alone page. Again, the CSD may not be applied because CSDs have to apply to all prior versions of the page. If the CSD-worth problem can be corrected by reverting to a non-problematic version, we are obligated to do that instead. Again, that's the rule regardless of the wording under discussion. It would be true even if the redirect had never been through the RfD. Rossami (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The wording works just fine the way it is. If it ain't broke, we don't need to fix it. Surviving an XfD means that, at the very least, there's a not-so-bad version that can be reverted to. I'd suggest more boldly doing that instead, since it keeps the articles themselves. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the wording "survive", and agree that it doesn't matter if it was nominated bad faith as long as it received some legitimate keep votes. On the other hand, I can imagine someone nominating a new article, then immediately withdrawing their nomination, in a bad faith effort to make it ineligible for CSD - but this is so hypothetical that we can worry about it when it happens. Dcoetzee 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Hasty}}

There appears to be some consensus that the tagging of certain types of articles moments after creation is problematic. Specifically, some A1s, A3s, and short A7s. Some recent discussions appear here and here. I have seen this mentioned in other discussions here as well as in other pages that would be difficult to locate. Please comment on the headline template which is an attempt to address the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks nice, but it's much too large. I'd suggest having a short two-sentence message that links to an essay with a longer discussion of the issue. This will also help prevent confusing the newbies. I'd also suggest adding a sentence directed at the article creator. Dcoetzee 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don';t see why an admin would use this "An administrator or other editor has reviewed the speedy deletion tag below...It is therefore requested, though by no means mandatory, that any reviewing administrators," If I came across something that needed it, I would remove the tag, as being myself the reviewing administrator. Very good idea, but we need to discuss the wording. More visible here than at the template. DGG (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. This is not for articles that don't meet CSD critera, but for articles that meet them but are tagged so quickly that some time should be provided to see whether the creator is going to add more content. Why would you be removing the tag? Maybe an example would illustrate what this is intended to address better. You're at CAT:CSD and click on an article tagged with db-bio. It was tagged 30 seconds after creation and you've landed on it 3 minutes later. You don't want to delete it just yet because the creator may be in the process of adding content—this is the "hasty" tagging issue in a nutshell. If you don't add the template, it may very well be deleted in that nascent state by another. By adding it you are flagging the issue, and providing a time for when you are suggesting the all clear is sounded. You may or may not come back to 57 minutes later but it doesn't matter once tagged who later reviews it, and you relieve yourself from babysitting the article until later. There is no contradiction between being the first who landed on the article as "reviewing administrator" and adding the tag as an administrator, and administrators are the most likely people to review others' speedy tags.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For that matter, any editor could simply remove the speedy, leave a (hopefully nice) note at the talk page of the person who added the speedy, and prod the article instead to give it 5 days to address the issues. As an admin who works on speedies from time to time, I'd much rather see someone do that than to leave it for me to do for them.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You might as well ask "why not prod all A7s A1s and A3s" or maybe more aptly, change the speedy tags to have a five day turn around time rather than allowing immediate deletion. The answer is a mixed bag, but I think first and foremost it's a matter of how the processes function. When we tag an article for speedy deletion we are online, we have it in our immediate short term "task list" to follow that article. A new pages patroller may tag fifty or one hundred articles during a "session" (many of our speedys come from a limited pool of super taggers). Mechanically, if the article is going to sit around for five days, we're going to lose track of many of these and some significant percentage are going to have the prod's removed. We can handle a one hour hiatus. We can't handle five days. The majority of the articles that would be tagged with this proposed template are still going to be speedy delete fodder at the end of the hour. But past discussion here, past DRVs, past help desk questions, show that some number of articles are going to be rescued through it and possibly some editors that would have been turned off as well; that there are people who post sub-stubs and are working on them right at the time of creation; that creation, tagging and deletion all within a five minute period is a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. One more point to consider: Just placing a speedy tag on an article may discourage and drive away a new contributor, even if the article is not actually deleted. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
True but this template is only placed after an article has already been tagged with a speedy deletion template. It addresses the problem of too quick tagging; it never is placed unless a speedy already exists, so it cannot address that problem, though it could have the possible effect of educating new pages patrollers of a problem they never knew of. They see {{hasty}} added above their db-a7 etc. and then realize "woah, maybe I shouldn't tag in the future so fast; I should start patrolling on the second or third page of newpages list rather than right at the top."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
my comment above should not be taken as disapproving of the tag. I think it would be a good idea. DGG (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
So do I. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Given my contribution to the linked discussion above, I doubt it will surprise anybody that I think the tag is a good idea as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Suppose I created a page. Then after a day or so (long after I have logged off), another editor adds the speedy deletion tag and informs me on my talk page that the page will be deleted. Suppose that had I been logged on Wikipedia, I would have placed the {{hangon}} tag and explained why the page shouldn't be deleted. But since I'm not logged on anymore (it's been a day), there is no chance for me to explain that I will expand the page or do something to it to improve it. So my question is that is there a certain amount of time after the creation of the page when the speedy deletion should not be placed after that amount of time and the page should instead go through a normal deletion process? --Bobianite (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to avoid this is by making sure articles are ready for prime time before you post them. You can always work on them in your sandbox or offline, and make sure they have context, references, and show a bit of notability. If they are at that stage, there's not much reason for them to be speedily deleted.
Also, if you check RSS feeds regularly, you can click on the history tab for any page and add that to your RSS feed. That way you'll get notified of changes even if you're off-wiki. --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You can also request a review of the deletion on WP:DRV. Inappropriate speedies are usually overturned quickly. Mr.Z-man 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice but what if I'm the one putting up the speedy deletion tag and I find that it was created a day ago, should I still tag it for speedy? Or should I do the DRV in case the creator wants to add more material? --Bobianite (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, DRV is only done for pages that have already been deleted. Pages can be nominated for speedy deletion at any time if they meet the criteria. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many bad articles escape initial notice at New Pages, and any time we catch them we should deal with them--even years later. But be aware of the option of WP:PROD if you think there is any chance of improvement DGG (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that it's also possible to simply contact the deleting admin and say, "Hi; I see the article was speedily deleted. I can address the concerns this way. Would you mind restoring the article or userfying it so I can?" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A7 template wording

  • On April 2, ViperSnake151 added this sentence to Template:db-a7, a sentence which does not appear in the CSD: "If the page does cite reliable sources, they might be considered an assertion of notability and can make the article ineligible for speedy deletion."
  • On April 15, Taemyr added this to the CSD A7, based on a suggestion by Iain99 here: "and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable."
  • To make the template conform more closely to the CSD, I suggest replacing ViperSnake151's contribution with part of Iain's contribution, i.e. with "To avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable."

☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Template:Db-a7. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new Image: CSD criterion re: non-images with no use.

I have recently been using Google searches such as this one to look for files stored in the Image: namespace that are not images [i.e. .doc, .xls, .pdf, etc] and that have no use whatsoever. After having listed quite a few on IfD and realising that none of them could reasonably be contested, I wondered whether a CSD criterion such as the following would be useful:

I10 - Unencyclopedic or useless media: Files uploaded that are not image, sound or video files [e.g. Word documents, Excel spreadsheets or .pdf files], that are not used in any article and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use [can be deleted after a period of 7 days].

I wasn't sure about the time frame [in the vein of T3], or whether that is WP:CREEPy. Any thoughts? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 16:45, May 4, 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, provided we stress the have no forseeable use part. Quite a few people upload PDF files which could be used in articles if converted into PNG format, are attempts at submitting articles (and so should be converted into plain text format), or could be used on Wikisource. In one case I found a PDF file which several people at Wikisource had spent some time looking for without success. Provided we clarify these cases where PDFs and other formats should not be deleted this would be a great help trying to work through the huge number of PDFs we have here. There's an older discussion here. Hut 8.5 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. I was going to suggest using PROD for these, but I forgot it's not supposed to be used for non-article pages. Maybe just submit the whole list to IfD in one batch and ask others to strike out any they don't want to see deleted? (Those could later be renominated the usual way, if desired.) The problem I have with "have no foreseeable use" is that it's a bit too subjective for my comfort. Also, are these non-images really being uploaded at a rate that would require a new CSD to deal with, or have they just been accumulating because no-one has bothered to systematically look for them before? If the latter, any new CSD would become mostly useless once the current backlog has been dealt with. All that said, though, I'm certainly not categorically opposed to this proposal if others think it's a good idea. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have some statistics on PDF uploads and deletions (I'll make a graph if you like). We get 300-500 uploaded a month. Hut 8.5 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest changing "no forseeable use" to "no foreseeable such use". Besides the spelling correction, I want to be more clear that it's only uses within articles that we care about, to forestall appeals on the basis that it's useful for something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed wording as per David above, I think that "no foreseeable encyclopedic use" is clearer than "no such use", if you think otherwise, feel free to change it accordingly. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:04, May 4, 2008 (UTC)

A more up to date (as in today) list of PDFs is available at User:MER-C/Sandbox#PDF list. Let me know if you want me to regenerate it. (Apparently they've fixed the bug that causes all the red links to appear in the first place and will update the search index "soon". Does that mean "soon" in "SUL will arrive soon", which was said some years ago? There's also a few duplicates, that bug has also been reported.)

I support this, most of this crud is completely useless and are blatantly vanispamcruftisement, unsourced BLPs, spam, copyvios, original research or bad pictures/source texts (the only remotely useful of the lot). It should be "no foreseeable encyclopedic use" because most of these aren't remotely encyclopedic. That said, any source texts/pictures worth keeping should go to Wikisource/Commons respectively. MER-C 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can use the toolserv to get a list of these. they are a lot of cruft. βcommand 2 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Video and sound files can be (and due to codec issues generaly are) legit.Geni 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Should it be "not image, video or sound files"? Also, there's a potential issue with the definition of "image file". Someone could, after all, argue that PDF is an image format just as much as SVG or PNG are. Or how about DjVu files? Do we define an "image" based on what MediaWiki can display inline — and if so, what about when the software is improved to support more image formats inline. MediaWiki can already display DjVu inline; it wouldn't be a big step to add PDF support too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
DjVu files are usually scans of source texts and (if on Wikipedia) should be moved to Wikisource or Commons instead of being speedied. MER-C 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
PDF files can become huge [often much larger than images] and given the very small % of useful PDFs I can't really see the use of displaying them inline. As for the definition of 'image', I think that what MW can display inline are classed as images. I have added the section about sound/video files also. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 06:04, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

Unscientifically, looking at a few scattered ones on that list, out of 15, I saw 4 potentially usable ones -- including one graph by Hut8.5 DGG (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't actually by me, I just reverted to another version of the PDF that was actually usable. Hut 8.5 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I came from this MfD for deletion of such a PDF. This proposal looks like a good and clear speedy criteria --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Would it be possible to make this a "delayed" speedy, with notification of the uploader? Kind of like what's done for unused templates. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Added this back in RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 06:04, May 6, 2008 (UTC)
No need to. It adds needless delays and mess to the template and if the uploader advises that there is some use for the page it can be readded. The template one is delayed because it's very difficult to determine how widely a template has been used after it's deleted and detranscluded. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If people want Twinkle to use I10, they can manually add this version of the twinklecsd.js module to their monobook.js file. Otherwise TW doesn't pick up that I10 exists. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 22:09, May 6, 2008 (UTC)

Parameter wording consistency

The string for {{db-g6}} is {{db-g6|wording=}} and the string for {{db-g7}} is {{db-g7|rationale=}}. I haven't checked the other db-'s, but is it possible to have the parameter wording consistent amoung all the db-s (either use "wording=" or "rationale=" but not both). This will make things a lot easier. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding speedy deletion templates. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
But then again, these are on the verge of being considered high-risk templates, where WP:BOLD most definitely does not apply. Plus there are a very large number of wikipedia editors who wouldn't know one end of a template from another. I'll have a look. Happy‑melon 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You should ask this at {{db-meta}}, the parent template of all speedy templates --Enric Naval (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

CSD for redirects that "just plain don't work"

Every time I nominate something like this for RfD, I end up wondering why we have a CSD for redirects with no target, but not for redirects to something other than a valid target (e.g., redirects to special pages, interwiki redirects, attempts to redirect to an external link, etc.) These don't clearly fall under housekeeping (per the evidence of my tagging them and getting mixed results), but it seems like it's uncontroversial to delete them if they can't be replaced with working content. Is there any reason not to make these speedyable? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes they shouldn't even be deleted since many of them are hold-overs from before the creation of the Special namespace and document the history of earlier versions of our attempts at logging. Even when they don't function as automatic redirects in the way we're used to thinking of them, they still serve as soft-redirects, pointing users to the correct page. Evaluating the history and deciding if a particular redirect is useful requires more thought and consideration than is appropriate to a speedy-deletion criterion. Rossami (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're not suggesting that intelligence and consideration for consequences and context, or, god forbid, the USERS, should be part of the Modern Wikipedia Admin Process, Rossami. Saltation (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Rossami (talk)
As far as the sort of page Rossami is thinking about, I meant it to be understood that I'm not talking about anything that could be fixed by changing the target or changing it to something other than a redirect (like a soft redirect template). I'm talking about redirects that do nothing except show the user what a non-working redirect looks like. The example I linked above, for instance, has no historical value; it was created earlier this month. For the record, though, if the history behind a redirect is important, it can be saved without necessarily having to save the original redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Ignoring the very recently created ones (which I don't much care about), that evaluation of of the creator's intent is more complex than is really appropriate for a speedy-deletion candidate. In my opinion, it's better to let multiple people at RfD mull over the redirect's history and decide if there is an appropriate alternate destination or other way to solve the problem. There just aren't enough of these to justify another criterion on this already overly-complex page. Rossami (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a whole new CSD for what's being discussed here, but a few extra words added to CSD:R1 might be beneficial. Personally, I consider broken redirects that can't be fixed to be within the spirit of R1 and/or G6 (and thus deletable in the discretion of an admin) in any case. --MCB (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the idea is just a trivial extension of R1. If this could be handled by slightly expanding the language there, that might be the best way to do it. How about like so:
Redirects to deleted pages, nonexistent pages or to an invalid target page, including redirect loops that do not end with a valid target.
(Current language: "Redirects to deleted pages and to nonexistent pages, including redirect loops that do not end with a page with content.")
Any thoughts? — Gavia immer (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How about:

"Redirects to deleted, nonexistent or invalid targets, including redirect loops that do not end with a valid target."

? It might also be worth adding something like:

"Redirects which do not work due to software limitations, such as redirects to special pages or to pages on other wikis, may be converted to soft redirects if they have a non-trivial history or other valid uses."

to the introductory paragraph. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I like your version better (both parts of it). — Gavia immer (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've boldly made the change. If anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth makin' it more explicit what a "valid target" is, but I'd assume that most people who'd use the tag would know already. There's nothing in WP:R that says it, so I'm wondering if there's an essay or something that could be linked to. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added some content to Wikipedia:Redirect#Undesirable_redirects discussing this. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about G11

Many good Wikipedia articles start out as weak ones. I want to talk a bit about articles tagged as blatant advertising that deal with potentially notable subjects, such as GE Real Estate, that also start out weak and can potentially be salvaged. An article with excessively flowery language can be cut down to a stub which in one or two sentences explains why the subject is notable -- which is much less work than a complete rewrite.

When I see an article about a high school tagged for speedy deletion as A3 (which I realize does not apply to schools, but that doesn't stop some people from applying the tag inappropriately), I can do a quick Google News search and try to find a few references that will unambiguously establish notability. In the same way, an article that reads as if it's a copyvio of a company marketing brochure may be the basis for a good article.

If you encounter an article that someone else has tagged as G11 but which might be worth salvaging, consider stubbing it, or changing the speedy tag to {{advert}}, and perhaps asking the relevant WikiProject for help. --Eastmain (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you got A3 and A7 mixed up there. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also note that G11 requires that the article would need a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. This means that it should be no loss if the current article is deleted. Writing a stub, or suggesting that a stub be written, should then be seen as a different concern. Taemyr (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support stubbing down the article instead. However, it tends to be harder then it sounds, as one actually has to make an assertion of notability, and cite relevant sources. The same goes for G12 (copyvio). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Martin about the G11s--if it can be stubbified acceptably, then it can be rewritten and is not a G11. If it can't, then its a true G11. we should add that to the criterion. But I disagree about G12--if the subject of a copyvio is even remotely notable, it can be rewritten from the website specified, at least enough to pass speedy--that does not require a RS reference, and I try to do a few a week. I think of G12 as in practice a quick way for removing the many ones that arent worth the trouble, but which if they had been written right might have just passed A7. DGG (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A new survival record?

I just deleted File:Soule.jpg, seven hundred and thirty six days after it was tagged! Surely that's got to be a record? Happy‑melon 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, File:Average deviation.png: 783 days. There seem to be a fair few of these where the nominator has called {{db-meta}} directly, thereby not categorising the pages into the CSD categories. I'm going to try and add them to a category to clear out: for the meantime, any help digging through special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Db-meta would be greatly appreciated. Happy‑melon 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Done a few, User:Greatgavini/Anglish was the oldest I found from 9 February 2006 (however many days that is). Most of the uses appear to be direct calls on purpose for demo or other purposes. mattbr 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed speedy for things made up one day in school

No consensus to add. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose a new speedy category for things blatantly made up one day in school. It would be particularly useful for neologisms, and it would be worth having even if restricted to those; but we also get a lot of silly games (especially drinking games), spoof religions, and ceremonies ("Giant Cookie Friday") whose inventors think Wikipedia is the place to show off their "hilarious" creation; these articles don't fit "nonsense" or "no context", but they have no hope of being encyclopedic. It's a waste of time having to PROD them, and gives their life an undeserved extension; and then their creators often de-prod, so on to AfD... Suggested definition: "An article about a newly-invented word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy or religion which does not indicate why it is important or significant". JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would not be patent nonsense. "Patent nonsense" as used in CSD means only those things that literally make no sense whatsoever. If you understand what the article is about something someone made up, then it is makes sense, even if it s really stupid. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose CSD ideally should be simple objective determinations. The proposed criteria is far too subjective. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support in one form or another. How about adding something like this to A7? szyslak (t) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: anything blatant enough to be objectively a CSD candiate falls under G1; everything else is too subjective to send to CSD. Happy‑melon 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but "word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy or religion" is way too broad. We should probably expand speedies, but have to proceed very carefully. --MCB (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I see where the idea comes from, but this seems too open to misuse. Imagine, as a 55 year old newbie, you created an article on a new invention you'd heard about and you get a message on your talk page or see a deletion summary of "Not for something made up on a school day". That would be pretty disuasive of editing ever again. I feel we need CSD criteria to be very in tune with content we are deleting and this seems overly broad. However I agree that there is no doubt an issue with these kind of articles but I'm not sure a new criteria is a good way to solve it. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's premature to be commenting in such a voting-like manner but since we've started, I will voice my opposition. There are too many examples of false positives for this to be an effective CSD candidate. Implementation of the case would require prior knowledge that the word, game, etc was "newly-invented". That is virtually impossible to prove unless the article makes the mistake of saying so. As Happymelon says, the truly blatant cases can already be speedied under an existing case (often G3 if you can substantiate it by showing a pattern of vandalism in the contributor's edit history). The rest need discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose current open-ended wording, but would support, for example: An article on a thing (word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy, religion, etc.), which indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know, and does not indicate why the subject is important or significant.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm very tempted about the idea of adding "neologism" to the A7 criterion, because it is such a perennial problem -- but there is just too much potential for false positives, particularly in extremely technical fields where a neologism might be quite notable within the field, but turn up a paltry number of Google hits. I would consider supporting a new criterion that prohibited people from creating an article about something they themselves made up, but this would require a major shift in the way Wikipedia thinks about conflict of interest (right now, there's a no-harm-no-foul attitude, and therefore speedy-deleting things based on COI would go against the prevailing attitude). And as others have said, things like G3 apply in most cases. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Too many editors already propose articles for speedy deletion without doing even a cursory search. I can see a number of articles being proposed for deletion under this on the basis of "I haven't heard of it."--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not an objective criteria. While I support its spirit this is better left to consensus than the unilateral discretion of a single admin. (1 == 2)Until 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the proposal. A1 is for "very short" articles and A3 is for articles that have no content at all. I think there is a gray area between the two the could be addressed with a new category or an offshoot of an existing category. It may need work to nail down specifics, but I think it would help tremendously. Tnxman307 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there wouls be too high an error rate. Generaly best delt with through prod.Geni 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but prod usually becomes too broad. This woyuld be one of the few things that I agree would be good with prod, but then again we really need to better define what is "uncontroversial". For this, I say, oppose. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Really, !voting here isn't necessary yet. But I oppose none the less. Really, if it's outside a shadow of a doubt that it shouldn't be here it's probably covered by some other criterion, so we don't need this. If it isn't, it shouldn't be speedied under any criterion. I'm also wondering what the statistics are on how often these sorts of pages are created, since I don't remember finding too many when I did WP:NPP. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current crop of CSD criteria are perfectly sufficient. For those very, very few instances where it isn't, there's always the chance that the admin will go rogue and delete it anyway. ;) (besides, what happens if someone created a concept a couple of years ago? bam, it's disqualified from your proposal as phrased) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have enough vagueness already in the criteria--in the extreme cases these articles qualify as vandalism, and if not they do no urgent harm. DGG (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason I oppose A7 - assertions of significance are subjective, because they're frequently implicit and how much latitude you grant implicit assertions can wildly change how often you invoke the CSD. It's quite difficult to distinguish something made up in school one day from something of legitimate wider interest. Here's an example:
    The five-second rule is a rule regarding the eating of food that has fallen to the floor or ground. It says that if food falls on the ground, it may be safely eaten as long as it is picked up within 5 seconds.
  • This sounds an awful lot like something made up in school one day, but in fact it's pretty much directly from the intro of five-second rule, a legitimate article for a widely-known topic that has some good references. Dcoetzee 06:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too vague, unfortunately. Stifle (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well, although I would be tempted by a well worded addition of neologisms, I cannot think of a way to word it that would not generate far too many false positives. The "game, ceremony, philosophy or religion" portion is far too broad. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blatant cases can be speedied by G3 and[in some cases] G10 or A7. This criterion is [unfortunately] too broad and it is not easy to discern what counts as 'recently made up' and what doesn't. [I say 'unfortunately' here as I am a deletionist and think that most neologism pages stick around for too long.] PROD can always be used for less clear-cut cases. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:42, May 7, 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


G3 - Hoaxes

When/why was the 'obvious hoax' removed from the criteria, please? TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Spacepotato about a month ago. The latest relevant discussion appears to be here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually this edit, but whatever. It was removed because there were too many bad taggings because of that specific wording. "Blantant and obvious misinformation" covers things that couldn't possibly be anything except a hoax, but if you'd have to do a Gsearch to check it shouldn't be WP:CSD#G3ed. Hope this helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate a little, things like "Jason was the 35th president of the US and defeated the invading Martians" is g3-speediable. "Scientists have invented a see-through frog" is not. (Especially because it's true.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new redirect CSD for redirects containing esoteric Unicode characters

Per the flood of recent RfD nominations for redirects containing untypable control characters or extremely esoteric Unicode glyphs [see here, here or here for examples] I am proposing the following new criterion to deal with these as nearly all of them are completely uncontentious. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:30, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

R4 - Redirects containing Unicode control characters or other non displayable Unicode characters.
Sensible idea. Unicode control characters can neither be searched for nor linked to, the only way to reach them is to directly type them in the address bar (oh, and you need to figure out how to type them, too), so they're useless to most people. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether things like this should be included. They aren't control characters, but they certainly are esoteric; I don't think they're even in Vista's Charmap, and the chance of them being searched is close to 0. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:11, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
Vista's charmap hasn't been updated since 2000, which means it lists all characters in Unicode 3.0. The OCR characters are there since the very first version of Unicode. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think R3 or G6 would be better than a new criterion. Also, please be careful when nominating / deleting this particular type of redirect. They can be a godsend when trying to identify certain obscure Unicode. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
R3 only qualifies to recently created redirects, while G6 is not intended for deleting something. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the urgency in deleting the ones that don't qualify as R3? Why can't they just go through RFD? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about urgency, it's about needless process. For ones such as the line-reverse redirect I can think of no reasonable objection to deletion so it is pointless to clutter up RFD with them. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 15:32, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned people will just see "unicode" and "esoteric, untypable characters" and start speedying redirects like these en masse. —Cryptic 15:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. That's why I think it would be better to go through RFD. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposal needs a little clarification. How about "containing non-displayable unicode characters"? I question whether most redirects from single unicode characters are usefull, but that's independent of whether they are "esoteric", and probably shouldn't be speedied (although I'd like to hear about such so I could weigh in. I don't always remember to monitor RfD.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I observe that most of the ones RichardΩ612 is nominating over on RfD are actually displayable unicodes rather than control characters. I certainly don't want displayable redirects speedily deleted solely because they use characters other than ASCII. (Curiously, he uses a displayable non-ASCII unicode in his signature...) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not all of the ones that I am nominating would be speediable [in fact a very small minority of them would]. I fail to see the relevance of me having a non-ASCII char. in my signature. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have non-ASCII titles; just that ones that are extremely unlikely search terms should be deleted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:18, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
I agree with others who say that these should usually go to RfD. Unfortunately, there's not a really good definition of "esoteric" for this purpose, so a lot of them would be contestable. Of course, anything that qualifies for R3 (recently created implausible typos), G1 (patent nonsense) or G3 (pure vandalism) can already be deleted as such. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
having got rid of them, is this going to frequently recur? I see it as instruction creep. DGG (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That is actually a good point. I wonder with what frequency people are going to recreate complex control-character redirects. Perhaps this proposal is not necessary after all. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:33, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

CSD C1

Suggests the following addition to C1: "This does not apply to categories that are populated from templates."

Example: [[Category:Potential B-Class Greek articles]] is populated from {{WPGR}}.

Somebody deleted the above category on December 2007, without editing the template accordingly. This leads to inconsistencies, and later the deleted category will be "populated" again. A category should exist as long as it "exists" in a template code. Oceanh (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

Sounds good to me. It can be made part of this sentence which is already there: "This does not apply to categories presently on deletion discussions, or to disambiguation categories." which can be modified to "This does not apply to categories presently on deletion discussions, to disambiguation categories, or to categories that are populated from templates."
Is there any easy way to tell whether a category "exists" in a template somewhere? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead, why don't we just suggest the speedy deleter to be thorough and check for such transclusions/populations? I don't think we should say "excluding x" when we don't need to. - jc37 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly a combination of asking the deleting admin to be thorough (as jc37 suggests), and asking people who create categories populated from templates to put a little blurb at the top of the category saying it will be empty from time to time but will get repopulated might help. Between the two, accidental deletions should be rare.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a blurb at the top of the category would be good. Where would a suggestion to do that go? Wikipedia:Categorization#When creating categories...? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also Category:Uncategorised people has an example of the kind of blurb I've seen before. I had thought there was a template (and there might be, somewhere), but this particular category isn't using one.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for comments and feedback.
Maybe it should be specified that the criteria is for genuinely empty categories. Also, note the difference from Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy, which reads: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least 72 hours) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. (...)"
Therefore, suggests to replace the current:
  1. Empty categories that have been empty for four days. This does not apply to categories presently on deletion discussions, or to disambiguation categories.
with:
  1. Empty categories that have been empty for four days whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories, have no references from other articles or project pages, and is not populated from templates. This does not apply to categories presently on deletion discussions, or to disambiguation categories.
The above mentioned Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy should be updated accordingly, so the two policies are equal.
References from elsewhere are easy to check with "What links here". I don't know how to find references in template code, but the use from templates can be documented in such a way that it appears in "What links here". This was in fact the case in the example mentioned to begin with, where the deleted category had (has) such references: Category:Potential B-Class Greek articles, which is easy to detect with the "What links here". Oceanh (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC).
Disambiguation categories is being populated by way of disambiguation templates, so the proposed wording is slightly redundant. Taemyr (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can judge: Disambiguation categories are not populated from templates. They often contain a template ({{category ambiguous}}) that puts them into [[Category:Disambiguation categories]]. Oceanh (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC). Extra comment: But you are right, the words "whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories" makes the additional "does not apply (...) to disambiguation categories" slightly redundant, since these have more content (the disambiguation templates). Oceanh (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

I agree with the re-write, but it should be taken a bit further. C1, in my opinion, should only apply to categories that have never had any content, are currently empty, have likely not ever had a significant number of articles, and realistically will never be populated. --- RockMFR 06:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK fine, I see your point. But your additional proposal could be considered a policy change, which might be controversial and could lead to a different discussion. My original proposal is just to emphasize that the current wording, if applied literally, leads to inconsistencies elsewhere and potential damages, and therefore needs a better precision. Another problem with your proposal is the words likely, significant and realistically, which are guiding but could also lead to less precision. Oceanh (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC). Extra comment: One important group of categories, namely maintenance categories supported by templates, is covered with the the proposed wording. For instance, the {{Cleanup}} template puts the page into Category:All pages needing cleanup, which should not be speedy deleted if the backlog gets temporarlily empty for a week or so. While Category:Cleanup from June 2006 can probably be deleted once it gets emptied. Also, the Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template is potentially populated from the {{Cleanup}} template. While it is desirable to empty this category, the category itself should continue to exist, since it is explicitly (but conditionally) populated from the template. Oceanh (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

I disagree with the changes. Empty categories populated by templates no longer being speedyable is a very bad change. There are userboxes I see all the time attached to worthless categories, and speedying them as C1 avoids a UCFD debate, which would have undoubtably ended up as delete. Adding this extra hurdle will just make CFD and UCFD even more backlogged with useless categories, causing more work. Recommended reverting or rewording. VegaDark (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vega. The new wording is awkward and confusing, to the point that I'm having a difficult time even deciphering what was actually intended vs. what was written. Perhaps a bit of clarification and brevity is in order? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The main intention with this change was, as stated, to avoid speedy deletion of categories which are populated from templates. That is, templates meant for use in articles or project pages (not in User space). Examples are maintenance categories supported by maintenance templates (for instance the categories populated from {{cleanup}}, {{db-xx}}, etc). As long as a category "exists" in template code, it should not be deleted at all without modifying (or deleting) the template itself. Also categories that have links from articles or project pages should not be considered to be "empty".
My question is: When you say you disagree, do you disagree with the intention of the change, or do you disagree with the current wording? For instance, do you think that speedy deleting Category:Potential B-Class Greek articles without reprogramming {{WPGR}} (which actually is admin-protected) was correct, or was it a mistake? Oceanh (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
I disagree with the wording. As for the intention, I'm neutral. I don't particularly think we should be putting in place any special processes to reward those who are too lazy to actually populate categories they create, IMO we should not create placeholder categories. On the other hand I don't particularly see the need to delete them either. VegaDark (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine. To clarify, this is not directed at categories that somebody created and were too lazy to populate. It is directed at categories that are populated periodically, because when the content is dealt with, the category goes empty. For instance, Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template can easily be emptied by correcting the instances that fill up that category, but the category itself should continue to exist. Also Category:Potential B-Class Greek articles will be emptied after the instances are dealt with, but will later typically have new content.
Placeholder categories (that can be populated from templates via input parameters) were not intended to be covered here. For instance Category:2009 deaths or Category:2500 deaths, that are populated (via parameters) from {{Lifetime}}. (As a side comment: Ideally templates that populate categories based on input parameters should be improved to catch non-existent categories, so the input can be corrected or missing categories be created).
Any suggestion on how to improve the wording, to avoid miscomprehensions? Oceanh (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC).
I'd personally change the wording to:
  1. Unpopulated categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days. This does not apply to disambiguation categories, category redirects, categories presently on deletion discussions, or project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help).
I changed "empty" to "unpopulated" due to past experience of users being confused over this, thinking that "empty" meant it must be completely empty of text as well as category members (which is not the case). Additionally, I added the last sentence, which I believe addresses your concerns adequately. VegaDark (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Will change the policy page in accordance with your proposed wording. If anyone likes to discuss the matters further they can take it from here, but I agree with you that my basic concerns are addressed adequately with the added sentence. Oceanh (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Redirecting the {{Di-}} series

Special:Prefixindex/Template:Di- lists about 25 templates which are much more commonly used to tag images than the {{db-iN}} series. Since all of these templates should refer directly to a CSD criterion, it should be possible to convert them all to hard or soft redirects to the relevant Db-series template. Is there any reason why we'd not want to do this? Happy‑melon 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not completely sure, but Template:Di-missing article links for example does not seem to be equivalent to a speedy deletion. First, it gives users a week of time; second, it does not necessarily imply that the image will be deleted (the image may be removed from pages where a fair-use rationale is missing, but the image itself is not deleted if it's used on a different page with valid rationale.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This template series is used to tag delayed speedy deletions (per CSDs I4 through I7), to notify uploaders of the impending deletion, and to mark in the image captions that the images are liable to be deleted. They are not redundant to db- templates. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Empty by year categories

I'd like people interested in CSD criteria to participate in the discussion here on whether or not we should speedy-delete empty "by year" categories. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy clarification, please?

Greetings, all. I'm trying to better understand CSD. I nominated an article for SD, and an administrator cancelled the nomination (which I don't have an issue with, per se; I realise anyone can do this for legitimate reasons per policy). My confusion stems from his edit summary Article has been like this for over a year so "speedy" is impossible at this point. In response to my request for clarification as to how the latter follows from the former, the admin stated that in general, speedy delition requires a previous revision that could be reverted to, and that WP:CSD#G11 is intended for articles that were recently created for no other reason than to advertise for the subject. To me, these statements don't seem to agree with the criteria as written; the first paragraph of the speedy deletion protocol states In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created, and I'm not finding anything about requiring a previous revision to revert to. Perhaps there are countermanding provisions (maybe elsewhere?) I'm not aware of. If so, could someone please point me to them, or explain them to me? My request to the admin for clarification has gone unanswered. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I think I see where he was going so I'll take a stab. In the initial coments on speedy deletion it's mentioned: consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. Perhaps the admins reasoning was that when you have an article that's been worked on by many editors for about four years, it's more likely then not that there's a way to salvage the article from being too promotional. If it's likely, then an outright instant nuke would certainly be controversal and at minimum a community discussion at AFD should occur. That's how I read the situation, hope i'm close to the admins thoughts.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just saw this over at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Admin potentially dictating policy... I tried to explain it there.
It might be worth mentioning somewhere on the policy page that CSD is discouraged for pages with a long edit history from multiple independent editors, with the only exceptions being pure copyvio or attack pages (and even then, you have to wonder how a page with multiple independent editors could be 100% copyvio, right?). It doesn't actually say that anywhere on the page, but I think it would be relatively uncontroversial...?
Jaysweet, thanks for your explanation over at the WQA. I like your proposed text here; if there'd been such a provision somewhere on WP:SPEEDY, it would've answered my "Why'd he do this?" question immediately. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing about speedy deletion. The criteria for deleting an article in this way is very rigid and specific. On the other hand, the criteria for removing a CDS tag are almost non-existant. Other than ther person who created the article, anybody can remove the tag for any reason. So there's certainly no policy violation or anything going on here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain...

How a deleted user can create a page? (See CSD G5) W1k13rh3nry (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By using another account. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's banned user, not blocked user. Bans can occasionally be to specific topics only. Taemyr (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


My Hatred of Speedy Deletion

There are two different types of articles that fall into speedy deletion; crap and the unknown. Dividing these two categories may seem to require a leap of incredible genius, but amazingly this is not the case. If one is unsure if the article you are looking at is a complete piss-take or half-arsed then take a leap of faith and think about believing in it. Flag it if it seems poor. But let's face it if I'm white, born in Kent, England, and have never left my village; who the hell am I to speedy delete Brazilian Ball Games, posted by a Brazilian person who has mailed 50 articles on the Brazilian handball league. Speedy deletions cause more harm than good, they destroy people's confidence to partake in Wikipedia. If an article has stood for months unchallenged then flag it as needing reference to allow authors to get the information to strengthen, not delete. Speedy Deletion is wankfest, and if that's not an official Oxford dictionary word now, it will be in ten years. Please review speedy deletion; it doesn't work. ThanksFruitMonkey (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears you're talking about Bryncoch RFC which was deleted by one of the most strongly deletionist admins. Did the article actually assert importance? If so it shouldn't have been deleted. But otherwise... articles do need to assert importance. Ones that don't are not doing a fundamental thing an article needs to do. --Rividian (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No assertion of importance, just "suchandsuch is a rugby club from whosewhere in wales" and an infobox.
Apologies, my first statement was drink fueled and too strong. But neither comments answer the initial statement regarding my dislike of A7. I just don't like the fact that someone can have no knowledge about a subject and can then sweep through someone elses work speedy deleting without even a basic "I'm giving you two weeks to give this article notability". And lets face it my notability is not your notability. Also how do I argue back if I can't remember what was on the article. It may have had fantastic notability, but once it's been deleted I can't argue the point back. I just think that A7 gives people too much leeway to delete ad-hoc without a reasonable chance for the defenders of the faith to argue back. I don't like.FruitMonkey (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

ViridaeTalk 10:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For specific cases, try deletion review. Unless you can present evidence of an enduring and wide-spread problem with the speedy deletion system, I doubt anything will be done here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think for stuff that truly doesn't need to go "NOW.", we could do speedy deletion more like speedy deletion for Images, give them a countdown of sorts, like maybe...

Kinda like this? It works for images. Of course, this will only be implemented for things that aren't "truly" needing speedy deletion (so, not for stuff like spam, copyvios and stuff) ViperSnake151 15:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hated? Over a web site? Buddy, it is not worth it to feel hate over a web site. Take a nice walk, smell the flowers. 1 != 2 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
One sometimes has to use strong language around here to get any attention. The deleted article says the team is 4th ranked in Wales, with a reference, is well formed and is marked as a stub. That does not seem like a speedy candidate to me. --agr (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It did not say the team is ranked 4th in Wales, it said the team is in the the 4th highest league in Wales - they're certainly not the same thing. Hut 8.5 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, we already have a template that gives a countdown to deletion. It's called {{prod}}. ;) Now getting a few select editors to be a lot less bitey and tag articles for prod or improvements instead of speedy deletion is another matter altogether.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposed system here is different than PROD because it (apparently) requires the problem that lead to the deletion nomination be fixed before the tag is removed, whereas PROD can be removed for any reason. We already have 3 deletion systems though (speedy, prod, afd) a fourth seems like just a bit too much. --Rividian (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody who is thinking of getting rid of speedy deletion ought to be aware of a few statistics. In April 2008, Wikipedia deleted about 3000 pages through PROD, and another 2000 through AfD. But A7 alone accounted for about 15000 deletions. If we replaced all speedy deletion with PROD (which is the obvious option) then the proposed deletion process would get absolutely swamped. Plenty of speedy deletion tags get removed by the creator even though the template explicitly tells you not to, so its fair to say that plenty of people will remove a template that effectively invites the author to remove it, which will force loads of full-scale AfD discussions about articles that are mostly awful. FruitMonkey's proposal of abolishing speedy deletion is completely unworkable. Hut 8.5 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good point. Just to clarify my position, articles of the type "Jason is a cooool guy" absolutely should be A7'ed, and I have no problems with it being done within minutes of creation. I do have a problem with speedy deletion when a new editor is making a good faith effort to create an article in multiple edits, and gets hit with an speedy tag immediately. Especially when the tagging editor didn't take 10 seconds to do a google search.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
With 15,000 deletions per month there are going to be some mistakes of reading comprehension and judgment. So maybe a few hundred that shouldn't have been deleted, and probably many thousands that ought to be deleted but got spared or overlooked somehow. No big deal. I would just recreate the article and either claim importance and/or include appropriate citations this time. One would think a sports team would assert its own notability simply by being in a league, but for those who don't get it, just include some claim that it's the primary team for a particular town, or something like that. There seem to be a few hundred news mentions so almost certainly something in there to demonstrate notability. No big deal. If an administrator is too trigger-happy or sloppy with the deletions, they'll usually get called to task on it, or watch a lot of their deletions get overturned or just recreated. It's only when administrators become officious, rude, or vindictive about it that it's a problem, and that's not very common. Wikidemo (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the "good faith effort to create an article in multiple edits" problem, I have two suggestions: (1) start working on a version of the article in your own userspace and don't move it into mainspace until it is sufficiently complete and sourced as to be obviously not a speedy candidate, or (2) edit it offline until etc. It's not required that every article start life as a one-sentence microstub. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that new editors don't understand this, and nothing in the speedy deletion process helps them to understand.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to place a thing on the edit page that comes up when creating a new article discouraging this. Say, "please don't press the "save page" button until your article is finished; use show preview instead". Except reword it so that it's clear it means "when you're finished" rather than "when the article is comprehensive", in a way the newbies can understand. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a long-debated problem with CSD - there's already a warning on the page about it. Really though, this is an artifact of how CSD is done: using Recent Changes. If there were some easy way to view all changes occurring exactly one hour ago, I'd say it would be much preferable to say "all articles get one hour before they're eligible for CSD." Regardless of how harmful or stupid an article is, one hour to give them a chance to clean it up or finish it wouldn't hurt.
I maintain the position that A7, G11, and T1 are too subjective to be good CSD criteria, and on top of this they're widely abused. An "assertion of importance or significance" can be quite subtle and require knowledge of the subject area - the rugby team example is a good one, because people not familiar with the leagues and pyramid system can't tell whether or not being in a certain league implies significance or not. If we must have a CSD for subjects of no importance, we need something more objective. My suggestion would be a list of specific, but fairly liberal requirements based on the notability guidelines for each specific topic area (e.g., a band should have at least one of the following [...] or some other explicit claim of importance). It might also be helpful if, just for these three criteria, we had a "review" system where another admin reviews each article either before or after deletion for validity. Dcoetzee 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be great if there was some automated way to have admins wait an hour, but not increase the number of ones that fall through the cracks. This would require software changes though... creating the time-based view, and automatically preventing people from removing tags on pages they created.
I think A7 and G11 are good ideas if applied conservatively... the abuses come from the 0.1% of deletions where admins apply something that was never intended, and basically try to delete an article because they predict it would fail AFD. But with humans involved, mistakes are just going to happen... that's what talk pages and DRV is for. There's really never going to be a policy that's worded so well it prevents any abuses or mistakes from ever occuring. --Rividian (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the one hour issue, please see {{Hasty}}, which I created about a month ago in an attempt to address this very issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't comment on recent changes because I only do that through Lupin's anti-vandal tool, but I frequently do NPP, and there is an easy way. I simply hit "page down" and start working from the bottom up. If I filter out already patrolled pages first, that usually gives me pages 3-6 hours old. I haven't gotten very far when I suggest this technique to some of the more bitey NP Patrollers. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The claim that speedy deletion criteria are frequently abused needs some evidence. The one survey I know of (see User:Mangojuice/a7 and User:Mangojuice/a7.2) concluded that the vast majority of articles speedy deleted under G11 and A7 had no chance of surviving AfD. (T1 deletions are, in my experience, extremely rare.) Hut 8.5 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Abuse" may be the wrong term, because that implies malice. I find that there are a significant number of articles tagged for speedy deletion (as opposed to actually being deleted) which can be salvaged. --Eastmain (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately a great deal depends upon the particular admin involved--we are still dealing with a certain number of people who insist on deleting on the grounds of not thinking it would pass Afd; perhaps we need to say that any admin can reinstate if justified without worrying about it being thought discourteous. For a particularly dramatic example of abusive deletion, see [16]. (Thi swas a case of single=handed deletion--perhaps we should also say that no admin may delete without review (instead of just tagging) except for copyvio and attack. )DGG (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Dr Strangelove or how I learned to stop worrying and love CSD

Twice now in the last two days I've come across new users with problematic pages; both were tagged for deletion; and in both cases I offered the new users an alternative of which they were obviously not aware - one, userfying the page, the other, blanking their upage. The results speak well of my efforts: [17] [18]. This kind of work of course is much more labour-intensive than tagging and deleting, but the end result can be that the new editor is not immediately turned off (or worse, rebels by trying the same thing again or becoming disruptive), and can continue to work away and hopefully in the meantime absorb some of the structure and ethos of Wikipedia. What I'm getting at here is, is there some way to modify the CSD-notice templates to let new users know they have alternatives and they are not just being crushed by a faceless machine? We do after all wish to attract new editors and help them to learn more about how the site works. IMO the worst way to start wikipeding is to begin with creating a new article, but a lot of people do - so is there a more informative way to help, rather than spitting the noobs out like watermelon seeds down the back alley? Franamax (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, creating a new article is a terrible introduction to Wikipedia... doing it right (i.e. not attracting the ire of any new page patrollers) involves being fairly skilled in formatting, referencing, tone, templates and categorization... none of these are obvious concepts to a newbie. Instead of making it CSD's job to educate these people though, I think we need a sane article creation process... a wizard that helps steer them away from common errors. Right now we just give them an empty box... no wonder so many new articles are not very good. Even Urban Dictionary has a better content submission process than Wikipedia... it's pretty sad that after all these years we still have nothing. --Rividian (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me there is something somewhere about making an article that has a wizardly aspect, but dang if I know where it is. The newcomers are already working on their first page before they even get a welcome - though there's another avenue, maybe the signup process should drop you a welcome and a big coloured thing about "Before you create your first article!". I'm not saying that CSD/NP patrollers should have the responsibility (though it would be great if they did, and took the time to guide the sincere creators) - rather I'm thinking more along the lines of extra links in the templates to show the options, maybe a new-article-help-desk staffed by volunteers who already know how to userfy, a category that volunteers could patrol called [[Possibly usable articles created by new editors]]. You're right that the empty box doesn't work well (!), is there some way to modify the process rather than rely on the dev's to pull something out of their hat? Franamax (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, most of the work would be on us (the people who do stuff related to new pages). I guess we're so busy dealing with new pages we never have time to outline what a proper wizard would be? I think Mr. Z-Man (I forget exactly how his username is spelled) was working on a wizard at one point, but it was never implemented. --Rividian (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's User:Mr.Z-man and I've asked him about it. I've just gone through the help pages a little and I remember now how stunningly bad Wikipedia is at help. Not that anything in particular is wrong, there's an amazing amount of effort been put into explanation, but it's just so dense. Eventually it has to be that way because of the complexity of the wiki, but I do remember my initial frustration trying to find what I thought were simple things. And I was going slow, I can only imagine the new user coming here with a burning desire to make an article on that great guitar player they just saw down the street. No, this is not just the NPP's burden, but all of your thoughts on how to ease the newcomer situation can only be helpful. Franamax (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The nascent wizard is here and it looks as though Z-Man has lost interest in completing it: [19], although persuasion might help ;) A mandatory diversion for new users through a creation process would surely help.
And again, if the deletion templates showed an alternative process and an easy way to contact someone experienced enough to move the page into a sub-space, a whole lot of process and frustration could be avoided. Franamax (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a pretty spiffy wizard. I don't know if mandatory is a good idea for it, but a link to it (after it is finished) on the page creation buisiness would really help. It looks like it could also use a bit of updating. Let me know if there's anything I can help with on it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is like prod--that any admin can on request undelete an article if potentially justified without needing to go the the trouble of asking the deleting admin purely as a matter of course DGG (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (signature added later--sorry)
That's a valid (though unsigned :) comment. The problem I can see there is that the new users creating articles are plainly unaware of even the existence of admins, much less the concept of asking admins to do things. So again, there's a need for the templates to be modified so there is a clickable spot where a new user can easily post a request for an admin to restore a deleted page into uspace. Once it's there, they can go about the huge learning process. The question is how to get the new page into a space where the new user can start learning about how things work. Franamax (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

←I think a clickable spot is a great idea. Which is why I'm putting this comment here. :) I would like to note, though, with respect to the above by Rividian that we do give them more than "an empty box". At the top of that empty box is the following

If new contributors would notice that and read it, a lot of their misconceptions about Wikipedia could be cleared up. :/ Sadly, we tend not to notice the "small print" around us. And I say "we" because it took me forever to notice that there was something below the bold Do not copy text... warning at the bottom of the screen. That said, I think an automated welcome is also a good idea. I've often felt bad for contributors whose first interaction with other editors is a CSD warning. OTOH, at least they got one. I feel worse for the contributors whose articles have been deleted who don't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to get the message accross before that people who do the new page patrol should be nicer. But it never went anywhere, given what I still see when I look at the talk pages of page authors on WP:SDL. I mean, we've got stuff already that should tell us to be nice to the new people, and I'm not sure it's really working. We could try to make the small print you get when creating a page larger, perhaps so you have to scroll down before you can actually start to create the page. And then change it back to normal for autoconfirmed users, so we don't interfere with established editors who already know the policies and such. Just a thought. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Any thoughts as to whether an automated welcome message would in any way be useful for addressing this problem? That is, every account would receive a welcome notice, which would include some instructions for editing and creating new articles, as soon as the account is created. Currently, editors are often not welcomed until after they make an edit or create an article, or are never welcomed at all. While some users will ignore the notice, some will read it. I know that automated welcome by a bot (or the MediaWiki software) is criticised as being "impersonal", but how useful is a "personal" welcome (a lot of these are mass-distributed and most are standard template notices) that comes too late or never comes? –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much of the problem it would actually solve. Many (most?) users contribute as anonymous users for a while before creating an account. If they are bitten badly enough to go away, it is likely to be as an anon. But creating notices for every anon editor will backfire because of the way that dynamic IPs get assigned. The welcome would go to the wrong person and the anon still gets bitten. The automated welcome would have to be restricted to people who actually register accounts. I guess it could be somewhat valuable there but even there I'm a bit skeptical. Many established editors already manually add the {{Welcome}} tag but I don't see much evidence that the new people read it or change their behaviors because of it.
Still, it would be a fairly cheap exercise. It couldn't hurt to test it for a while, then maybe follow up for a while with a questionnaire about whether it was helpful or not. Anyone willing to run the test? Rossami (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't we already have a welcoming commitee? Someone over there should be willing. If not, we can draft a proposal for a bot to do it. That might be the best way to test. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, the whole idea of welcome bots has been proposed before and has not gotten consensus for approval; see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots. Personally, I think if there was an automated message in the software it would just make things a little more annoying. All this small print everywhere amounts to noise to most people and making it more in-your-face will only be more irritating, it won't get people to actually READ what they need to. Mangojuicetalk 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
How about this for a modest proposal (and I caveat this by saying I am as much of a deletionist as they come, so writing this goes against the very core of my being, but here goes): would things really be so bad if a user's first article (and ONLY the first article) were exempted from A7 and similar CSDs (obviously not from the CopyVio CSDs) and had to go through PROD instead (or fixed in another way, such as userfication)? Creating an encyclopedia requires users who participate and know WP policy and process, and what better introduction than on their first article: they could learn much more in five days than in the few seconds it takes for CSD to run its course. If the article is truly unsalvagable, how bad is it to have it around for just 5 days? I think WP would be much better having gained more skilled, participating users, at the cost of having a few more truly bad articles around for five days. Thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume that CSDs of attack pages, recreations of deleted matterial, and articles created by banned users in violation of their ban would also be allowed? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, similar to COPYVIOs. I am only suggesting we exempt good faith first articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So if I'm a new user, and my first action is to create an article consisting of "Fred Bloggs is 14 years old and goes to Somewhere Secondary School. He is really cool." the article has to hang around for five days going through PROD? And suppose I come back to look at the article, see the prod tag and remove it (which it invites me to do if I disagree with the deletion)? We'd have a full-scale 5 day AfD debate over an article which is a blatant waste of space. And looking at the five articles currently up for deletion under A7, three of them were created in the user's first edit. At that rate (using the statistic I quoted earlier in this discussion) the number of articles going through PROD would quadruple. Hut 8.5 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a sample size problem. You are extrapolating your 3 out of 5 to April's 15000 A7 deletions to imply that 9000 users had their first article deleted via A7 last month? I just don't believe that is true. You are also ignoring the other options besides prod, especially userfying. And why is the PROD process under any strain, anyway? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The figure of 3 out of 5 may well be wrong, it's just the only one I had to hand. It will certainly be a fair fraction of the 15000 A7s per month, which equates to a lot of articles. The whole point of prod is that other editors get a chance to review the article before it gets deleted, and if we start sending significantly more articles there then the amount of review each one gets will go down quite a lot. If the process gets enough articles then it will end up being an example of the "delayed CSD" proposal that has been made here, as nobody will review the articles. PROD was originally designed to take the strain of uncontroversial nominations from AfD, and it will become less effective in that respect. Hut 8.5 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, 3/5 is probably an underestimate. I just went through the 19 articles I deleted per A7 when I last did A7 patrol (excluding several declines, two AfD noms, three userfications, one G10, two G7s and one A1 speedy) and found that all but three had been the creating account's first article (often their first edit) and that none of the accounts except one had edits from more than a day before. (The one exception had a G10 speedy from a week earlier.) None had created an earlier article that hadn't been speedied. Back is the old days most A7 articles used to be created by anons. Now that we no longer allow anons to start articles, they register an account to do that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
a few numbers from others--I check the most recent 10 A7bios just now: 8 absolutely impossible, 1 good A7 but possible good faith, 1 incorrect A7.-- all of them first edits, or reconstruction of earlier first edits. But this is in the PM after school period in the US. Looking 11 hrs earlier, with a much more varied assortment, I found something more alarming: 5 absolute junk a7 bios, 2 good A7s but possible good faith, and 3 incorrect a7s, and 1 of the 3 could probably have passed AfD. this is a higher rate of error than I found a year ago. Essentially all of these were first edits. Suggestion: we need a more precise way of specifying what constitutes a speedy deletable facebook page. I did not check other deletion rationales, though there were A2s and G11s which probably could equally have been A7. JThat really incorrect A7 was "Dejan Bandović is a Bosnian football goalkeeper born on June 11th, 1983 in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Currently he plays for NK Široki Brijeg." That's a team in the premier league, so if true, he's notable. I'll leave someone who knows about football to follow up that one. DGG (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (delayed A7)

What about using the suggested template above (near the beginning of this thread) instead of the usual CSD templates? It's still a speedy, just a slower one. Then there wouldn't be the strain on PROD and if removed the edit could just be reverted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that "slow-speedy" template, but it could also suggest the possibility of userfying, which I think many new users haven't considered. It's got to be depressing to put in a lot of work (which you think is important and good), then have it just disappear. We might end up with a lot of crappy user sub-pages, but they can be addressed in a separate process. Three days might be good too, keeping in mind that this is for the non total-garbage articles only. Franamax (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be much happier about userifying once user space is made no-index. DGG (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a serious concern, which I was mulling but not bringing up :) User sub-pages need to be kept out of (especially) the Google index for this to be feasible. I'm not sure if robots.txt can wildcard a sub-space, but maybe the whole User: space should be excluded anyway. In any case, proceeding down this path will only get the search situation resolved more quickly. Franamax (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent, at Franamax)How about like this:
Note: Parts nowiki'd to show how things would work on the template itself.
{{userfy}} currently redirects to {{notability}}, so we'd want to restore it to the previous version here or something like it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the delay of one day. That gives users time to remove the tag and prevent clearly non-notable bio articles being deleted. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In theory it shouldn't. If the tag is removed by the author the edit removing it could be reverted as vandalism. And if it's removed by someone else, with a good reason, chances are it shouldn't have been there in the first place. Removal of the tag without a reason could just be treated as vandalism the same way author removal is. The idea here is to give people more time. Perhaps just advocating {{hasty}} as well as {{hangon}} for page authors to request time to improve the page could do the same thing. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a full half of the A7 bios are very clearly articles that could never be made acceptable, and where there is nothing imaginable that could be added that would show notability. Here are the key parts of the most recent five just deleted.

  • ".... Daniel plans to do research and experiments converting the modern-day petroleum engine to operate combusting HHO fuel from an onboard H20 electrolysis tank producing hydrogen on the fly. Daniel also plans to peruse a professional basketball career."
  • "D9 or frequently known to his friends as Z Bl, is a 15 year old with a difference. For the past three years he has been experimenting with electronic music. D9 is yet to release an album,
  • was born on October 6th, 1994, in San Francisco. He later moved up to Portland, Oregon, because of financial difficulty. He is best known for his work with the rock band Hemogoblin. Hemogoblin was co-founded by Nate and his cousin, Ian
  • Oliver Asadi is from altofts,wakefield and is skilled
  • David Benjamin Brenner (born January 21, 1983) is a software engineer at Cantor Fitzgerald (http://www.cantor.com/) in New York City and currently resides on the Upper East Side. He was born in Montreal, Canada but has French and Israeli passports. He has a few unqiue abilities

Of these, just conceivably the 5th might have something that might be added, though I'd be pretty surprised. The 4th could be incomplete, but again I doubt it will conceivably go anywere.

    • However, a 6th one was not a validy speedy, tho admittedly it is quite unlikely to pass AfD; I have mentioned this to the deleting admin., who refuses to restore it--see my talk page-- because he thinks that asserting that someone having published several non-self published books is not a "reasonable assertion of notability". We have to see about the wording, for I consider such interpretation problematic. I'll be suggesting a change for that--the A7 wording has drifted much too restrictively. As I am going to be discussing it, I moved it temporarily to my user space as User:DGG/Hayes -- DGG (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Follow up--the deleting admin, who is being very helpful in working this out, found two reviews for one of the books, and I found another, so we agreed it could be moved back to mainspace. as J. M. Hayes. Q.E.D. DGG (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
My personal rule of thumb is not to speedy anything as A7 if there's any chance it might be salvageable, even if the current version technically qualifies — those get tagged with {{notability}} instead (or possibly PRODded or taken to AfD). That includes checking Google and Special:Whatlinkshere to see if I can find an assertion of notability that might be added. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
perhaps we should require--require, not suggest-- that everyone do such a searchDGG (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you think you have to do a google search to confirm it, it's already not an A7. If we add an explicit requirement to google or otherwise check for sources outside of what's within the article, this is just going to result in more cases of admins deciding on their own that what they find isn't enough and speedying things that should've gone to afd. —Cryptic 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A good example, from the same A7 patrol session I reviewed above, might be Mark H. Ashcraft, though arguably that wasn't a valid A7 to begin with, department chairs being presumably notable. Looking at my deletion log, most of the ones I did speedy were more like Joon Lee or Zach Singer. (I do see I may have erred with Paul Minorini — not that it could've passed AfD as it was, but there was an assertion of notability, and someone with better Google-fu might've been able to sort through the chaff to find sources for expansion. At least the content is still there in the deletion log, if anyone wants to rescue it.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
the Minorini article said he was ceo of something called BHGH, without a WP article, but the link for that is [20] and it just might be worth one.DGG (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's actually http://www.boyshopegirlshope.org/ (the link you gave is for a regional suborganization, of which they seem to have plenty), and yes, the organization Boys Hope Girls Hope itself probably would deserve an article. There even seem to be independent sources. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
See, that's part of the problem, noobs have no clue about deleted content being available, or the possibility of putting the nascent article in their uspace. There is an opportunity here - new people come here with a passion for a single subject, by diverting them into working on their passion in their own space, we can create the possibility that they will absorb some things - like comparing to other articles, seeing problems in those articles, fixing them and seeing their changes stick - oops, hooked another one to Wikipedia. Then they get their favourite article into mainspace. And IK, you seem to be quite diligent in your approach, not having done NPP myself, I'd ask you if your outlook is the norm within the NPP community, or do many of them reflect the mindset of "the more articles deleted, the better"? Franamax (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
NPP has two opposite problems, tho I admit my experience there is usually only when I have insomnia. First, seeing all the junk in one place at one time -- remembering that about a full half the articles submitted are clearly unsatisfactory--tends to induce feelings of deletionism, even in me. (Spam fighting has a similar effect on those who do it.) The other, is the realisation that what gets skipped the first few minutes may never be noticed again. Patrolled revisions is not being as successful as it might be at this. I usually go a few thousand back, or all the way to "earliest". DGG (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps just including something in the speedy notice messages could work. Such as in {{nn-warn}} and the like (though not {{sd-copyvio}}, obviously). It wouldn't require any new processes and most people on the NPP already use the warnings (from what I've seen over at WP:LSD recently, anyway). How about including this text: "You may also ask for this article to be saved in your userspace in a subpage of your userpage by asking one of these administrators." We could even do something silly like make a template that would do the asking itself, if we've got someone with the template-fu who wants to do it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Userspace

That last suggestion about moving to userspace is a very good one--but remember that we want to keep the template as concise as possible--there are considerable indications that as is, people see it, but do not read it through--can't really blame them.DGG (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Something I hope will reduce the number of CSDs

Based on the above discussion, I went bold and forked Wikipedia:Your first article from Wikipedia:Starting an article. My ultimate objective is to make YFA more newbie friendly (i.e the article just has to be "good enough" - i.e. not a CSD candidate), while SAA can be addressed to all new article creators, and keep the instructions related to helping new articles be "good", not just good enough. (SAA says to "look at a featured article": how helpful is the article on Microsoft to the user creating an article on their flower shop?) SAA also speaks more advanced (and therefore both less newbie-friendly and less likely to be read by them) Wikipediese: talk about policies, guidelines, etc. Any help/comments/feedback in this forking effort is definitely appreciated. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a simplified approach for the newest members, anything to get them looking around before jumping into a new article. I think a lot of the problem is directly due to the wiki being very dense with information, so new people tend to glaze over and stop reading anything. The simpler the better.
To Lifebaka's template above, yeah that's getting there, but small print ain't gonna cut it when we already know people are ignoring the big print :) I was thinking a bit more along the lines of something at the bottom (so it's the last thing they read), in large/bold (or big freakin' orange flashing) along the lines of "New users can read Why is my article being deleted?" - that link is a lame draft of the "salvage" instructions I was thinking of, which also points to US's helpful contribution. Franamax (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Call me pessimistic but I just don't see people who come to Wikipedia to create an article (a very distinct class of users) being very likely to read, much less follow, 10 points of advice. I'm all for de-densifying documentation and otherwise making it approachable and useful... but a lot of our worst new articles are created by people who are never going to read documentation unless it's a few words in gigantic letters. That's just how it is. --Rividian (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting useful talk page redirects

An administrator who shall remain nameless is deleting talk page redirects and it's causing controversy. For example, very long list X got moved to X/Part1 and half of it split into the new article X/Part2. The talk page was not moved, and Talk:X/Part1 and Talk:X/Part2 both point to Talk:X, which has a long history. The administrator deleted the two redirects. He's done so with other situations in the past few days.

Is this the intent of WP:SPEEDY? If so, I think it should be changed.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

G8 speedy deletion isn't for controversial cases... so if someone reasonably thinks a talk page shouldn't be deleted, speedy deletion isn't a good decision but it should go to MFD if someone still wants it deleted. Unfortunately it seems your problem is one of the handful of admins who seem perpetually unconcerned with speedy deletion's intended role. --Rividian (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
My view is that the principle behind CSD is 'do no harm.' As long as admins follow that, it'll all work out in the end. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That's more or less the principle... but if a reasonable editor claims there's a point to a talk page redirect, it does harm to speedy delete it knowing that. G8 does say "this excludes any talk page which is useful to the project". --Rividian (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal: "Orphaned talk page redirects is not (and never will be) a CSD." -- Ned Scott 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just checking here, but was there anything useful at any of the delete pages? 'Cuz unless there was, it's kinda' pointless to argue about it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah. It looks like administrator used a script to delete over 10 redirects per minute, clearly not enough time to assess each one. He made some incorrect assumptions and in the process clobbered more than a few useful redirects. Check WP:ANI for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Procedure for administrators"

This is in response to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deleting useful talk page redirects above:

Add to the bottom of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators

Think before you delete. 99% of good-faith SPEEDY requests are proper but every now and then there is doubt. If there is doubt, either decline to delete it or take the time to explain your actions on the primary editors' talk pages. G8, G10, A7, R3, T1, and occasionally other reasons may require a judgment call by the tagging user and confirmation by the deleting admin. Copyright- and licensing-related reasons may be overcome by putting in the correct license or rewording the text rather than deleting.

What do you guys think? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure advice not to break the rules really does much to prevent admins who want to break the rules or don't really care about the rules. So I'd oppose this wording as unlikely to accomplish much. Either an admin cares about applying CSD in a helpful and uncontroversial way or they don't... I don't think we're going to disclaimer them into submission, personally. Adding "when in doubt don't delete" (which was supposed to be a core principle of our deletion policy) wouldn't be a terrible idea though. --Rividian (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary per WP:CREEP. Ty 02:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How is "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead" in the second paragraph of WP:SD not adequate? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Dang, how did I miss that? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn as unnecessary per Zzyzx11's pointing out "Where reasonable doubt exists..." near the beginning of the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

deleted user:Daynal

Now that the indefblocked user:Daynal page has been deleted, what becomes of this user talkpage and how will the talkpage be linked or not to any new user Daynal? --72.250.232.242 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically the user remains in the user so there will never be another user by that name. Typically, users don't go around creating user pages that aren't theres, but if there is a concern, the page can be deleted and protected against re-creation. The same thing can be done with the user_talk: page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply! Did you intend to say "the user(talk) remains in the user(page) so there will never be another user by that name"? This page was created to guard it against usage by others that may misrepresent the meaning and/or value of the name, so it was used to keep others from doing so. When a second article was written by the user Daynal about an author published by Daynal Institute Press, concerns were raised that were then addressed in consultation with two other editors where agreement was made to retain the user name for the sole purpose that it be indefinitely blocked as one of the editors said he did not know if it could be otherwise. Afterwards, user Daynal, opened a new account using his personal name to implement the editorial suggestions of one of the editors for an article thinking such would be preferable to anonymous edits. However, this prompted the accusation (quickly sustained) of Sockpuppetry from a third editor that has now blocked indefinitely both usernames from further edits. Needless to say, he is no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia, but others who share his concern for the name Daynal would like to know what Wikipedia will do now.

Gratefully,

--75.105.7.0 (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Db-i7 versus Template:Dfu?

I'm a bit confused about the usage of the templates {{Db-i7}} (alias {{Db-badfairuse}}) and {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} (alias "{{subst:dfu}}"). Both are based on the same policy (WP:CSD I7 + WP:NFCC), but create effectively different processes.

  • One reasonable way of distinguishing these might be that Db-disputed fair use should be for cases where the problem may potentially be remedied by rewording the FUR (as in most cases where it's used by bots these days), while the other one could be for cases where there is an objective problem of invalid fair use and even an improved rationale wouldn't help. Is that the reason for having the two? Or is that distinction impractical?
  • {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} has a dated category mechanism placing images in a deletion queue by day. It's timed to 7 days, although according to policy most images should only have 48 h. {{Db-i7}} mentions 48h, but lacks the category mechanism, which makes its use unwieldy. I understand that bot-generated routine taggings should generally stick to 7 days, but I don't like unnecessarily long waiting periods for those that I tag manually and where I really mean deletion.

So, what should be done?

  • Merge both templates?
  • Add a "|concern=" parameter to Db-i7?
  • Add a timed deletion queue mechanism to Db-i7?
  • Add another parameter to {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} that switches between 48h and 7d queueing?
  • Make Db-i7 a clone of Di-disputed fair use rationale, only with a fixed 48h- rather than 7d-period?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a "|concern=" parameter to {{db-i7}} personally, assuming it's not to difficult. It looks like {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} is a bit outdated, since {{db-i7}} only allows 7 days for images from June 13, 2006 and earlier or articles tagged with {{Replaceable fair use}} (alias {{subst:rfu}}). Perhaps just making {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} a clone of {{db-i7}} would do the same, along with the single fix to {{db-i7}}. But I'm not familiar with how these templates are used, so I could be completely off my mark, I'm just saying what I think would be easiest. I've also put a note on Template talk:Di-disputed fair use rationale about possibly automatically dating instead of requiting the "|date=" parameter. Cheers.

Notable music by not notable musicians?

Question. When there's an article created about Artist X, a completely unknown 14 year old rapper from Denmark, it gets a {{db-band}} tag and will be speedy deleted within minutes. But when Artist X (or his friend) creates an article about his upcoming, not even recorded let alone released, debut album, there's no speedy tag to deal with it.

The {{db-band}} tag specifically says it doesn't apply to albums, WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't do speedies, and the article isn't really spam either. Yet we're dealing with an unreleased album ("will probably be recorded in spring 2009") by a musician that is considered to be not notable and/or insignificant.

I come across these kind of 'releases' quite regularly and I simply don't know how to tag them. Should {{db-band}} perhaps be extended to include unreleased albums? Can a 'not notable' musician make 'notable' music? Or am I completely missing an obvious solution to this tagging problem?

Update: In the archives of this page I just read about a similar problem, but that's more a discussion about existing albums and songs. I'm talking about unreleased stuff by 'not-notables'. Albums by Artist X above, films by his friend Director X (a teenager in Canada), etcetera.  Channel ®   23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there really that many articles being created about nonexistent albums, as opposed to ones that do exist and are available on MySpace, for it to make a difference? If so, I suppose we could consider something like "A(n+1): Speculative articles on future events or things that don't exist yet, where there is no evidence of independent sources covering the speculation." Note that I've deliberately avoided using A7's "assertion of importance or significance", since most such articles that I've seen have asserted that the soon-to-be-released things shall be the best ever, or something similar. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We just use WP:PROD for those. While such articles should probably almost always be deleted, I'm not sure it's a big enough problem to warrant a new speedy. Do we have some stats on how often these occur? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Karonen's description "Speculative articles on future events" sums my problem up quite nicely. Using a PROD is a solution but these tags usually get deleted (of course). I can't give stats but I've seen plenty of articles about upcoming albums, films, books and art, all by complete unknowns. I'm not suggesting to introduce a new speedy for this (although it would help a lot), because that would most probably clash with WP:CRYSTALBALL. But why not extend {{db-band}} and {{db-person}} to include the 'not notables' output as well?  Channel ®   08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm conflicted about extending {{db-band}} to apply to albums, which stems from some of my feelings about {{db-band}} itself. {{db-band}} is really valuable for articles like "Ant Vomit is a band formed by four friends who recorded a demo in their garage and are looking for a big record deal." I strongly support extending {{db-band}} to their demo, as well.
But a lot of band and album articles are written by fans who are new to wikipedia and don't know how to show notability in the first edit or two. It takes (well, me, at least) more than 15 seconds to determine whether there's a whiff of notability for most bands, especially because there's no clear cut list (or even definition) of what makes a notable label. If the band article was speedied, that doesn't always mean the band isn't notable, it just means that notability wasn't blindingly obvious. So I'm equally uncomfortable speedying that band's albums.
It's a problem I'm not sure how to resolve. I'm uncomfortable speedying potentially good articles, but I don't want to see another 50 articles a day in AfD. Anyone have a magic wand?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean but I prefer to stay away from possible definitions of notability for now. That's beyond my question and it makes this discussion VERY wide. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the lack of notability is established and that the {{db-band}} is rightfully applied. I am talking about your friends Ant Vomit (great name, by the way) and their demo. I can speedy Ant Vomit but I can't speedy their demo (or video, home-movie, CD-R). That doesn't add up, I think  Channel ®   15:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like we're in agreement. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure how you'd write something that'd apply to them. And I still wonder if there are all that many of these floating about. It doesn't seem like something that happens too terribly often, so it wouldn't take a large load off of PROD and AfD to write a CSD about it (or modify one of the CSD or whatever). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am opposed to adding content including albums to A7, and opposed to making WP:CRYSTAL part of the CSD in any shape or form. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough rationale here. If an article is created about a product, does not assert why the product is notable or important, and is not written encyclopedically, the only possibility really left is that it is directly or indirectly intended to promote that product. And promotion is speedy-eligible. If no one wants to do it under A7, use G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bon appétit... — CharlotteWebb 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
While a common misconception, "Please do not bite the newcomers" translates to "Please correct the newcomers as gently as possible", not "Please do not correct the newcomers" or "Please do not utilize quality control". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Careful with That Razor, Occam. Yes, quality control is good, but you have just suggested that the author's motive defaults directly or indirectly to self-promotion if two subjective and arbitrarily chosen quality standards are not initially met. What category of gentle treatment does that fall into? If an article is neutral and verifiable, there is no prima facie evidence of promotional intent and it should certainly not be eligible for speedy deletion (regardless of whether you consider it notable or encyclopedic). — CharlotteWebb 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's kinda' a stretch of logic, and I'm not sure everyone would agree with you. It's probably not hurting anyone to have it up for five days or a week (unless it's an attack, but those are speedy-able anyway). So people can, and probably should, just use PROD and AfD to deal with them. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

U1 and user talk pages

I've always considered user talk pages to be U1-ineligible (i.e. admins don't delete user talk pages at the request of the user in question), but I've lately seen a few deleted under U1. Am I mistaken? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I at least always decline these, as well as user talk archives that were created via page-move rather than copy-paste. —Cryptic 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the only good answer is "it depends". As long as there are no warnings in the history to worry about, I assume good faith and honor the request. If a user in good-standing is retiring from the project, he/she has a right to vanish and that would imply that the talk page should be taken down, too. Likewise, if a user has made a sincere effort to turn over a new leaf, we do allow a purge and fresh start. (But the threshold for demonstrating that "sincere effort" is often quite high.) A deletion may be in order if the Talk page had BLP-violation content (such as the birthdate and real-world contact information of a user who is a minor) as the only way to protect the disclosed information. On the other hand, if the content of the talk page is a long list of vandalism warnings, then I am not inclined to believe that the user request was being made in good-faith and will decline the speedy-request. Ultimately, it's a judgment call on the part of the admin evaluating the page. Rossami (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:Db-u1 used to require a rationale before it would categorize a user talk page into CAT:CSD. The parameter was intended to have people justify why their user talk page should be deleted. At some point, the CSD templates were standardized, and the users who did the code updates broke the rationale code and haven't yet fixed it. Grr.... --MZMcBride (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually MZ, we made a conscious decision not to fix it. When we standardised the templates, it dumped about 400 User talk: pages into CAT:CSD, some of which had been tagged for months or even years. Far from encouraging users to provide a rationale, users were just adding the template as normal, not noticing that it was not categorising properly, and then forgetting them and leaving the requests to rot. Happy‑melon 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Um... good. The guidelines say that User_talk pages should only be deleted in extraordinary cases, something that it would seem more and more admins keep forgetting. If users can't read the large red font that explained the rationale parameter, then they probably didn't need their user talk page deleted after all. I've handled a fair bit of U1 requests for User_talk pages – they're generally accompanied by requests that we delete the user's account as well. Having the pages tagged and forgotten is better than having them deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
m:Right to vanish supersedes any guideline on the subject. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A Meta essay trumps a local guideline? And you assume that everyone who wishes for their talk page to be deleted is exercising their right to vanish. Some are simply embarrassed by past indiscretions. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it's an essay. We also have the privacy policy to consider as well (for those actually using it to remove personal information). At any rate, unless someone is obviously abusing it (having their user talk page deleted, then coming back days (or even a week or two) later, without requesting undeletion), I don't see the harm. Perhaps a better way to handle user talk page deletions would be to codify somewhere that if the user returns they should request undeletion of said page (or, if an admin notices the user has returned, may undelete it). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Meta page trumps the Wikipedia page. (Meta does not make the arbitrary distinctions between "policy", "guideline" and "essay" that we do here on Wikipedia so it can take some digging to know which pages are treated as binding and which as commentary. That one's binding.) No, we are not assuming that everyone who asks to have their talk page deleted is exercising that right, merely acknowledging that unless you have reason to believe otherwise we must assume good faith and honor the request.
To Locke Cole's suggestion, I would recommend against codifying the standards. Leaving the issue to the informed judgment of the administrator who can evaluate the specifics of the request and of the user's contribution history is a better answer in most cases. Rossami (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That seems pretty ridiculous to me. Of course Meta makes the distinction. meta:Don't be a dick is a essay. There's a giant box at the top indicating so in several languages. Meanwhile, meta:Policy lists different types of policies while meta:Meta:Index/Policies and guidelines lists the specific ones. But, of course, all of this is getting off track. The point of the rationale parameter was to have users explain why they wanted their user talk pages deleted, so admins could do less guessing and be more sure. There doesn't seem to be any harm in requiring people to justify their reason for wanting their User_talk page deleted, though, perhaps, it could be more obvious that the rationale parameter is what is required. I'll fix the code to not show a box at all if Template:Db-u1 is used on a User_talk: page. Does that sound like a decent compromise? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the warning for a lack of rationale, but it should still be categorized correctly regardless. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your changes look good, MZMcBride. I just tested on my user and user talk pages, and it works fine. I'd guess that solves everyone's problems with this, mostly. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I should have said that Meta is not as compulsive about tagging or as formalized in the distinctions. Nevertheless, the point is that users have right to vanish (foundation level and derivative of the privacy policy) and we are expected to assume good faith (guideline level). The wording at WP:USER (also guideline level) says "user talk pages are generally not deleted" but then goes on to list some significant qualifiers. When considered in context, we can not and should not require a user to divulge a rationale unless we have reason to suspect bad faith in the request. It's okay to ask for a rationale but the refusal to provide one in a request that otherwise appears to be a good faith request is not a sufficient reason to refuse the user's request. Rossami (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Swatjester that user talk pages, as distinct from user pages, may not be deleted under this rule. They can always go to MfD and ask for expedited attention--things can move fast enough there. If it is really too urgent for that, it should probably me a matter of oversight and office. Most admins usually have good informed judgment, but I would not base any rules on the assumption that every one of us always does. DGG (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarify G6

Per this discussion at the Village Pump, I'd like to propose the following clarification be amended to criterion G6:

This criterion covers only purely technical uses of the deletion feature, and should not be applied to cases where any actual original content is permanently deleted.

Does anyone object? Improvements to the wording are welcome, of course. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't object with the intent, as that is how I believe G6 is supposed to work. I think adding it as a footnote should do the trick without clutting up the actual text too much. Sort of a little reminder that actually deleting things isn't what G6 is for. The wording you propose is pretty good, and I certainly can't come up with anything better. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
From one that I just saw, It definitely needs some clarification as and maybe even a new title. 'Housekeeping' and 'maintenance' are terms too close to the general idea of an admin as 'janitor'. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I used to deleted unused templates under G6; it was always kind of nice (in my mind) to have a generic housekeeping criterion... --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We have T3 for that now; even so, mostly find it stuck on template redirects, which don't seem to be what it's there for. —Cryptic 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No we don't, I had this argument with MZ at the time. T3 is for templates that are unused and ... ; they have to also satisfy one of the other criteria. Happy‑melon 14:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. I actually think we should go a step further, and eliminate G6 entirely and enumerate its legitimate uses. Of the articles I've found tagged {{db-g6}} by non-admins, there's been a bare handful of correct ones (mostly history merges and deletion-of-a-redirect for page moves, which I now see you mentioned in the linked discussion) and many, many more that can be characterized as "I couldn't find a real reason to speedy this but I can't be bothered to take it to XfD where it belongs". —Cryptic 19:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of the places where I've used G6 in the last 8 months:
  1. [21] Jumping the gun on a {{db-catempty}}
  2. [22] Someone created a talk page, then put the same request on the page, so I was cleaning up.
  3. [23] (and talk) a page had been deleted at user request, restored temporarilly for another user, and then I deleted for the user who had requested the temporary restore even though it was outside their own userspace
  4. a case where the same editor has put identical content on two main space pages, I've deleted one and made a disambiguation page at the other
  5. [24] author of a page acknowledged that it was original research and didn't belong, but I felt it didn't quite meet the single contributor test
  6. [25] someone posted a talk page message intended for a user at the page of a non-existant user (capitalization error)
  7. [26] An article was dual posted to the article page and the talk page
  8. As part of history merging
  9. [27] Someone creating their userpage in the main article space, and had already realized the mistake and created again at their userpage, but hadn't blanked or tagged the mainspace page for deletion
  10. [28] Article space page was an attempted redirect to a user talk page in the German wikipedia
I've also used it in cases where I could have cited vandalism, but the cases I cite above all are non-controversial housekeeping. This list demonstrates that we can't possibly enumerate all the silly and obvious cleanup issues that will be needed. GRBerry 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GRB, and I think we could help this by clearly enumerating things it could not be used for--at the least, let us say that it should not be used when another category is appropriate. We could specifically say, that anyone asking in good faith could get a G6 restored on request, by any admin without need to consult the deleting admin, since it can only be used for uncontroversial housekeeping. DGG (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still unconvinced. I'm not saying those deletions were wrong, or even that they should have been under other criteria (though I must admit puzzlement that you thought this prevented a g7); administrators made similar IARish speedies before G6 and would continue to do so if we removed the criterion from WP:CSD. What I'm saying is that having something so broadly and poorly-defined listed here—and especially having a template like {{db-g6}}—isn't doing any favors to non-administrators. —Cryptic 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Got a more concise way of saying it, finally. Just change housekeeping to technical deletions. That should work, right? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a little clearer. DGG (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects I'll change it in a few days. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the process for a part-copy article?

A new article, The beirut has been created. It's in Italian, which I would suspect would qualify the page under CSD G1. The first section of the body text however is a direct copy of the band's section on this page. WHat's the best way to proceed in this case? Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was all cut and pasted from [29]; I've deleted it per G12. But the general procedure for partial copyvios is to simply blank the copied part, citing the source in the edit summary. If what's left doesn't constitute a viable article anymore, it may then be nominated for deletion. (Consider using PROD for this.) Of course, if all that would be left after removing the copyvio would be speediable under criterion A3 (or G1-3), it can probably be ignored entirely and the entire article considered to be substantially a copyright violation. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the response, it's much appreciated. Gazimoff WriteRead 10:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, for the record, being foreign language in and of itself does not make an article qualify for any of the CSD. Usually when you hit these you should place a {{translate}} tag on them so someone who knows the language can handle it. Sometimes it does meet one of the CSD, but not because the page isn't in English. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the info. It'll be another thing to bear in mind when doing page patrol. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Subst

Quick question: do I need to use subst when proposing a speedy deletion, or just the template itself? -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't subst them; you shouldn't need to (if you need to change the display of the template, it's probably not a CSD candidate!), it's easier to clean up if the article is kept, and it's easier for you to type. Happy‑melon 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

G4 after speedy while at AfD

G4 , speedy for recreation of deleted material, quite rightly does not apply unless the deletion has been via an XfD process. The wordign of the policy is "deleted via a deletion discussion." (It would be unfair to have the result of a summary process used as a precedent for the article evermore.) But we close a lot of AfDs as speedy these days, if someone there thinks it appropriate and nobody challenges it, & it seems counterproductive to not let the worst of the articles brought there be redeleted by G4. They have after all been at least exposed to wide community attention. Odd to see me arguing for an extension of the speedy criteria, but a clear illustration of this is now at deletion review WP:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 16, Dov Soll. (2 AfDs , in fact, with a speedy delete close in each). DGG (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take up the opposing view. :) If the article was previously speedily deleted, why should G4 be used instead of the original speedy reason (I assume A7 in this case -- I'm too lazy to look *grin*)? There really isn't any reason to extend G4. If A7 still applies to the article, use A7. If A7 no longer applies, the article has obviously changed enough that G4 shouldn't apply, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Fabrictramp says it well. If the prior speedy criteria still applies (or even if a new criteria applies), it can be re-speedied. If none applies to the current iteration of the article, then G4 can not apply unless there has been an actual discussion. A speedy-closure still counts as a speedy-deletion. I might give credence to a deletion discussion that's closed early in day 4 (instead of going the full 5 days) but a listing that's only open for a few hours doesn't have that assumption of visibility and consideration. Rossami (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is R3 limited to "recently created"?

If we find an implausable typo that was somehow missed, why does it matter when it was created, and force us to go through the PITA of RfD? Someone could always dispute the speedy based on its implausability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Because many things that are assumed to be "implausible typos" were actually the original locations of articles and hold the contribution history of the article content. (Remember that the wiki software was only relatively recently changed so that pagemoves record the move in the pagehistory.) Also, the older the redirect is, the more likely it is to have been linked to. Current links within Wikipedia can be found via "what links here" but older links will still be scattered throughout pagehistories (and could be restored if a page has to be reverted, for example to clean up vandalism) or could be external to Wikipedia. They might not even be on-line. If a redirect was created in the past few minutes, it's highly unlikely that anyone has made any good-faith links to it but if the redirect has been around for a while, it deserves community discussion to see whether there is a likelihood of external links in that specific case. Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Something that appears to you to be an implausible typo may well qualify under one of the WP:R#KEEP criteria. RfD has some experience sorting those out. Speedies have proven to be not so reliable. Rossami (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
One more thought. Unless a redirect is actively harmful or confusing, there is virtually no point to "cleaning up" a redirect. Rossami (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that used to be the case, but now that the search box on the left of the page automatically populates before the "Go" button is pushed, we often get terrible misspellings or misformats that appear before the correctly spelled/formatted article title appears. I am thinking specifically of Connecticuit, George W. Budh, and Rent (musical: these and many many others appearing in the search box simply make the encyclopedia look bad. What if we took out the "recently created," but added something like "provided there is not significant content in the page history and no mainspace articles appear in the "what links here" - would that address enough of your concerns? I also have a problem that "recently created" is so indefinite: you interpret it as "past few minutes"; I interpret it as "in the last month." And you have to admit that the "cost" (in editor time, etc.) of recreating the occasional misspeedied redirect is de minimus, esp. when compared with the amount of editor time RfD takes (such is not the case for full articles, of course). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you're trying to solve the wrong problem. If the concern is that those misspelled titles are showing up in the new type-ahead feature of the search box, the right answer is to exclude any redirect tagged with {{R from misspelling}} from the list that populates the box. That would seem to be a fairly simple fix. Rossami (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion where I could raise the request to make that exclusion? WP:AN, perhaps? I think it may take a long, long time for WP developer resources to complete that fix once requested, don't you agree? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that it involved technical features WP:VPT might be better. Hut 8.5 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In the past I have supported the extension of R3 for older articles that are certain categories of "typos" like when they have quotes , apostrophes, etc. I think we have to reconsider that. I nominated tenths of old redirects of that kind of typos and all were deleted successfully (maybe only one or two survived with "no consensus"). -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_29&oldid=1145852682"