MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Now that we have this, would we like to pick some of my reasons and put them in? Some of them could be pretty standard and accepted (copyvio, attack, some of the image and category ones). ^demon[omg plz] 12:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added some which I feel are the most common, avoiding images as these deletions are very often script-based. GDonato (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've disabled my script so we don't get extra stuff cluttering the page. ^demon[omg plz] 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD G6: Making way for an uncontroversial move[edit]

I'm not sure that one is needed, since the software automatically deletes the destination page when you move a page on top of the other (Deleted to make way for move). Honestly, I can't think of much G6 that are repetitive enough to be in the DropDown. -- lucasbfr talk 10:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is other widely used CSD G6 action - history merges... But I kind of agree, when CSD G6 is used, you probably want to either use the default message or explain it better in the delete reason anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List item titles as opposed to source in list, expand list[edit]

I must admit, for all that this is a welcome improvement to the Mediawiki delete interface, it breaks a lot of functionality for me. There are a couple of relatively small changes, which would probably make the list much nicer to use, of which I can think immediately. Since this page now affects anyone, I am unlikely to be bold about it.

  1. Custom titles for each element in the list should be allowed (it appears that they are currently not), and for speedy deletions, should begin with the letter-number of the reason (e.g. "A7") so that reasons can be quickly selected using the keyboard rather than the mouse (I used to press tab-tab-g-1-return for obvious nonsense deletes. That is much more effective than selecting the list, scrolling to G1, releasing, and pressing enter). This is one of the things that really bothers me, since it greatly limits the effectiveness of the drop-down list in making (my, at least) deletions more efficient, and this page breaks CSDAR in respects of quick use (tab order).
  2. We should have all of the speedy deletion criteria available rather than just a selection, and preferably also sub-reasons for some others like is currently being done for CSD A7: User:Nihiltres/monobook.js contains the value table that I left lying around from CSDAR because it includes custom reasons that would make more sense to newbies, such as a CSD G7 sub-reason "CSD G7 (blanking): New page blanked by author" as opposed to "CSD G7: Author requests deletion".

These are a couple of things that, in my opinion, would vastly improve this new feature. While #1 will require a feature request, #2 is simple as long as there are no technical reasons for keeping the list short. Of course, this is my opinion, so I'd like to see what other people think as well - I would prefer not to make what I see as an improvement only to have it frustrate another. Please give your opinion - this is a new feature that we can all work to improve. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add[edit]

CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted content) and CSD R1 (Redirect to non-existent page). Also, image related reasons may be quite helpfull. EdokterTalk 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the image delete reasons... I see the drop box doesn't appear on image delete pages. EdokterTalk 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Garion added the image delete reasons, but there is still no drop-down box on the image delete page. EdokterTalk 14:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, didn't realised that. I just checked a random page to see if it worked. Did not not expect that it wouldn't work on images. Anyone knows how (if) to fix this? Garion96 (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I added R1 SQLQuery me! 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. EdokterTalk 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Love it![edit]

I've been using cut & paste from User:SkierRMH/My Admin Sandbox - would like to see the "Images" added:

Numbers 1 & 8 need name of specific redundant/duplicate image added SkierRMH (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The dropdown box does not appear for image deletion, so adding image CSDs would be useless. —Random832 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Non specific A7[edit]

I would suggest a general A7 for non-notability not covered by the specific drop down list. The details can be covered it the summary box. LessHeard vanU 09:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth...[edit]

...I've used the following reasons in the GreaseMonkey CSD script - specifically, I broke down CSD A7, I2 and I3:

  • [[WP:CSD#A7|Criterion A7 for speedy deletion]] - The article makes no assertion of [[WP:N|notability]] regarding the subject
  • [[WP:CSD#A7|Criterion A7 for speedy deletion]] - The article makes no assertion of [[WP:BIO|notability]] regarding this person
  • [[WP:CSD#A7|Criterion A7 for speedy deletion]] - The article makes no assertion of [[WP:ORG|notability]] regarding this organisation
  • [[WP:CSD#A7|Criterion A7 for speedy deletion]] - The article makes no assertion of [[WP:MUSIC|notability]] regarding this musical group
  • [[WP:CSD#A7|Criterion A7 for speedy deletion]] - The article makes no assertion of [[WP:CORP|notability]] regarding this company
  • [[WP:CSD#A7|Criterion A7 for speedy deletion]] - The article makes no assertion of [[WP:WEB|notability]] regarding this web site
  • [[WP:CSD#I2|Criterion I2 for speedy deletion]] - Missing or corrupt file.
  • [[WP:CSD#I2|Criterion I2 for speedy deletion]] - Missing file; image namespace page for an image hosted on Commons.
  • [[WP:CSD#I3|Criterion I3 for speedy deletion]] - Image for non-commercial use only.
  • [[WP:CSD#I3|Criterion I3 for speedy deletion]] - Image use approved for Wikipedia only.

Any thoughts on whether or not it would be a good idea to add them here too? I personally found this very handy. Also, I think the autogenerated messages should use the longer text form, like above - newbies might not get the mysterious abbreviations, linked or not, and I'm in favour of actually legible deletion logs... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no idea why this list wasn't created with all of the article and general criteria - that's what it should probably contain. If no one objects, I'd like to make the list more or less complete for the speedy deletion criteria at least, including some common good-form criteria like CSD G6 for page moves, et cetera. If you object, I'd like to know: why should we keep this list short? Nihiltres{t.l} 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I would object to significantly lengthening the general and article sections so that people don't have to scroll to get to half of the article criteria (if we use more A7 reasons). A7 is used a lot more than G5 and G9 (which can only be used by a handful of people). I would support putting multiple A7 reasons back in though. Perhaps the less used reasons (G5, G9, A2, etc) should go on the bottom if we want it to be complete but still have all the common ones as easily accessible as possible. Mr.Z-man 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favour of the longer form. Practically, I've not had any problems using the big list in GreaseMonkey (if I had had any problems with it I would not have proposed the addition =). Please consider this: Yes, it's going to be a little bit annoying for admins to pick the correct criterion from the list before hitting delete - the grand decisions of life are always hampered by little things... but in the end, the log entry will be sitting there until the heat-death MySQL codebase (circa 9999-02-31 =), and it's the end users who get burned if the log entry isn't clear, specific and readable. Always think of the newbies who have to figure out the answer to the question "why the heck was this article deleted". =) This is why my messages versions of the messages, above, are verbose (i.e. "CSD" spelled out) and specific (with links to the notability criteria in question). Just a thought - I believe we can find the proper balance for these! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


OK, since the image delete page does not display the dropdown box, we'll have to ask a developer to implement it on that page as well. In anticipation, I've created MediaWiki:Deleteimagereason-dropdown and put the image reasons section in there. Now, how can we ping a developer? EdokterTalk 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One word: Bugzilla. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Done! EdokterTalk 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been implemented in release 20122. The image delete reason dropdown text is now at MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. I don't know when it will be life yet. EdokterTalk 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


The reason in the text box is appended to the end of the one selected from the dropdown, so reasons that require additional information could be added to the list. (also, this also means information that should not be in the deletion log still must be removed, for e.g. attack pages - I added a warning to that effect on the deletion page a few days ago) —Random832 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A7 now too long[edit]

The recent change made A7 WAAAY too wide for most browsers. Any chance on a compromise on the text? The long one says:

Article on person|group|organization|web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance

The version before that says:

Article does not indicate subject's importance or significance

Do we really need the explicit "person|group|organization|web content"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I say we go back to the old summaries. EdokterTalk 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanking other/additional reason box[edit]

Is there a way that when you select an autoreason it blanks the other/additional reason box. When I pick an autoreason I don't want that info in the log and to delete it by hand every time is kind of annoying. See also this discussion on the original script discussion page. Garion96 (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Very easy to do with a userscript. One could also add litle (x) button to blank that with a click. BTW, I also happen to have a sript that generates automatic summary preview, for those who like detailed explanations that do not always fit ∴ AlexSm 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A way to hide it?[edit]

Is there a way to hide it? I don't use the menu, and it messes my browser up. Maxim(talk) 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, simply add #wpDeleteReasonListRow {display:none} to your personal CSS file (by default to monobook.css) ∴ AlexSm 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I also recommend the following CSS for any admin, this should hide labels "Reason:" and "Other/additional reason:" on the left, making more room for the reason field ∴ AlexSm 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#wpDeleteReasonListRow td label,
#wpDeleteReasonRow td label {display:none}
#wpReason {width:100%}


It would be sensible to include Prod and XfD as deletion reasons. Those two should be separate, but should AfD/CfD/MfD/TfD have a separate entry? violet/riga (t) 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For deletion most admins link to the related discussion page. A prod deletion must state the reason why the article was deleted, usually the nominator's reasoning. An auto deletion summary would not be helpful in those cases. Garion96 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that should still be encouraged, and choosing XfD as a deletion reason should complement that rather than replace it. violet/riga (t) 09:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree in that if an admin is pasting a link to the related deletion discussion page, adding the extra step of selecting from the drop down menu is unnecessary. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


It appears that the deletion reasons system has changed - is this now deprecated? violet/riga (t) 09:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been replaced by JavaScript (imho without imho any good reason), see MediaWiki talk:Sysop.js#Deletion dropdown listAlexSm 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm working on a script that not only automatically clears the box when an item is selected, but also automatically selects an item from the list if a deletion tag is found in the content. This will probably be accompanied by an expansion of the list, to include more of the reasons that appear in sysop.js and not here (this replaces the existing script in sysop.js) —Random832 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you switch back to this "built-in" list, you could also beautify it a little, so that [[WP:CSD#G2|CSD G2]]: Test page becomes simple CSD G2: Test page in the drop-down list (sample code is below). P.S. You could use a local file for testingAlexSm 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
var select = document.getElementById('wpDeleteReasonList')
 for (var i=1; i<select.length; i++){
   option = select.options[i]
   option.title = option.value
   option.text = option.value.replace(/\[\[[^|]+\|([^\]]+)\]\]/,'$1')

My script already does this, actually, I guess great minds think alike. My regex handles a few more cases: re = /\[\[([^\]\|]*\|)?([^\]]*)\]\]/g, '$2'; ...; o.text = o.text.replace(re,'$2'); - anyway, the first release version is ready to go at User:Random832/monobook.js; feel free to copy it for testing. —Random832 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please can someone correct one of the CSD A7 reasons to include "corporation", as there are non-notable corporations out there as well. A minor change, but probably a good one. --Solumeiras (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons already says "company". Sandstein (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As Sandstein said, "company" is already listed. EdokterTalk 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It didn't at the time of this request - I reworded some of them to work better with the script, and also made this change - sorry for not marking it as done. —Random832 16:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I've proposed an expanded version here (since most people are using Ryan's script and don't seem to have a problem with the length of the list, and here it's going to automatically pick a reason). Anyone have any objections? —Random832 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#deletion reason scriptRandom832 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A note on format[edit]

The format of the text of the items in the list is significant to the script in sysop.js. The entries must start with either (e.g.) "CSD G1:" or "G1:" after wikilinks have been replaced with their text. Also, please contact me before changing the available A7 choices. The text after the ':' is not significant to the script and can be changed freely. —Random832 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD T3[edit]

I would like to add T3, but I don't want to break it. Suggested addition:

** [[WP:CSD#T3|T3]]: Templates not being used (substantial duplication/functionality provided by other template)

thanks, xenocidic (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added it and it works great! « Gonzo fan2007 (talkcontribs) @ 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
cheers, thanks! –xenocidic (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanking additional reason box[edit]

It used to be that this box was empty when choosing a reason, unfortunately not anymore. Is it possible to at least automatically blank this when you choose G10 or G12 as a reason. Garion96 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Expired PROD[edit]

Is there a way to add this as a choice, if only to provide a cleaner deletion summary? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, editing the page to include such an entry is easily possible. Wouldn't it, however, be better form to simply use the "delete" links on the prod template itself which supply the reason given? This saves the step of having to manually select an "Expired PROD" entry and is more transparent to non-admins who cannot view deleted revisions. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus, limiting the "Expired Prod" selection to the Prod template itself helps keep the article from being accidentally deleted too early, since that option does not show up there until the full five days have elapsed. — Satori Son 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Good call. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Other/additional reason box[edit]

Is there a way to disable the automatic blanking of the "other/additional reason" box when a deletion reason is selected from the dropdown list? While the content should not appear in the deletion summary in some cases (e.g. G10, G12), it can be useful in most others. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask that this isn't disabled for everybody. There must be a way to do it on an individual basis. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
My preference would be to disable this as the default, with editors being able to opt out using a script, but I'd have no problem with the automatic blanking if there was a script that would allow individual editors to override it. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A7 wording[edit]

I've reworded the A7 dropdown menu wordings. Per a current thread on WP:ANI (and previous experience), the current wording can be misinterpreted as insulting by the subjects of deleted articles. There's no reason to cause offense, even if it's unintentional and due to a mis-reading of the notice, especially since by definition the notice's intended audience is usually a new editor.

From previous edit summaries and comments here, I understand long menu items might not show up on all browsers, but I think this is a small price to pay; The first 4 words should be enough for the admin using the menu to choose the correct menu item, and the full summary will show on the page. If I've misunderstood this problem, and I've actually broken something for some browser, feel free to revert, but I'd then like to discuss here other wordings that are less BITE-y and prone to misinterpretation. --barneca (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"What is page widening" he asks! Please see this screen shot. We are viewing Wikipedia in a window 844 pixels wide - which is by no means unnaturally narrow. Most of the text has adjusted to fit within the window but the dropdown box for the edit reasons has not adjusted and extends out to the right of the window. I have to use an horizontal scroll to get to the dropdown selection tab. Barneca, how wide is your window?
OK, it is not a big deal but, I ask did this change really make the message more mordant? (And what does it matter anyway? They are non-notable - we don't need them on Wikipedia!) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation; that doesn't happen on my screen. My window doesn't take up the whole screen, but I'm using about 75% of a 1280 pixel window, so I guess I have about 1000 pixels to play with. I didn't know the dropdown box bar wouldn't rescale.
What I'm trying for is something that:
  1. Makes sense
  2. Is a reasonably accurate description of the CSD criteria (in particular, somehow indicates the problem was a lack of assertion of notability, rather than a lack of notabilty)
  3. Can't be misinterpreted as a slight on the subject (i.e. "Real person who is not notable") The reason we care about this is twofold; so we aren't being dicks, and to reduce the frequent blowups that occur on ANI and talk pages. We may not want an article about them on Wikipedia, but we're not looking to banish the author, either.
  4. (new) Fits in a relatively narrow window.
It's going to be hard to meet all 4, and something will probably have to give, but we can try. The key question is: how much room do we have to work with? When you changed the A7(group) text, did the dropdown edit window fit in your screen? i.e., were the other relatively long descriptions still short enough? Is A7(group) the only one we have to condense? --barneca (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made a slight wording change on the A7s: "that it meets" changed to "meeting". It's not intended to change the meaning or tone, just reduce the width by five characters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How's the current version look? I'm likely biased, but I think it does a fair job meeting items #1-4 above. They're still the longest ones there, but are all shorter than the old A9 description which no one has complained about. --barneca (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of extraneous words were apparently just added.
I now see that this is a "work in progress", but since these are typically the longest lines, I think we should try to stay as concise as possible. Words like "article" are unnecesary in the "A" series of CSD. And a "biography" can refer to more than a "real person". - jc37 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, which discussion at WP:AN/I? - jc37 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It was archived this morning, I guess: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Problem with IP user. --barneca (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Yes, biography can be for a fictional character too, but it doesn't matter; hopefully admins aren't getting their criteria from the dropdown menu; these summaries are for editors and readers who want to know why the article was deleted.
  2. So I gather this edit means that Item #4 above is more important than anything else? You just reverted back to the beginning, and haven't fixed anything. At least suggest an approach you won't just revert.
  3. I'll find a link to ANI in a second done; edit conflict has me paranoid I'll lose my stuff if I try to find and insert the link now. --barneca (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I started to try to "guess" what the problem was in order to help devise a possible solution, but realised I would be better off reading the discussion first : ) - jc37 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after doing some reading I noticed a couple things:

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs may need to be updated per (the new) A9.

The second is that the goal here seems to be to somehow indicate in the edit summary that the editsummary refers to the article and not the topic of the article?

Perhaps we're being too explanatory. We already have the link to the relevant guidelines, so perhaps shortening even more may be appropriate. - jc37 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the word "article" to each member of the A series, which should resolve the concerns, and also removed the "type" of the A6, since there are links to the guidelines.
Does that achieve what was wanted? - jc37 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that we may have been over-explaining; the links to WP:BIO, WP:GROUP etc are all right there, and re-describing something relatively obvious is what was taking up the most room. My only remaining quibble is, I'd prefer to see a reference to "inclusion guidelines" rather than "importance or significance". Imagining that I'm a hypothetical (former) article subject, I'd much rather see something saying that I don't meet inclusion guidelines than be told I'm not important or significant. compare:
  • Article doesn't indicate importance or significance
  • Article doesn't indicate satisfying inclusion guidelines
  • Article doesn't indicate subject meets inclusion guidelines
  • Article doesn't indicate meeting inclusion guidelines
  • Article doesn't indicate meeting of inclusion guidelines
  • Article doesn't indicate inclusion guidelines have been met
Or something similar. --barneca (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait, I think I like this the best:
IMHO, that kind of nails items 1-4 above, and is only 1 character longer than yours. --barneca (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
We should avoid "assertion", since that's often a synonym for WP:OR.
How about removing "indicate" (and -ing) from some of your examples above? - jc37 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn the actual CSD criteria use the word "assert", but I just checked and they don't. I'm crazy or they've changed. Anyway, I'd lean towards having one or the other, that seems an integral part; the CSD criteria themselves make a big deal of the fact that the "indication" of notability is missing, not they they are non-notable. But, if you do't like assertion, we could go back to indication:
In any case, the longest of the long list of options above is still shorter than G4, I2, or T3. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added the above, though I didn't add the second link, for the length reasons we've already discussed. - jc37 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I like the second link; it doesn't add anything to the drop down menu length (I've checked before, and the menu only extends to fit the visible text), and it more clearly answers a newbie's "what inclusion guidelines?" question than assuming they're wise enough to click the (bio) link. But if you have other reasons for not liking it, I'm happy with what we have now.
Your key insight here was that it was really redundant to describe what kind of article it was, when (bio), (group), and (web) were already there. That shaved off a lot of text. --barneca (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
As an alternative, I keep a copy of ^demon's old CSD script in my userspace (User:AuburnPilot/csd.js). In addition to a slight difference in wording, it also addresses the issue brought up by RHaworth above, as it uses a much smaller drop down box. - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Assume, for the moment, that there was a hypothetical admin (not me! I'm plenty smart!) who didn't know javascript from his big toe. What would I this hypothetical admin do to run this script? Just copy it into his monobook.js file, purge, and everything would be self-evident? Or is it trickier? Is there a FM somewhere for me this hypothetical admin to R? --barneca (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of the blind leading the blind, I believe all you'd have to add is importScript('User:AuburnPilot/csd.js'); to your monobook.js, purge, and go. - auburnpilot talk 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This deleted diff from ^demon's userspace may be of some help. - auburnpilot talk 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It works! [1] And best of all, if I understand correctly, I can save a copy in my own userspace and twiddle with or add descriptions to my heart's content. Now I can have that "Because I am a mighty admin and you're not!" rationale I've always dreamed of, in convenient pulldown menu form; that gets so tiring to type after a while. Thank you, AP, that's handy. Perhaps I shouldn't fear technology so much after all. Now I'm off to install Huggle and create my own Bot. --barneca (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
the current default wording is too restrictive. It is being interpreted as "no indication that it will meet inclusion guidelines"="will meet inclusion guidelines=will pass AfD, while it is clear that deletion policy does not at all require this. I'm not sure of a brief way to improve it without using the previous justly criticized negative wording.
  1. "no indication of meeting notability guidelines" is preferable to no indication of notability, for it correct implies they are merely our peculiar guidelines.
  2. "no indication of possibly meeting notability guidelines" is better than that, because its weaker, or
  3. "no indication of possibly meeting inclusion guidelines" -- this keeps out the word notability, butdoes properly make it a little less restrictive. DGG (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I changed "possibly" to "may" for length reasons, and re-worked the sentence. That should hopefully be better. - jc37 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


When you visit MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, you'll see that there's far less on the page than you expect. The material has not been removed. Using parser functions, Happy-melon has made it so all options are now available, but we only see the options for the namespace we're on. All options were not previously listed, they are now. The list has grown, not shrunk. View this in edit mode and you'll see this in action; but if you look at the page itself, it looks bare. It isn't. ➨ ЯEDVERS in a one horse open sleigh 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is so awesome that I'd have wanted to implement it earlier had I known that the page supported using ParserFunctions (not all MediaWiki pages do). Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding current PROD category to the dropdown[edit]

Aitias (talk · contribs) added the current PROD category to the dropdown[2] but Skier Dude (talk · contribs) disagreed and removed it again. I wonder what others think about that. I personally think it's a good idea to have it there as it makes PROD-deletion easier and we could have one of the admin bots to update the date every 24h. Regards SoWhy 12:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much work for very little benefit. Garion96 (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We can do it with parserfunctions so it automatically updates:

** [[:Category: Proposed deletion as of {{#time:d F Y|-5 days}}]]

Happymelon 13:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I think that would be a good idea. SoWhy 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that would be the greatest idea, as proposed: we sometimes get backlog and in that case, using the reason given above would be inaccurate if clearing out an older category. I'm also unconvinced that it's a worthwhile reason, based on the fact that prod templates allow autofilling of the deletion summary. While it might be useful to have a generic reason available, I'm not sure that this implementation is the best idea, and it's worthwhile to try devil's advocate on it. (Note: I'm mostly on wikibreak for holidays, I may not be able to respond further.) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually the PROD autofill is still broken. Happymelon 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I talking about something different? I mean the deletion links on the prod template itself, which appear once the prod's expired, and use wpReason to set the deletion summary via the URL. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
There are no deletion links. :) At least, I don't see one. — Aitias // discussion 15:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
{{dated prod}} contains the following code:
<span class="plainlinks">([{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{concern|}}}|wpReason={{urlencode:Expired [[WP:PROD|PROD]], concern was: {{{1|}}}{{{concern|}}}}}&|}}action=delete}} delete])</span>
This is shown iff the prod template is five days old. It sometimes takes a page purge to see it, though. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is an expired PROD. Why is there no deletion link? — Aitias // discussion 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I was talking about the autofill when you click the 'delete' tab, which now works again for CSDs but not for other templates like Prod and XfDs. Happymelon 16:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added Happy-melon's idea: Firstly this resolves the problem mentioned by User:Skier Dude when reverting me. Secondly, to reply to the concerns voiced by User:Nihiltres above: No one is forced to use this as a reason for deletion. However, it makes work extremely easier for those who use it. Therefore I don't see the point in denying it those who would like to use it. :) — Aitias // discussion 16:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My goal is not so much to exclude it as to improve it. I'd like to be sure that it works properly, especially in tandem with scripts (if applicable). My concern, as explained above, is that it will not be a good default reason to use under particular circumstances. By the way, go back and preview the last revision of that expired prod before it was deleted—you should see a "(delete)" link on the template. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion summary for expired WP:PRODs[edit]

Hello all. I've added given reason to the deletion summary for expired WP:PRODs, however, I've been reverted by User:Kylu. No reason for removing it has been given, though. As I've explained already in my edit summary, I deem it necessary to add this. The claim that some do not wish to use it is not appropriate — as already explained it is policy to provide the given reason in the deletion summary. Thus, I think it should be re-added as soon as possible. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 14:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I say leave it out, as I already removed it once with a reason which I specified in the edit summary. Your edit warring in the MediaWiki space needs to be avoided in the future if you make a change without discussion that is disputed. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Two (actually one) revert within 4 days is certainly not edit warring, Rjd0060. — Aitias // discussion 15:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's more reverting than what should occur in the MediaWiki namespace. Surely you read the notice at the top of the page that says "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page and/or Wikipedia:Village pump.". Your undiscussed modification to the page + somebody else undoing that edit + a revert without discussion = Something that shouldn't be happening. This is rather off-topic so I trust you'll take better care when editing this namespace in the future and I'll leave it at that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I will do. However I think calling it edit warring is a bit exaggerated. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how we should do the improvement, but I've always found the drop down reason in its former version unsatisfactory,; it says nothing at all. Remember, the person wanting to know what happened cannot see the deleted article and find out what was originally objected to. I've also added at the beginning tht I've confirmed the reason--it is not automatic that expired prods get deleted, its up to the admin, and a good many do not get deleted at that point. We need some more sophistication here to explain things better. DGG (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Move for removal of G10 entry in place of T1[edit]

Currently one of the lines for templates reads:

  • G10: Divisive or inflamatory template

As I've remarked on a number of occasions, not all templates that were eligible for deletion under former criterion T1 are eligible for deletion under G10. A prime example is the pedophilia userbox, for which criterion T1 was originally established; this userbox was placed by users voluntarily on their own user pages, and couldn't possibly be construed as attacks. This is why Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#T1 says "use General criterion 10 or Wikipedia:Templates for deletion as applicable." This is also why I re-deleted Template:Db-t1 after it was re-created as a redirect to Template:Db-g10. I move for this line to be removed from this dropdown. Dcoetzee 00:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if I receive no objection in the next 24 hours I'll go ahead with this change. Dcoetzee 19:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All the A reason=[edit]

All the article- whatever reasons seem to have disappeared from the page. What's been happening? DGG (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a namespace switch that only shows the reasons applicable to the current namespace, and article space isn't MediaWiki space. Check the page source. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A7 summary, reprise[edit]

There's been a lot of pushing and pulling over the A7 deletion summary, which is not really healthy given that each change introduces yet another variation on the theme into the log tables. It's probably time to sit back and make an informed decision before making any more hasty changes. This discussion might also be of interest. Happymelon 13:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up Happy-Melon. The removal of my restoration of a tailored message ([3]) was on the stated basis that there had been complaints from people being labeled not notable based on the previous deletion summary, and that this was the case even when it said failure to indicate "importance or significance" rather than "failure to indicate notability". As a starting point, can someone link to the discussion where these complaints were discussed and it was decided to water down the summary to the generic cipher that we have currently? My take is that hiding what we are doing because people can't parse the word "indicate" is unsupportable; that we shouldn't drop transparency because when we tell people the actual basis, some are offended. We're linking to A7 and at the same time white washing what it is out of some fear that people will find out what it is? This makes no sense.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Scroll up. ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 13:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The current reason is misleadign and is causing confusion over the standard for A7 deletions. See WT:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines? A better wording would be "Article does not explain how or why the subject is significant". DES (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Blatant" copyright infringement[edit]

I changed "Blatant copyright infringement" to "Copyright infringement" per the discussion at WT:CSD. The problem is that "blatant" appears to imply there can be no doubt. That is hardly ever the case and we need not wait until it is in order to delete, and we shouldn't be making accusations when doubts may remain. E.g. a new article is verbatim the same as a web page and the creator of the article did not indicate any copyright license. Clearly we need to delete for highly probable copyright infringement. But the creator of the new WP article may be the author of the web page and may have intended it to be public—that does happen here—so we shouldn't be making accusations. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change, copyright infringement shouldn't be on WP, "blatant" or otherwise. –xeno (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but we only speedily delete blatant examples of copyright infringement. If there's substantial cause for doubt, we discuss first. —David Levy 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion at WT:CSD? The one at which the proposed change was widely opposed? —David Levy 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to speedily delete in cases where the page is verbatim from an external web page or a book or the like, with no indication that it's suitably licensed for Wikipedia. But that's no reason to call it "blatant" copyright infringement when there's reasonable uncertainty about whether any copyrights were actually infringed upon, as is usually the case. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Patently obvious copyright infringement" ? –xeno (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Why not just leave it alone? People are going to delete pages when they want to delete pages, for whatever reason they want to. The dropdown lists are a simple convenience and people will just instead add their own reason or select the option that most closely relates. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say because WP:DEL does not allow people to delete pages "for whatever reason they want to". If an admin breaks policy, that's an abuse problem, but for those admins who want to adhere to policy (like WP:CSD), the dropdown should list those reasons when they are allowed to, as outlined on WP:CSD. SoWhy 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. They will select any reason they see fit from the dropdown menu. So having a town-hall meeting over some minor details just seems a bit bureaucratic. Does it really matter what it says? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it probably does, since the contributor who goes to look for the missing article will see the deletion reason supplied. I personally try to be clear for that reason especially. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So now we have yet another problematic dropdown (A7 is the other) for which I and probably others will have to spend extra time copying from an offline list to provide a proper deletion summary that tracks the actual criterion. Censoring the deletion reason by changing the language to hide or tone down what the actual deletion basis is per the actual criterion being invoked makes no sense. This is wrongheaded milquetoast political correctness that ultimately hurts us by lessening transparency.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that the suggestions below provide a deletion summary that tracks the actual criterion (copyrighted material, no permission) in addition to addressing concerns raised and providing a quick link to reveal to contributors how to address that problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I Like the idea and will incorporate that into my summary, but 'after the language actually linking the criterion the article was deleted under and describing that criterion tracking its actual language. Alone, it doesn't state the deletion basis and doesn't link to the deletion criterion actually used, which is non-negotiable for me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. So do you think something like "WP:CSD#G12: Copyrighted material, no permission" would work in the pull down? Or do you think that so long as the criterion itself uses the word blatant, the pull down must, too? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No "must", but in my opinion certainly a "should". I try to provide the external link being infringed as well, so this is what I did for one yesterday, incorporating both the CSD link, the criterion language and your suggestion. In order to make it fit, I used the shortcut, WP:COPYREQ in place of Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The extra language will not fit if the url is very long of course, and in those cases I'd sacrifice the add-on. When the drop down did say blatant, I would use it and add in the customize box, "of [url]". If it doesn't track the language I'll just customize, but I do think it should. I'm much more concerned about the whitewashing of A7 though, and think in the discussion higher on this page about toning it down, the rationale for doing so is very unsound.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, now, that's a thorough deletion reason. :) I think that the language of the drop down can be somewhat bitey, since I have seen contributors actually send letters immediately after an article has been G12ed, but I can see the benefit of working that out at the CSD page before implementing it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

G12 deletion message revisited[edit]

Although Michael's original change of wording to G12 here was made without consensus, I think there is more of a consensus around a change that would make the deletion summary less WP:BITEy and direct users on how to provide permission for sources that they own. On Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, Moonriddengirl suggested:

I suggested a similar alternative:

There's been little continuing discussion on this point so I thought there might be more interest here. What do you guys think? Dcoetzee 11:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I overlooked it. :) That works for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Repealing of T1[edit]

Hi all - since CSD T1 has been repealed again at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, this time with broader consensus (see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Removal_of_T1_redux), I was hoping I could ask a neutral admin to remove T1 from this list. Merely replacing it with another criterion like G10 would not suffice because at least some cases formerly eligible under T1 need to be considered under TfD, rather than speedy deleted. Thanks for your help! Dcoetzee 10:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


"Blatant" advertising? "Blatant" copyvio? So, we know the state of mind of the creators? We know that they think about promotionalism and copyvios exactly like we do, and that they decided to try to get away with it anyway? And even if we knew that ... what's the value in insulting them at the same time as we delete their article? How about dropping the "Blatant"? I see to be doing most of the deletion work in these cats these days, and it's a PITA to have to delete the "Blatant" so that I don't get accused of civility violations the next time I do WP:ER. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see #"Blatant" copyright infringement and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#"Blatant" copyright infringement. —David Levy 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen them; I WP:Update all the content, enforcement and deletion policies monthly. Which part of those policies did you want to discuss? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I didn't link to policies; I linked to recent discussions (on this talk page the CSD talk page) about whether to remove the word "blatant." —David Levy 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems you have an issue with the Criteria for speedy deletion, so this discussion would be better at WT:CSD. This dropdown only matches the phrasing of the actual policy, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12. If the policy is changed to omit the word "blatant" then we should remove it from this list. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I completely support the current wording. I have an issue with the belief that 3 paragraphs can be condensed into 4 words with no loss of meaning, especially since the 4 words chosen are insulting when viewed out of context. Most creators of these article who see the edit summary probably won't take the time to read our policy. Btw, part of the problem here is something that happens a lot on WT:CSD ... people talking past each other because they've got different audiences in mind. If you're talking with admins active in deletion work, then yes, "blatant" is a pretty good word. But that's a relatively small number of people ... if we've got something to communicate with each other about when we should or shouldn't delete, we can solve that problem by talking with each other, which I'm happy to do, but that's not the audience I'm talking about at the moment. I'm talking about the thousands of people who will see us leaving a word with a clearly insulting connotation ("disagreeably loud", "glaringly conspicuous"...Webster's New World) in an edit summary addressed in many cases to newbies, people who will wonder if we've read CIVILITY and AGF. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not you think using "blatant" is insulting is entirely a matter of opinion. Personally I think it's entirely appropriate, and I think many or most people feel the same. If we remove the word we lose the very important nuance that only glaringly obvious copyvios or adverts are elegible for CSD. What do you propose we replace the word with? Happymelon 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"disagreeably loud"? "glaringly conspicuous"? Does that sound neutral? I don't have a good ear for words outside of U.S. dictionaries; perhaps the connotation is different elsewhere, but I don't believe I've ever seen the word in print when the intent wasn't to disparage, as indicated in WNW (which is the desk reference of choice of most U.S. publishers). I'd go with "promotional", or no word at all, just a link to the section, if we can't accurately and neutrally summarize the section in an edit summary. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm American, and I don't view "glaringly conspicuous" (the definition that makes sense in this context) as insulting. There are other terms that might work in lieu of "blatant," but simply removing it would be interpreted by sysops as an invitation to begin speedily deleting borderline material warranting community review. —David Levy 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"Glaringly obvious" (Collins Dictionary); "glaring, obvious" (Chambers Dictionary); I can't find my copy of the OED but I expect it would be similar. "Blatant" simply doesn't carry the connotations you ascribe to it, at least in British English. And even in American English (ie most online dictionaries) it has these neutral interpretations as well as any disparaging ones. I don't think that "promotional" is an acceptable alternative: "promotional advertising" is just unnecessary repetition, as the two words are virtually synonyms. "Promotional copyvio" gives the completely incorrect impression that other forms of obvious copyright violation are somehow acceptable; the elegibility of copyvios for CSD has nothing to do with their purpose (to advertise or not to advertise) but purely how obvious, indeed how blatant, they are. Happymelon 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My point is, there is no reason this page should differ from the text at WP:CSD. It would just cause confusion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay ... I agree with Rjd; I disagree on several points with David Levy and Happy Mellon. Can I ask for one concession? When I delete copyvios, I want the summary to reflect whether I'm also deleting for advertising; the problem is that I can't type in the top drop-down box, I'm forced to either take it as-is or leave it. I'm not going to put "blatant advertising" in that box, and I'd rather not omit the information that I'm deleting as "advertising". Can we change the bolded part of CSD G11 and also the drop-down box to say "advertising"? The paragraph in G11 makes it clear what we mean, and what we mean is that any attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising is worth a speedy deletion, whether it's "blatant" (whatever that means) or not. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That would invite the same problem that I cited above. The current wording conveys that only glaringly obvious attempts to insert advertising warrant speedy deletion. Removing the word "blatant" (without adding a suitable substitute) would lead administrators to believe that any article written like an advertisement (which often describes legitimate articles in need of rewording) should be speedily deleted. (In fact, such articles don't even necessarily warrant AfD nominations.) —David Levy 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Who are these admins who are active in deletion work, but don't know anything about the criteria, and will base their actions on their fanciful interpretations of a single word in the dropdown list? If there are any, then the solution isn't to cater to their imaginations, the solution is to encourage them to read WP:CSD#G11. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
By "admins who are active in deletion work," I assume that you're referring to those who are active on a regular basis. I'm thinking more of the hundreds of sysops who speedily delete pages that they happen to encounter. Unfortunately, many do rely on the dropdown entries (and sometimes already misinterpret them). I strongly agree that they should read the CSD page, but we need to deal with the situation as it exists (not how it should exist), and we do that by keeping the dropdown entries as descriptive as possible.
Meanwhile, I don't share your perception that the wording in question is inherently insulting. —David Levy 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
While it may not be inherently insulting, I agree to an extent in that it does border on the assumption of bad faith. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I struck 3 of my comments; I've been on a new med for sinus problems today and it was making me more uninhibited. I still feel there's a problem that needs to be addressed, and I'm still deleting "blatant" from every edit summary, but there are better ways to approach this. At the moment, I'm thinking a WP:FILTER or bot might be an ideal way to make sure that everyone who performs a speedy deletion gets a clear message about what kind of advertising constitutes db-spam. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see another word also for "blatant" -- just one step milder. This unnecessarily antagonises people, many of whom are writing articles in good faith. I'm not sure just what word, though.
Additionally, "advertising" should be changed to "advertising or promotion" -- or, possibly, just "promotion" -- as someone who frequently deals with questions about my deletions, i keep getting the complaint, "we're not selling anything, so it can't be advertising." I explain, but having it in the message would be make it clearer to them from the start. DGG (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I have used the word "promotional" when I couldn't identify a product or company for just that reason. I'm okay with any word that doesn't have negative connotations. "Apparent advertising" and "promotional" would work for me ... when someone complains "Hey, I wasn't advertising!" I could say, "Yes, I understand, but it appears that way, and that's what counts on Wikipedia". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"Apparent advertising" is even broader than "advertising"; that wording would encourage sysops to speedily delete anything that even appears to be advertising (e.g. anything tagged with Template:Advert). —David Levy 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a very good point. David (Levy), would you be open to tackling this problem with a bot or WP:FILTER that lets us easily see just the speedy deletions (instead of all the deletions) daily? I would happily chase down admins who aren't deleting per CSD ... would that tackle your main concern? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That isn't a bad idea (regardless of whether the wording is changed), but I still don't see a problem in need of fixing (something to justify the new problems that would arise).
I do, however, respect the fact that you perceive a problem, and I'd like to come up with a better way to address it.
Perhaps we could consider some sort of compromise wording (such as "obvious" or "unambiguous"). —David Levy 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks David L. On DGG's point that sometimes G11 is "promotional", I do use it, but rarely, so I don't think we need it in the drop-down; I'm using A7 for most resumé-like or CV-like articles that were tagged G11, and if a CV-like article is about someone we really want to have an article about, then I try to save it. For most G11s, how about just "advertising"? Does that not have enough punch? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm just concerned that "advertising" would be interpreted to mean "anything written like an advertisement" (and I feel that it would be best to avoid creating a situation in which sysops must be monitored and corrected). —David Levy 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

←Okay, what's your preference, David L? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference is to retain the word "blatant," but I believe that other words (such as "obvious," "unambiguous" or "patent") could serve as reasonable substitutes. However, I don't know whether those examples address your concern (and it's possible that they raise other concerns). This is something that should be discussed. —David Levy 23:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"unambiguous" seems the most neutral of the 3, I'd be fine with that one. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I think "promotional" is essential. It applies much more than advertising to about half the cases i use it for. And it is important not to confuse no indication of notability with being an advertisement. sometimes articles are both, and then I tag for both, or i add the other reason when I delete it to be unambiguous. The point of G11 is not that its unambiguously written like an advertisement, but that it is not fixable by normal editing. Many is the terribly spammy article about something probably notable I've removed the promotional language from in a minute or two, if necessary by stubbifying. speedy is for what can;'t be fixed or isnt worth fixing. .
Well, agreed. Feel free to look at my deletion log and see if my practices line up with what you two are expecting. For instance, the G11 I was looking at a minute ago was Research Edge, LLC, a pretty spammy article (about a new-ish investment firm no less!), but the sources were solid enough to merit an article so I gutted and saved it. So DGG, do you have a suggestion? "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" maybe? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"primarily promotional or advertising" ?? DGG (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That works for me too. I started a thread over at WT:CSD since Rjd0060 would like to sync up the language, whatever we pick. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The word "primarily" alters the meaning in an unacceptable manner. An article consisting of 85% ad copy is "primarily promotional or advertising," and it should not be speedily deleted; barring a successful prod or AfD decision to the contrary, the other 15% should be retained and expanded. —David Levy 03:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, changing to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" per WT:CSD#"Unambiguous advertising or promotion"?. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No objections to the term unimbigouous regarding G11. G12 however should stay blatant though, if blatant is supposedly a harder term, that actually is a good think regarding copyvio's. Garion96 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The concern behind the change is that "blatant" might insult users (some of whom are acting in good faith), so I don't see how the distinction between advertising and copyright violation is relevant. The latter is worse (because it pertains to legal issues), but that doesn't mean that we want to insult users who mistakenly violate copyright. If "unambiguous" conveys the intended meaning for G11 (and I believe that it does), there's no reason why it isn't equally appropriate for G12. In both instances, we merely want to state that the policy infraction is clear-cut (and therefore needn't be discussed), not that it offends our sensibilities. —David Levy 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First I see no insult, or even a possible insult, in using the word blatant. This whole discussion seems to me finding a solution when there is no problem. Second, you work hard on an article when it is deleted as blatant spam. Ok, you might not like that and a softer wording could be ok. A copyright violation is different, a harder tone is good, if you're a good faith editor it shows that Wikipedia is protecting your copyright. If you're a "blatant" copyright violator..well..who cares what they think. Garion96 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The "who cares what they think" is indeed the same tone as "blatant", which is why David L substituted the neutral word "unambiguous". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not in the way I understand the word blatant. Garion96 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
As I stated in the above discussion, I don't regard the word "blatant" as insulting either. But others do, and if replacing it with "unambiguous" (an equally valid term) addresses their concern, I see no reason not to.
Again, the terminology in question is merely intended to describe the infraction's obviousness, not its severity. We have policy pages and templates for the latter.
Also, uniform wording makes the CSD page and dropdown entries easier to follow. Using different terms for the same purpose would be confusing.
And incidentally, I care what blatant copyright violators think. Some people don't understand copyright law and don't realize that they're violating a policy. I certainly don't want to insult someone who's only trying to improve the site. In fact, I don't even want to insult someone acting in bad faith. What good can come of that? —David Levy 01:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have put words in your mouth, David L. Thanks for your help. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No, your statement was accurate. I don't personally perceive the word "blatant" as insulting, but it's true that I suggested "unambiguous" in an attempt to address this concern. —David Levy 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, I cleaned up too many copyvio's on Wikipedia to care what a bad fait copyright violator thinks. But since I see no insult, and I think there is none, I don't think there is a problem. I do see the word blatant as a bit harder. And with copyright violations that is a very good thing. Garion96 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How so? What does the use of a "harder" term accomplish? What relevant information is conveyed in a three-word deletion summary that isn't covered by our warning templates and policy pages? —David Levy 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
What does the use of a "softer" term accomplish? From deleting copyvio's I noticed that editors read the deletion summary quite often. If that summary is "harder", good! We need to do as much as possible to prevent copyright violations here. But I think we just have to agree to disagree here. Garion96 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
What does the use of a "softer" term accomplish? That's been repeatedly explained above; in some users' opinion, the change reduces the possibility of insulting (and possibly driving away) well-meaning users who mistakenly violate policies.
You say that "we need to do as much as possible to prevent copyright violations here," but you still aren't explaining how using a "harder" term in a three-word deletion summary is going to accomplish that. Under what scenario would someone reading the word "blatant" instead of "unambiguous" (in addition to the detailed template left on his/her talk page) respond differently in a manner that "prevent[s] copyright violations" from occurring? —David Levy 16:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In that user's opinion yes. Since I obviously don't agree with him it won't reduce anything. The wording probably won't matter much, but maybe a little. The fact that we send as strong as possible a signal against copyright violations is a good thing. Garion96 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, the deletion summary's purpose is not to indicate the infraction's severity (which cannot possibly be conveyed in three words). We have templates that accomplish that and much more. —David Levy 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Experience tells me that the deletion summary is read more often than templates and policy pages. But again, I don't think we will ever agree on this. Garion96 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I await your explanation of how someone would respond differently (in a manner that benefits the project) upon reading the deletion summary "blatant copyright infringement" instead of "unambiguous copyright infringement." —David Levy 01:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I endorse the wording change, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Okay, it looks like "unambiguous advertising or promotion" will stick, but I still get "G11: Blatant advertising" showing up in the second box in the deletion screen and nothing in the first box as the default when I go to delete an article. Anyone know how to fix that? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's loaded from {{db-g11}}... like it says at the top of the page :P You'll need to update the corresponding templates for whichever criteria got changed. Happymelon 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see anything to edit, now I see it's hidden in a template on that page, I'll fix it. Thanks! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further review of A7 reason[edit]

The wordign present until today has been causing confusion over the standard for A7 deletions in some cases. See WT:CSD#A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines?, where the wording is under active discussion IMO a better wording would be "Article does not explain how or why the subject is significant", but other suggestions are under discussion. I urge that we find consensus before making further changes. DES (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi, shouldn't there be an option, "G3: Page-move vandalism"? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove unused "*Images and media" section[edit]

"*Images and media" section is never used: MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown was introduced a long time ago. — AlexSm 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify that? I can't find an "Images and media" section. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It's hidden inside the #switch in the wikitext. — AlexSm 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, so it is.Now when I search the source for "Images and media" it is found, whereas yesterday the same search resulted in "Phrase not found". I can't imagine what the problem was. (Both times I copied and pasted the expression from your message above, so I can't have mistyped it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done JamesBWatson (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Has the images and media section gone missing from the dropdown menu, or am I overlooking something obvious? - Eureka Lott 18:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we restore this? These options still need to be available for files hosted on Commons. For example, I recently deleted File:Dita Von Teese at Cannes 2007.jpg under F2, but I had to type out the edit summary because the rationale was no longer in the drop-down list. — ξxplicit 19:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. The options mentioned above were removed with this edit. It seems that MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown only works with images hosted on Wikipedia. Maybe we could restore the F2 option only? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that would do. — ξxplicit 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File deletion reasons[edit]

Could some more file deletion reasons please be added, as follows?

** [[WP:CSD#F2|F2]]: Unneeded file description page for a file on Commons
** [[WP:CSD#G8|G8]]: File description page for a file that does not exist

This, that, and the other (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. We already have these two:
** [[WP:CSD#G8|G8]]: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page
** [[WP:CSD#F2|F2]]: Corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons
are the new ones intended as replacements? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe drop the G8 one. (Although I still think "Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page" does not really cover "file description page for a file that does not exist" situations.)
Can we still have a duplicate of the change that was made at MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown, i.e. to replace the current F2 entry with
** [[WP:CSD#F2|F2]]: Corrupt or empty file
** [[WP:CSD#F2|F2]]: Unneeded file description page for a file on Commons
? — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Have split the WP:CSD#F2 one as above. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Is that necessary? It's redundant to the recent change at MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. - Eureka Lott 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I made both changes, against requests from the same person. Prior to yesterday, both dropdowns offered a single F2 option, now both offer two. The two dropdowns appear in different circumstances: MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown if there is a file on English Wikipedia; MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown if the image is on commons but there is a file description page in both places. See #Remove unused "*Images and media" section above. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Now I understand. Thanks for the clarification. - Eureka Lott 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


OK, so with the typical AFD template, when I go to delete an article it fills in the debate link automagically while leaving the primary reason dropdown blank. This results in a deletion as per "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articlename". If it's a SOFTDELETE, however, there's nowhere in the dropdown to indicate that. I'd like to be able to indicate a SOFTDELETE in the deletion log, if only to save some reviewing admin time later on. Since a SOFTDELETE is functionally different from both a PROD and a standard AFD, I think it makes sense to add it to the dropdown menu.

Since the dropdown comes before the other field, you'd have a deletion log that says "WP:SOFTDELETE; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articlename". It links both the policy (and the process for REFUND) and the debate. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen these "automagic" effects : )
So I'm guessing it must be part of some tool?
That aside, past consensus was to not have a "per deletion discussion" on this list, to try to make sure that the deleting admin explained the deletion, at least with a direct link to the discussion in question. - jc37 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If you use the tabs at top of page, you just get the standard list; but it used to be - and I can't find it any more - that if you go for the blue "delete" link on the AFD discussion itself, you got the automatic delete summary. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that when clicking the blue link suggesting deleting the talk page of a non-existent/deleted page. But I can't think of any other examples where I've seen that. - jc37 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It certainly happens if you click the blue "before deletion" link found in most (all?) CSD templates. Compare {{db-vandalism}} and {{db-hoax}}: both are for pages to be deleted under WP:CSD#G3, but the deletion reason text differs (one gives "G3: Vandalism", the other "G3: Blatant hoax"). I didn't mention the CSD templates earlier because this thread is about AFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I have some long-forgotten script installed. When I click the "Delete" button at the top of an article on which there is an AFD tag, the Other reason field is filled in with a link to the debate. I didn't know that wasn't typical - nor does it impact speedy deletions, unless they're already at AFD anyway. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, at Sonne (Schiller Album) the "delete" tab does go to - I think that the action of the "delete" tab is modified by the CSS applied to one of the <span>...</span> elements within the |text= parameter of the {{ambox}} inside {{Article for deletion/dated}}.
The links that I mentioned earlier may be seen on a TFD page, such as Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28, as "[ Closure: keep/delete ]" - they're part of the {{Tfd links}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Other reason" option[edit]

I've added an "Other reason" option because of the "Change in delete screen" section here. We won't use it much, but we really shouldn't allow broken software to force us to pick an established reason. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone figure out what caused it? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If they did, I didn't hear about it. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


Can I suggest we replace the G13 summary with the following?

Abandoned [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see [[WP:REFUND/G13]]
Abandoned Articles for creation submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13

Can I also recommend full protection of that redirect and its target? Thanks. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree that that is much better for drama avoidance, and I would tweak it for the same reasons, to add "Apparently" as the first word. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Picayune p.s.: also the "i" in "If" should be lowercase unless you replace the en-dash with a period and make the second part a new sentence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. I've lower-cased the "i", but left out the "apparently". Others are welcome to tweak it - Fuhghettaboutit, if you feel strongly about adding "apparently", feel free to make the edit. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I didn't protect the redirect or the target, as it didn't really seem necessary. Feel free to request protection at WP:RFPP if they start to attract vandalism, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you think someone could please attend to this request sooner rather than later? The fewer things deleted with the "concise" summary the better, in my view. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done I've reverted to the version of 19:05, 7 April 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It's happened again... I think we might need to add some code to MediaWiki:group-sysop.css to force the width of the combo box. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to revert again. I suggest that you send a message to those who have altered the text recently to discuss their changes here. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting to revert; that's why I didn't use an editprotected tag. The current text is not so bad so I'll put up with it for now. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 April 2014[edit]

After "** U3: Non-free gallery ", please add "** U5: Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation ". Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 April 2014[edit]

Please change "Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation" to "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okeydokey, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Please change G3: Vandalism to G3: Pure vandalism. Nerd in Texas (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems like unnecessary specificity. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 17:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


Fuhghettaboutit, Edokter: Yes, discussing this might be a good idea. I'm not convinced the inclusion or omission of 'credible' is important, but I do know that {{db-a7}} and company should use the same wording as the precooked deletion summary (at the moment they use "... does not credibly indicate ..."). ekips39 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, glancing over the criteria - I share Ekips39's view that inclusion or omission is not important however the addition by Fuhghettaboutit is can not be summarized by "so it is not even part of A7" as it is, in-fact the criterion seems to be built on the idea of it. Also the 3RR incident here which technical involves the use of administrator rights thus would come under a wheel war is hardly worth the effort what occurred here. On the relevant note; I'd support the addition of 'credible' into the criterion as it does seems a significant part of it. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
While there was technically three reverts by Edokter, please let's not go there. There was no wheel warring since there was no warring. Note that at my second revert I stated I would not revert again, and essentially invited Edokter's next revert if he still disagreed after reading my edit summary, following which we should discuss on the talk page, i.e., now. Anyway, to the heart of the matter.

My take is that omitting credible from "credible indication of importance..." leaves out crucial information for users to understand the deletion edit summary. Of course its "just" a summary of the actual criterion, which the person can and should actually read, but we should endeavor to give accurate information in edit summaries where we can, or why bother at all. And they certainly shouldn't mislead. Getting it right or making it as best we can is especially warranted where the edit summary is standardized and will be used and seen hundreds of times every day. Moreover, many new users only read the edit summary, so it should not say something wrong on its face.

Why it is a bad omission—why its absence will mislead and cause confusion—is that many A7s and probably a majority, make some statement that could be argued as a putative claim of importance or significance, but one that is not credible and so the article is deleted anyway. When scads of users see the reason their creation was deleted was because it contained "no indication of importance", where they see one, those scads of users will rightly be left wondering why their article was deleted when the criterion summarized for them did not apply by its stated meaning. They would correctly be able to claim the deletion was wrong, at least based just on the deletion edit summary. Why would we allow that when we can fix it by adding one word?

As noted above, that the claim must be credible is a key part of the criterion, which not only goes into detail about it, but we have deemed it an important enough issue that we have placed just above the criterion's text "Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance". The word credible should be added back in the dropdown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not how I read it. The word "credible" only appears in the statement as to what does not constitute A7. It also states that A7 has a lower threshold then the cited Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, so they should not be regarded one and the same. So when you say that "credible" should be part of the summary, you are pulling the word out of context... twice! And last, the dropdown should reflect the policy page. That means the word should only be included if it is in A7 to begin with (and in the same context). Otherwise you are basically forking policy to satisfy your own interpretation. This should not even be discussed, least of all here; the main text should only be discussed at WT:CSD or the Village Pump. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say that A7 has a lower threshold than Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance? I can't find that anywhere, though it does say that it has a lower threshold than Wikipedia:Notability. However, the opening sentence of WP:A7 doesn't use the word "credible", saying simply "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"; but on the other hand, the statement of what A7 does not apply to is an integral part of what it does apply to (the positive space is defined by the absence of negative space, and vice versa), and I fail to see why condensing A7 into a deletion summary wouldn't logically incorporate the full definition. A possible solution would be to change the opening sentence to "does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant", so that it would be internally consistent. ekips39 01:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed, citing WP:A7 only reveals that "credible" is used in the description, and to state that it is only used in a sentence describing what A7 does not apply to does not prove that it is not part of A7. However, it can be argued either way: On one hand, not only do WP:A7, Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and {{db-a7}} use the word, but it is possible to make incredible claims of significance and we should exclude those; on the other hand, it is arguable that a claim of significance is purely objective, as most such claims are implicit (rarely does one find an article stating "XYZ is significant because ..."). Finally, it never reached 3RR, as Fuhghettaboutit did not want to revert further. ekips39 22:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit: Sorry, I managed to overlook the scenario you present. I was already beginning to become convinced you were right when writing my comment, and on considering that users will think their article had an indication of importance and therefore need to be told that it must also be credible, I am quite sure that wording it that way is necessary. Now when does this constitute a consensus? ekips39 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
3RR doesn't matter is was reversing an already revered admin action (hence WP:Wheel warring) so let's not go there. At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much whether it is part of the log reason as people (admins and users) should be following and reading the policy. I agree with the concern that credible has been taken out of context so shouldn't be in the summary and a change to the policy should be requested on the policy talk page. Having said that, I also agree that it provides useful information to people looking at the summary so I've no objection to it being added if there is a consensus to do so. However I'd remind everyone that the way reversed admin actions work is if it's reversed the status quo prevails unless there is consensus otherwise. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) @Ekips39: It was added on December 22, 2008 after this discussion and has been added to since in various ways.

@Edokter: Why do you keep stating it is not part of the criterion. In an edit summary we need to summarize what something says. If that requires taking crucial clarifications from further in, that exist because they are necessary to an understanding, then that is also crucial to a summary, which by its very nature is a rewording, to capture what is meant as best as possible in a shortened wording. And it is crucial. The criterion says, in part "that it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." And that it "does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A7 does not apply to articles with a credible claim. That means that A7 applies to any article with no such claim, including those with no claim at all. That means you are singling out one single criterion for A7, even if it does not apply. That is the exact opposite of summarizing. The text should be should reflect the main text of WP:CSD, period. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You need to apply that argument to a concrete example to illustrate what you intend because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say here. Here. I'll give an example so we have something concrete to compare the current summary versus the proposed (and which all the A7 deletion templates already say, which this is in conflict with):

     "John Doe is eight years old and is the greatest skateboarder in the world!"

Does this make a claim of importance or significance? Yes, it does. Deleting this with the current summary "no indication of importance..." would accordingly be actually incorrect, misleading and confusing to the creator.

Does this make a credible claim of importance? No it does not. Deleting this with the proposed summary "no credible indication of importance..." would be correct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, A7 applies to any article with no such claim. No, deleting it with a summary saying "no credible claim of importance" doesn't fail to cover an article with no claim of importance whatsoever. What am I missing? ekips39 01:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have posted to WT:CSD to get some more eyeballs on this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Include credible Since credible is a fundamental part of this criteria. It ensures that "King of Mars" and "best skateboarder in his high school" both count. In fact, we have an entire page about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have always interpreted credible as meaning " something that a person would think in good faith important enough to be in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia " It's true that it this leaves a wide range of interpretation, but so would any wording. Even if the word were totally omitted, there would still be the implication of a good faith rational claim, and some knowledge of where they were posting. The example of John Doe a little above is not a good faith claim, assuming they know what WP is. Such postings are in my experienced often the good faith failure to realize that WP is not Facebook. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • After running for four days, this discussion has now been dormant for 15 days, so it seems reasonable to assume that the discussion is over, and can be closed by an outside observer who did not take part in the discussion.
I have read the discussion carefully, and I see a clear consensus to include the word "credible". (1) Of those who express an opinion on way or the other, there is a clear majority in favour of inclusion. (Some strongly favour inclusion, others take the view "it doesn't matter much but on balance I favour inclusion".) (2) Looking not at numbers, but at the strength of arguments, and how far they are consistent with Wikipedia policy (as we should do in assessing consensus), the reasons for excluding the word "credible" do not stand up. The definition of the criterion begins with "A7. No indication of importance..." and ends with "...Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." Everything in between is part of the policy, and there is no basis for counting some parts of it as somehow of less importance or relevance than other parts; for example, the argument is advanced that "The word "credible" only appears in the statement as to what does not constitute A7"; indeed so, and that statement is just as much part of the definition of the criterion as all the other statements in the definition. Even less rational is "That means that A7 applies to any article with no such claim, including those with no claim at all"; indeed, that is so, and any article with no claim at all certainly does not have a credible claim. "No credible claim" covers both articles without any claim and articles with incredible claims, which is exactly what the criterion covers according to the policy. There is no basis in the policy for using wording which makes it seem that only articles with no claim of significance at all count for A7, which is what removing the word "credible" does.
In view of the above, I shall restore the word "credible". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)