Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

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

Proposal to update R2 criterion for "Special talk:" redirects[edit]

Change to category criteria[edit]

Some of the category criteria were changed to encompass both renames and merges. The edit summary says there was consensus under "Opposed nominations", whatever that means. @Fayenatic london: could you please clarify this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for asking, so that it can be documented here. I opened the criteria from the WP:CFDS page and forgot that in fact they are transcluded into that page from this CSD page. Here is a permalink to the discussion in the Opposed nominations section on the Speedy CFD page.
Note that the heading was always "C2. Renaming or merging", as opposed to C1 which is for deletion of empty cats. Although "renaming" was then used in the summary title for four of the detailed criteria, most participants in the above discussion understood these to apply equally to merging. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I would call a consensus in the slightest. Mind you, I don't object, and I won't revert, but speedy deletion, being one of the most destructive processes when misused, should generally have discussion of even minor changes, and the discussion needs to happen here. The folks here are pretty good at spotting unintended consequences that can be caused by a poor choice of words. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good consensus when it comes to category issues! If you have a gander at the full discussions at WP:CFD, they often attract fewer comments than this speedy issue did. And this one wasn't really like a speedy deletion of an article or other content—no content was lost, because it's a category merge. It's simply taking an article which was categorized in an improperly named article and merging it to the pre-existing category which is properly named per the naming guidelines. Hundreds—sometimes thousands—of these category renames/merges are processed each week with simply a nomination and then zero follow-up discussion, simply because none is necessary. There's probably no need to make a federal case out of this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It was 4:1, although the opposer is also an experienced hand at CFD. I have no objection to reverting it for consultation here, if anyone thinks that should happen. My apologies for skipping that. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A7 to cover events[edit]

To everyone who contributed to the consensus to expand A7 to cover events: thank you! Swpbtalk 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new speedy deletion criterion A12[edit]

I've dug through the archives and this comes up every few years, but no one ever seems to be willing to work with the idea. Some new pages are created that are flagrant, bright, middle-finger-to-the-project violations of WP:NOT. I've seen articles that were simply fanfiction written by the author. I've seen articles that were clearly invented by the author but don't explicitly say so, thus flaunting A11. I've seen pages that were simply the lyrics to some song. I just saw Holt economic quiz answers in AfD that was just what the title implies: a list of answers for a high school quiz. @NawlinWiki deleted the article immediately after it was posted, but had to settle for NOTHOST and SNOW as rationale for a not-yet-replied-to AfD entry (no criticism on my part for his actions, textbook IAR). If admins don't IAR and delete it, they get prodded or sent to AfD, wasting everyone's time for a full week (unless snowed) before finally being disposed of. From what I've seen from the discussion archives, people seemed generally in support of an umbrella criterion that would allow for the speedy deletion of such articles, but cringed at the prospect of a criterion that simply allowed for the deletion of "unencyclopedic" articles as being open to abuse and misinterpretation.

So I propose we define a new criterion A12 that either (a) allows for the deletion of such articles with such careful, precise wording that it would be impossible to misapply or abuse it (would not include the word "unencyclopedic"; instead, would delineate it), or (b) enumerate such candidate articles à la A7, but for encyclopedic-ness instead of notability. As with A7, the bar would be much lower than GNG or similar that would send the article to AfD; it would have to be so uncontroversial as to be considered to be a technical deletion, and it would only apply for the list of such articles maintained by the criterion.

Would there be any support to attempt to develop such a criterion? Like I said, from what I've seen it seems as though people believe such a criterion should exist, but hesitate to attempt to create one for fear of an excessively liberal wording. I simply don't believe fear of criterion vagueness should be the only thing barring such technical deletions. Deadbeef 03:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn in favor of Jehochman's A3 method and the wp:snowing objections below. I'll leave the discussion open in lieu of putting an archive template on it in case anyone wants to expand on it (or pile on) but I have no interest in furthering my proposal. Deadbeef 01:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how about this? A12: Page is not an encyclopedia article and a complete rewrite would be required to make it into one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much what I was thinking, but I would guess the brevity would be a turnoff for some people. Deadbeef 03:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Not a good idea. It is too elastic and would be abused. The example you cited could have the unencyclopedic content blanked, and then you tag it with A3, "no content", or if you are an admin, just hit it with A3 straight away. Basically, if you have an egregious violation of WP:NOT you can make one of the existing criteria fit. Jehochman Talk 03:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That actually works; I hadn't considered that option. I had thought that A3 only applied if there was no content in the article and in the article's history; that isn't the case so your method works. I'll withdraw my proposal unless anyone else has a better idea. Deadbeef 04:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
If there's something in the article history, the page has been vandalized and needs to be reverted, so should not be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Removing content that is against policy is not vandalism. Deadbeef 06:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, but I think Oiyarbezpy might be saying if an article looks like junk because it has been vandalized, it should be fixed not deleted. Before tagging, check the history. Jehochman Talk 12:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I support an instance of expansion as described. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a reason we don't include WP:NOT reasons for CSD. They require subjective interpretation of the community. CSD should be things an admin can objectively determine on their own. Chillum 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • strong oppose any criterion based on WP:NOT as being unredeemably subjective. If something has been rejected time and again there is going to be a good reason for doing so, and any one proposing it again would do well to understand that reason and explain why it is either not now relevant or how this proposal deals with that reason. This proposal seems to do neither. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment While in principle I like the idea, and on other Wikipedias see 'not encyclopaedic' as a deletion reason, the setting up of criteria would probably rival the homoiousia controversies (see Homoiousian if not familiar with this load of high flying nit-picking crossed with proof reading). Yes, I know when something is not encyclopaedic. And I'm sure Thryduulf, NawlinWiki, Tokyogirl79 and Jimfbleak know too. (Naming names for no relevant reason.) But do we all agree on what is not encyclopaedic? "Shawn is awesome!!!!!!!!" - anyone disagree? That can go under context or A7 anyway - or even G11... Lyrics are usually copyright - if they're public domain, there's no problem in prod there. I don't like the 'blank it then no content' one. I'll revert there and then consider the future (or substitute an appropriate criterion). On the whole, I could see this one running to rival Cats. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Apart from G10 (and perhaps G12), there's no problem with PROD anywhere. WilyD 12:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chillum. NOT is too subjective to be a CSD. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose since most of these can be moved to other projects. That's why we have tags like {{Copy to Wiktionary}}, {{Copy to Wikiquote}}, {{Copy to Wikisource}}, etc. Lyrics in public domain, for example, can be moved to Wikisource. So, it's not really needed, and often the wrong thing to do. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with others that this doesn't seem to be a good candidate. Also, even without blanking, this seems in line with A3, and a slight expansion of A3 to "Article lacks encyclopedic content" would cover almost any reasonable proposed A12 scenario. VanIsaacWScont 23:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Contesting the CSD[edit]

In case of articles created by WP:AfC, can the editor who approve the article and moved it to mainspace, contest speedy deletion?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • It depends. Is that user an experienced user that has no other relation to the article other than approving it as an AfC draft or is that user a new editor who's appears to be a WP:SPA for the purpose of approving that article? There is a guideline at AfC that says drafts should have at least a 50% chance of surviving an AfD before it can be approved and if the user is an established AfC editor, then by all means they have a reasonable justification to contest a speedy delete. In those cases, it is probably better to just send it to AfD if you feel strongly it should be deleted and doesn't belong. There, of course, are exceptions such as the possibility of a G12 that the reviewer may have missed (it's really hard to catch them all). Hope this helps. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 07:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)