Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 38

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

Contents

New criteria proposal

I propose we create a new CSD category, for pages created by editors who are here only to screw around. Hidden page challenges, fantasy TV shows, etc. → ROUX  02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that technically fall under vandalism? "Blatant and obvious misinformation" HalfShadow 02:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if they would - there's been some controversy over admins deleting "hidden pages" in the past, but if I recall correctly the argument for deleting them was because they weren't productive, not because they were necessarily vandalism.--otherlleft 03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The controversy was largely over method, if memory serves. In any case, it's a ridiculous waste of time to send such pages--particularly the fantasy band/tv show pages--to MfD every time, as the result is the same every time. I say create the new criteria, if a tag is placed and an admin declines, can go to MfD similar to declined article speedies. → ROUX  05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see specific, narrow wording. Othewise this could be used to delete humor pages and such that MfD has in at least some cases kept. I'm not sure this is a sufficiently bright line criterion, and just how often does this come up, anyway? DES (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the need? If the pages are in the main space and obviously made up, G3 applies. If they are in the userspace, we have always had a more lenient approach since a.) normal readers will not see them anyway and b.) it does not really have any effect on other editors other than those who wish to become involved. MFD can take care of those few(!) cases where such pages violate WP:NOTMYSPACE but such pages do not exist in large enough quantities to justify a new criterion (requirement #3) nor is there a clear consensus as to which pages would fall under it (requirements #1 and #2) - "only here to screw around" is purely subjective. If you remember the discussion that MZM's large-scale deletion of such pages outside consensus created back in April, then you will also remember that there was no consensus that such pages should be deleted at all. See User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages for a very good analysis of the situation and prior discussions. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed R4: redundant and implausible punctuation

This is related to the "trailing commas" discussion that is already linked above - it occurs to me that we could cut through right through the lengthy discussion if we simply agree on a class of title errors that is so useless that it is worthwhile to speedily delete them without the requirement for recent creation. I understand the rationale of not breaking things that might be actually used, at least without discussion, and I support that reasoning in general, but I think that some redirects do meet a standard where even their creator would never miss them if they were gone. Here's my proposal for such a criterion:

R4. Redirects with redundant punctuation or markup

Redirects from titles containing unneeded leading, trailing, or surrounding punctuation, or any attempt to include wikimarkup, where the either the redirect target or an existing redirect to the same target is identical to the redirect text except for such punctuation or markup, and the punctuation or markup has no purpose not served by a page title without it.

Optionally, we could include some language specifically excluding punctuation redirects such as ;semicolon and the like, since they are plainly not to be deleted - but I think the "no purpose" clause handles this well enough without bloating the criterion text. Bear in mind also that this proposal is for a criterion without the "not recently created" clause in R3; a new criterion with that same language would be redundant.

Any thoughts? I'm going to post this at the discussion already mentioned, so I'll bet there are some. Gavia immer (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support it, or alternatively a modification of R3 "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, where the error is merely one of punctuation or markup, or is otherwise a very unlikely target for a link from an external site, redirects from implausible typos of any age." (with the rest of R3 unchanged) DES (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This is what I posted there: Because they clutter up search, and more importantly they just look silly? Face-smile.svg This is the track that I was on earlier, that we should use this as a good excuse to make this one piece of CSD more usable. The general concern with CSD (in my opinion, at least) is that if the criterion are not fairly stringent then people will naturally begin putting their own spin on interpreting them, and then we end up seeing not-so-uncontroversial deletions, if you see what I mean. FWIW, I more or less agree with the idea of simply removing "recently created", but on the other hand I'm sure that there's some good reason that was added in the first place, of which I'm not really aware. This is generally the one area of CSD that I think most people wouldn't mind seeing it changed to be less stringent, is all.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 05:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it the main reason for the "recently created" restriction is that when a redir has been around for a while, it becomes plausible that external sites will have linked to it, and deleting it may break such links. Given that redirs are cheap, and that no one ever sees them unless they go looking, any plausible negative consequence to a speedy deletion is enough to make the deletion controversial, IMO. DES (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but if the redirect is already implausible, how plausible is a link to it? In fact, one could make a case that the deletions that sparked this discussion could be considered a "reasonable interpretation" of R3: The "recently created" criterion is there to make sure incoming links aren't broken, and that is very unlikely for links that are the result of atypical typos. Shouldn't the server logs provide some hard facts about that? Paradoctor (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If they are so useless, wouldn't they fit under G6? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think so, yes. I think that would mean that R3 can be dropped, or reworded to state "you may apply G6 here" or similar. Paradoctor (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
It could just be made a template for a specific application of G6, ala {{db-disambig}} --Cybercobra (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • question' I don;t quite see how Wikipedia is actually going to be helped by removing these. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: B1 and B2

I hereby propose the following as new criteria:

B1. Any book that would be subject to deletion as an article, with caveats.
Books containing at least one blue link are not subject to A1 and A3, for obvious reasons. Also, forks (A10) may be userfied rather than deleted.
B2. Broken books.
Books which are not compatible with Special:Book and Template:Book, and which cannot be salvaged (e.g. by reversion or editing). If appropriate, move such pages to mainspace or otherspace instead of deleting.

Note that a "book" is defined as a page in the Book: namespace (and not as anything tagged with {{book}} or similar; this excludes user books). I think it may be appropriate to add an "and has been tagged for a week" requirement to B2. --Thinboy00 @026, i.e. 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How often are these two ending up at MfD, Thinboy? Certainly in the first case I'd be more comfortable letting discussions handle them if at all possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Lifebaka, but in any case we would need clarification to make these into workable criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Lifebaka as well. I really don't think they appear often enough to warrant special criteria. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support B1 Actually, pages in the Book: namespace have been showing up at MfD, but they rarely attract any discussion whatsoever. Such deletions are not contentious, therefore, and a speedy deletion criterion is appropriate. These books often would fit criterion A10 as an article; therefore, I agree with proposal B1. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal F?? - Vector duplicate.

Purpose of use : Flag images (both free and non-free) for which a vector duplicate exists. (Mediawiki will generate appropriate PNG thumbnails internally if needed.) and can thus be removed.

Criteria :

  1. Image tagged MUST be a PNG,JPEG,GIF image.
  2. An 'identical' SVG image in content terms must exist for the image.
  3. Any and all attribution, licensing and rationale information present in the original is also present in the
             vector image. 

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is going to fail #3 of the criteria for new criteria at the top of this page. There simply aren't enough of these images around that FfD can't handle the load, and at times it is worth keeping both versions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Another point is that, while it is true that a good vector image is preferable, there have been cases where someone has uploaded an svg image which they have misguidedly made from a bitmap image, resulting in an enormous file. I have known the resultant bandwidth problem to cause a computer to freeze up for several minutes, even when downloading on an ADSL connection, so goodness knows what it would have been on a dialup mode connection. If there is still a suitable image in another format it can be used in place of the vector image, but if the other image has been deleted it can't. This means that a bad vector image can cause major problems, and to speedily remove all images in bitmap formats because a vector image exists would be dangerous. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Help pls

Resolved

tks guys !! Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys i am trying to get a page i made by mistake User:Buzzzsherman/monobook.js deleted... i do not use this method..I have added delete templates..but as you can see codes in the monobook.js dont work normally..any one if you can pls fell free to delete the page ..as you can see by its history its was made by me ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Placeholders

It seems that this document goes through cycles of alternately having, and then removing, placeholders for the deprecated and repealed criteria, most recently with some additions today. I think that having placeholders is a good idea and that they should be re-added, but the most important thing to my mind is consistency: do we add placeholders for all the deprecated criteria (R1, T1, C3, A5, A7), or for none? Happymelon 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think this is because the article criteria (along with other missing placeholders) were "moved" to the general criteria. Whereas the others were removed completely. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The deprecated and repealed criteria are listed in #Deprecated criteria already, and this page is too large to justify repeating all of it inline. If the entry in the TOC isn't enough, maybe a sentence in #Criteria explaining why criteria don't get renumbered would be? —Korath (Talk) 16:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should simply merge the information in #Deprecated criteria to the main overview to combine the information and still have placeholders. For example:
R1. Redirects to a deleted article - Deprecated and merged with G8 above
R2. Redirects from the article namespace,
to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. If the redirect was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect. See also Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects.
This way we could satisfy all sides without really bloating the list more than necessary. A single line for the 6 deprecated criteria really would not make the list significantly longer, would it? Regards SoWhy 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
They used to be in like that. Not sure why it changed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming criteria

Can we not replace these letter-number codes with slightly more meaningful shortcuts ("CSD:NONSENSE" or something like that)? It would be a bit longer, but at least people would have a chance of understanding the meaning without consulting this page, and we wouldn't have the problem of empty spaces in the list. We could also align these shortcuts with the names of the corresponding db- templates, to make them easier to remember too.--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We could, in theory, add in such shortcuts. However, the letter-number system is well known, so removing it probably isn't the best idea. There's no reason to replace a system that works. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, though I'm not convinced it's really well known - probably only the people who deal with such deletions on a regular basis can remember what any particular letter+number code means, while as we know from our experience of WP:XXX shortcuts, it's much easier for editors at large to remember abbreviations that mean something.--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There are redirects in place for the templates and such, but I don't think it would be any easier to use long names than a two character code. It would involve a lot of work and inconvenience for basically no gain. lifebaka++ 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As lifebaka says, the redirects already exist to provide the same functionality. But the codes allow the criteria to be rephrased without having to change everything. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New A for How-tos?

I got talking about this to someone on IRC the other day. Some new articles seem entirely composed of how-to guides. Judging from this discussion, there's no real big loss if such articles are shot on sight, and if we could come up with a concrete way to phrase what would constitute a speediable "how-to" article. Maybe something like "It is a step-by-step instruction guide with no otherwise salvageable content" or more specific. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 04:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How-to guides may be suitable for transwiki though. Hut 8.5 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
True. And such pages don't turn up nearly often enough in the new page log to justify a new criterion. Regards SoWhy 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

G4 and Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages

It does not seem appropriate to link G4 to Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages. It's a proposed policy and the link could (and has) confused editors into thinking it is policy.--RadioFan (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and Fixed Tisane (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

R2

What about category talk, template talk, wikipedia talk, help talk and portal talk? Don't they count, too? Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 07:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No; mainspace pages should never redirect to pages in any talk namespace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Not even T:TDYK? ;) Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's the same with C:SD for example. There are always exceptions to the rule and such virtual namespace abbreviations are okay within policy. Actually, it should be TT:DYK in this case but that interferes with the interwiki link to tt-wiki. Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 13:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No, C:SD is a different thing, since it's CATEGORY and not CATEGORY TALK. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
My point was that both were created for use as virtual namespaces. Unlike "WP:", which is automatically translated to "Wikipedia:", the "C:" or "MOS:" prefixes are actually pages in the article namespace. As such they are already excepted from R2, even if not explicitly mentioned (see WP:SC#List of prefixes). No one would think that MOS:NAME can be R2ed, would they? Regards SoWhy 11:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the rule says nothing about talk namespaces like T:TDYK. Maybe T:TDYK can be mentioned in the rule so no-one will try to R2 it. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
For the matter of that I often link to this page as WT:CSD, which is technically a redir in article space. All pseudo-namespace redirs should be exempt from R2, and in practice they are. DES (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
No, that's the whole point. The page WT:CSD actually is Wikipedia talk:CSD: the "WT" prefix is expanded by MediaWiki to "Wikipedia talk". Whereas MOS:NAME is a page in the article namespace that begins with "MOS:". Happymelon 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MADEUP

Would this be incorporable into a criterion? Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 18:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not likely that a criterion could be written that would not fail to meet at least three of the criteria at the top of this page, I'm afraid. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
For previous discussion, see the archive. It's probably best left as an IAR CSD in my opinion. Legitimate uses outside of G3, A1, and A3, are fairly rare. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It's things like this that I'm talking about specifically; neologisms or newly invented games, there's no current CSD for them at the moment and they have to be kept live for 7 days until the PROD in place expires. I'm sure there's room for another criterion here but maybe you're right about the whole IAR thing, though I wouldn't say encouraging the tagging of a page as a G3 just because there isn't another more suitable tag would be a good idea, we couldn't get much WP:BITEY'er than that. Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 18:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I tried to get agreement for just such a criterion a few months back, no dice. It's a perennial proposal that always seems to fail due to disagreement over exact wording and necessity. Fences&Windows 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There shouldn't, IMO, be such a thing as an IAR speedy. And in the case of neologisims, most are and should be deleted, but soem turn out to be notable, and so they are not suitable, IMO, for speedy deletion. And for the ones that do get deleted, I don't see the harm in the 7-day wait for prod, most don't IME go to AfD, surely not enough to overload AfD. DES (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A10 and general overview articles

In light of this DRV, perhaps the A10 criterion should be tightened up a bit. I propose adding "general overview articles," to the second sentence of A10 so that it reads as follows:

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic.
A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages, general overview articles, or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material.

I wasn't sure whether that would be redundant with the language about "expands or reorganizes an existing one," but evidently there's been some confusion about what that means. Perhaps another possibility is to word it as:

A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic.
A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages, or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one (such as a general overview article) or that contains referenced, mergeable material.

Tisane (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A10 was never intended to cover such articles, and as such the DRV is so far clearly in favor of overturning the deletion. We cannot prevent admins misapplying criteria though. A10 currently reads This does not include [...] any article that [...] reorganizes an existing one after all and I think that clearly excludes articles that are about the same topic but under a different aspect. A10 was created to delete articles like "a aeiroplan is a thing wit winngs that flys", not articles like that. The deleting admin simply made a misinterpretation that probably would have happened with your proposed wording as well. A10, like almost all criteria, should not be used in any situation except clear-cut cases and this simply wasn't one of them. I would advise against your proposed changes though since you created the Wikipedia: page you want to include yourself and it has not gained any community acceptance (yet). Just let the DRV run, it will likely result in overturn and thus prove that A10 does not need any changes in wording. As DGG put it, such mistakes are rare. Regards SoWhy 22:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy. The A10 deletion in question was not really justified by the criterion as worded now, and the DRV has backed that up. Mistakes will happen but the consensus seems to be that this was a mistake. I don't think the proposed wording would have actually stopped it. ~ mazca talk 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would suggest editing {{db-a10}} so that instead of saying "...that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject." it says "existing article", and that the template be edited so that the parameter which specifies the article name be made mandatory, giving a red {{error}} message if it is ommitted. That might help avoid mistakes such as lead to the DRV linked above. DES (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with SoWhy: no change is necessary, for the reasons that SoWhy has given. I also disagree with DESiegel's suggestion of dropping the "(s)" from "article(s)". There are cases where the use of A10 is legitimate when there is more than one article is involved, and preventing such use would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. In the case referred to, the essential point is not simply that there was more than one existing article involved, but rather that the new article did present the information in a significantly different form than the existing articles. This case was simply a mistake, and the deletion review is clearly in the process of correcting that mistake. Changing the criterion to try to make it exclude this case would be a mistake: it already does exclude this case, and, as SoWhy has pointed out, we cannot prevent admins from sometimes making mistakes, no matter how we phrase the criteria. I am also not under the impression that this particular mistake is common enough to need special treatment. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I point out that a strict reading of the text of A10 now prohibits deletions relative to multiple articles, it says "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic"(emphasis added), not "an existing English Wikipedia topic or topics". I am merely suggesting that the template match the criterion language. DES (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In any case, what about the suggestion that the template be edited to require that one or more articles be specified or an error message be displayed? A general nom saying that a tagged article is redundant to an unspecified article or group of articles is surely likely to be flawed, and if a list longer than the template can comfortably hold is somehow wanted, the parameter can always say "see talk page". DES (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mismatch in code numbers

I've only checked the Files section, but criteria F8 upwards don't match the corresponding entries at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations#Images. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations seems to be out of date is several places. DES (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A7: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines?

I just deleted a couple of articles, and noticed to my surprise that I had used the reason: No indication that the article may meet notability guidelines. That's not quite what I wanted to say. Has there been a discussion about this change that I've missed? decltype (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody changed the wording at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown, there wasn't any discussion. Hut 8.5 23:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ucucha reverted it correctly. I'll leave JamieS93 (talk · contribs) a note about it and point her here. Regards SoWhy 12:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. My modification probably wasn't the best choice, but tbh, I think our current wording sucks: "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". What the heck does "guidelines for inclusion" mean? ("They didn't want to include it...Did I write the article wrong? Should I repost with more info?") A newbie would be stumped with a vague phrase like that, and would only know about this "notability" thing unless they went to the CSD page. At the very least we should link WP:NOTE in the reason. JamieS93 13:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording is confusing. Ideally, I think the deletion reason should be a concise summary of the text of the criterion used. Something like " A7: No indication that the subject is important or significant". Should be easy enough to understand, and in accord with A7. decltype (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Of course, this particular change to the A7 dropdown reason didn't work at all, but I sympathize with the desire to change it to something better as "no indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" is a really shitty generic cipher. It was changed from specific language tracking the criterion because some article creators couldn't parse "indication" in the language of a targeted message, and became offended we were labeling them or their pet subject as lacking "importance or significance". Acting like milquetoasts, we changed the language to hide or tone down what the actual deletion basis is per the actual criterion being invoked in response. So, 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. The whole thing makes no sense. I said this before at MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown but this page is higher traffic).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I first changed it to "No indication of importance", which accords with the wording of CSD A7 here at WP:CSD#A7, but then reverted to the previous wording after I saw the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown. Apparently, a wording with "notability" of "importance" is considered offensive because we are labeling a person whose article was A7-deleted as "unimportant" for posterity. I think that's a point we have to bear in mind when we consider changing the wording here. Ucucha 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently some people failed to grasp the difference between saying a subject is unimportant or insignificant, and saying the substance of an article failed to indicate the importance or significance of the subject. We should not change any notice which accurately describes a deletion basis to something unclear and uninformative because some subset will misunderstand it, when the very purpose of the deletion log summary should be to memorialize the actual basis an article was deleted under, and the A7 basis was accurately set forth by the prior summaries, which were broken down by A7 topic. See prior version here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Fuhghett. Our top priority should be clarity (which is why I often use custom del summaries), and no watering it down please. I actually like the old version from '08. Is there any objection to using either of these?

  • a) "A7: No indication that the subject is important or significant" (← Decltype's suggestion)
  • b) "A7: Article doesn't indicate importance or significance of the subject". (← Essentially the old version from Nov 2008)

Also, while A7 is a lower standard than notability, we should link WP:NOTE so readers/contributors have a better idea about it. The more we explain "objective notability", the better. JamieS93 16:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the wording might need tweaking but we should definitely not link to WP:N in it. It would send exactly the wrong message, i.e. that A7 is somehow about notability and it isn't. We link to WP:CSD#A7 already which explains it in more detail. An alternative would be a page Wikipedia:Importance and significance that explains A7's standard, possibly coupled with examples (as I did at WP:A7M). Regards SoWhy 17:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I would also oppose any link to WP:N. We have long had a deep problem with people if not conflating A7 and notability, then misunderstanding that an article needs to demonstrate notability in order to avoid A7, which is very dangerous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering how much a newbie would know the difference between our bureaucratic phrases: "notability" vs."importance or significance". If we look at it from a very broad sense, A7 is just a lower level of WP:N. But it holds a similar idea – objective notability. With CSD, we ask "is there any indication/allusion to notability?" With AFD, we ask "can we prove notability?" JamieS93 17:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the mistake in your reasoning. A7 is not about indication/allusion to notability; it is solely about indicating this lower standard of importance or significance. If we linked to WP:N in the deletion summary, people will, as Fuhghett writes, start assuming that A7 is about indicating notability. If you think that a newbie cannot understand the difference, shouldn't we create a page to explain it instead of confusing them further? Regards SoWhy 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I know the A7 buzzwords good and well. Outsiders, on the other hand, don't. Making separate pages on near-synonymous terms (from an outside perspective) is what I call bureaucracy. But I think we simply disagree on that point. I'm fine if we don't link WP:N – my opinion isn't the norm, so there would probably never be consensus for it. JamieS93 18:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If the problem with "Article doesn't indicate importance or significance of the subject" was that people misinterpret it as "article is unimportant and insignificant" because they can't figure out what "indicate" means, then keeping "indicate" and changing the part they do understand doesn't make sense. How about "Article doesn't say why subject is important or significant"? —Korath (Talk) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the debate at the interface discussion. I can see how A) could be perceived as a slight by the author / subject, but I do not really understand why suggestion B) would be problematic. decltype (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed: B is probably better than A at avoiding the misunderstanding, if we are to give that possibility deference. However, I think this was a misunderstanding by a very few; a squeaky wheel issue that got a lot of grease in other words. Korath, I see two criticisms of your suggested change to the wording. First, I think we should stay as close the the actual criterion as possible. Second, people sometimes have a tendency to say, when they first become aware of the criterion, "X is an important Y" (same thing when notability is at issue: "X is a notable Y"), and never actually provide any substantive fact indicating the importance, as if an indication of importance is fulfilled by the literal act of using the word important alone in relation to the subject. The suggested language would cater to that source of confusion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree: "X is an important Y" does, literally, "indicate" that X is an important Y, but it doesn't "say why" it is. "Say why" is arguably closer to the actual criterion (which is "indicate why") than "indicate" by itself is. The distinction between "say why" and "indicate why" is that the former is a superset of the latter: all articles that explicitly say why their subjects are important also indicate that importance, while the converse is untrue. We can rely on the reviewing admin, perhaps reinforced by irritated talk page messages and deletion reviews, not to speedy those articles that imply importance without stating it outright; from the article writer's perspective, however, this lenience is all to the good. "X is important because of Z" isn't exactly great writing, but it's still a better article than "X is important". —Korath (Talk) 19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe "why" is enough but as to the rest, I certainly will speedy delete as an A7, a change from John Doe is a skateboarder who lives in Kalamazoo with this mother and father, to John Doe is an important skateboarder who lives in Kalamazoo with this mother and father, and I think many other admins would as well. This is not a credible indication of importance as an empty assertion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I suggest Article does not explain how or why the subject is significant.. This tracks the criterion better than any of the versions above, making it clear that the problem is not whether the subject is in fact important, but with what the article says. The word "explain" will push people toward providing something beyond "X is an important Y" to providing reasons which will help make assertions credible -- when they can be. This is not nearly as likely to be viewed as insulting by describing a subject as unimportant or insignificant, and is clearer as to what makes an article subject to speedy deletion. DES (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. JamieS93 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
A very good tweak, but I would still champion keeping indicate, i.e., Article does not indicate how or why the subject is significant. "Explain" invites people to talk about significance itself, viz, "it is significant because..." rather than show through facts, which is more at the heart of what we want to convey (and again it tracks the criterion itself better).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Since there is comment above that some users misunderstand "indicate", how about "show", if you don't like "explain"? That would result in Article does not show how or why the subject is significant.. Mind you, i still like "explain".DES (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In this edit User:David Levy changed the text to "No indication of importance (individual real persons/animals, organizations, WWW content)" I think this reads poorly, and it returns to the "no indication of importance" language which I think we are rejecting. If we really think that the scope of A7 needs to be included in the text would could have Article does not explain how or why the subject (person, animal, organization, or web content) is significant.. I don't really think this is needed, however. DES (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I overlooked this discussion. (I checked the bottom of the message's talk page without realizing that you'd added a reply to a higher thread from more than a year ago.) I suggest including a link in the edit summary in the future.
Omitting the scope invites a much broader application of the CSD than intended. (Administrators should read the actual policy page, but many don't.)
I've adjusted the wording to address the above concern. —David Levy 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well yes, show does a better job than explain but the reason you're suggesting show over indicate is because of an apparent inherent problem with "indicate". I don't think there is such an inherent problem with the word. Rather, your excellent suggestion of using "how or why" is what should take care of the entire problem. "How or why" modifies the sentence to make it far more clear that it is not the subject that is the target of significant/insignificant, but the content of the text about the subject that is lacking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but "show" and "explain" are both shorter and simpler than "indicate" and so are improvements in this case, IMO. I am glad you like the "how or why" language, i think it does help, and would even if "indicate" is retained. DES (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
David Levy has now changed the wording to Article lacking an explanation of the subject's significance (individual real persons/animals, organizations, WWW content). IMO this is an improvement over his previous wording, but I think that, if the scope is considered important then Article does not show how or why the subject (real person, animal, organization, or web content) is significant. is better. An alternative would be Article does not show how or why the subject is significant (limited to individual real persons/animals, organizations/firms/clubs, or web content).
The question is who is the primary audience here. i agree that helping taggers and admins to remember the limited scope of A7 is important. But IMO the main people who will look at the log entries generated from the content of the dropdown are editors who created articles that have been deleted. They are not largely interested in what other articles could be deleted under A7, but in why the articles they created was deleted, and what they need to do to create it again and have it stick. For this purpose the scope wording is unneeded. But perhaps it would also serve to help remind both admins and NPPs and other CSD taggers of the scope limits on A7, which could hardly hurt. DES (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I selected that wording for conformity to the other items on the list. If we're to use your wording (in sentence format), we should adjust the other items accordingly. —David Levy 01:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see your point about format. But it seems to me that the "does not show how or why...is significant" language could be included in some form while still being consistent with the other items. And of course, the purpose is not to generate a list of CSD explanations, there are other pages for that. The purpose is to pre-load a deletion log entry, and no entry has more than one reason from this list, so perhaps consistency of form among list itmes is not so very important? DES (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that such consistency is less important than ensuring that an individual item comes across as intended, but I also agree that it should be possible to achieve both.
Personally, I have no objection to switching over to your format for all of the items (which would require only minor tweaks). —David Levy 01:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't developed a strong opinion either way about the specifics of the wording, but I just noticed the change while making a deletion and I really don't like the scope bit at the end. These deletion summaries, as DES said, should be primarily used as a brief summary for the article's editors telling them why it was deleted - not a complete summary of the criterion for an admin that isn't paying enough attention. If particular admins are making out-of-scope deletions then by all means inform them, but I don't think the extra sentence belongs in the deletion summary. Article does not show how or why the subject is significant, or however you want to specifically word that, is enough as far as I'm concerned. ~ mazca talk 12:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
My concern isn't that "particular admins" are going on out-of-scope speedy deletion sprees (likely to be noticed and rectified). It's that occasional deletions by sysops not regularly involved in the process will blend in and slip through the cracks. From time to time, I stumble upon such deletions from months or years earlier.
Appending the scope to the end as a parenthetical isn't the most elegant setup, and DESiegel's format would enable us to address that. —David Levy 16:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think it's great that an effort is being undertaken to improve the wording, but wouldn't it be best to stick with the old one until we have some consensus? Seems like there's a new one every time I pull down the list now. decltype (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't regard anyone's changes as particularly radical or jarring. Given the fact that the edits have been collaborative (as opposed to wheel-warring back and forth), I don't see a major problem at this point.
If someone wishes to revert to the longstanding wording for the time being, that would be fine too, but it isn't a big deal either way. —David Levy 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to G12: accepted license

Hi. I've made an adjustment to G12 here to clarify that an assertion of any free license is insufficient to avoid G12. The question recently came up in a discussion of {{Db-gfdl}} (created subsequent to this conversation in support of the relicensing). I believe it has always been practice to tag material under an unusable free license for G12. Before the transition, I certainly saw material licensed under CC-By-SA tagged this way. Content can, of course, be restored if it is relicensed, but unless it is licensed under a CC-By-SA compatible license it is at the end of the day as much a copyvio as content fully reserved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted. First as per WP:BRD, second in my view policy pages, and the CSD in particular, ought not be changed without prior discussion.
Now to the merits of the matter. While it is true that incompatible free licenses have never been sufficient to permit text to be included in Wikipedia, and that since the re-licensing GFDL 1.2 is not a compatible liscense, this does not, IMO warrant speedy deletion. G12 should be only for blatant copyright infringements, not technical ones. If the copyright holder has licensed via any free license, it seems to em the likelihood of obtaining a compatible license is fairly high, and the slower process used at WP:CP, with a chance for discussion and communication is better. Speedy deletion should be used only in clear-cut, bright-line cases. If this view is accepted, then {{Db-gfdl}} ought to be deleted under WP:CSD#T2 as a template that misrepresents policy. A new template for the incompatible license case that blanks the page and directs a filing on WP:CP might be appropriate. DES (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As I indicated, I believe my change documents current and long-standing practice, but I'm perfectly willing to wait for conversation. I believe you are mistaken in the high likelihood of obtaining a compatible license, given the difficulty that Wikipedia went through to alter its license. It doesn't seem likely that Wikipilipinas or other common GFDL sites are going to have the clout to do so. Importing text from GFDL only sites is a clear-cut, bright-line case.We have long permitted by policy for images that have an improper license to be speedily deleted (See WP:CSD#F3) for the same reason: if we do not comply with license, these are copyright violations. There's no difference with text. And, again, if the content is relicensed by the copyright holder, the material can easily be restored or repasted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Point noted, I will also wait for discussion. I do note that in the conversation you limnkled to, one editor said "If you are unconfortable with this, the safest way for Wikipedia would be to tag the article with the {{copyvio}} template and list it at WP:CP for processing, ensuring potentially infringing content is no longer on display on the site." that is what I am suggesting. DES (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I might add that my point is more likely to apply when there is a single author or contributor who can easily choose to cross-license, rather than a wiki-page with multiple contributors. Many en-wikipedia editors cross-licensed their text under CC long before the site-wide transition. DES (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The editor who suggested tagging it with {{copyvio}} was myself, in a similar situation where an admin just declined a G12 deletion without further action, leaving a copyvio in plain sight without acting on it. You'll also note that I endorsed then, and still do, {{db-gfdl}}.
I support the rewording as reflecting both practice and our Terms of Use. Just like CC-BY-SA content could not be imported before the licensing change despite being a free license, we're now in the reverse situation.
Systematically posting these at WP:CP is merely going to delay deletion by 7 days. The window of opportunity for third party wikis to dual license wholesale was closed on 1 August 2009. The notion that anyone would contact even one sole contributor on a third party wiki to obtain a new license sounds good on the surface, in practice, I have yet to see a single case of this happening.
Last but not least, per WP:BURO as one of the only two admins regularly clearing off the backlog on WP:CP, I would definitely be more sympathetic to such proposals if the people meaning to add to the backlog were also to roll up their sleeves and help us with the additional bureaucracy they advocate. WP:CP, WP:SCV and of course WP:CCI are so badly undermanned that it isn't even remotely funny anymore, in particular when we consider the importance of copyright cleanup and contrast it with the amount of people working on solving the BLP challenges. Just saying. MLauba (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I support MRG's change here. Let's keep in mind the enormous variety of free licenses out there: some are noncommercial, some no derivatives, some "personal use only", and some don't even apply to textual content! Many of these authors are quite explicit about their license choice and have no desire to switch to one allowing commercial use or derivatives. We have no reason to believe in general that text released under a free license will be relicensed, and our standing practice is to remove copyright violations from public view as soon as possible (to avoid them being mirrored). If the content is relicensed, it's trivial to ask any admin to restore the text. Dcoetzee 21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree. Adding text from a GFDL or similar source is not the same as adding text from a source that is clearly not acceptable. Most normal editors have not (yet) grasped that GFDL only is no longer acceptable and many wikis out there that serve specialist interests outside of Wikipedia have not either. But there a number of pages that want to make their content compatible with Wikipedia but simply failed to change their licenses, mostly because they don't really follow our licensing changes. The {{copyvio}} template can take care of such articles just as well and it would both be less BITEy towards those who simply made a mistake when licensing their own content and more flexible, allowing them to relicense the content. Remember, once their pages are deleted, some users are feeling bitten and will not recreate the pages in a correct way. Do GFDL-only additions really happen that often that {{copyvio}} can't be used instead? Regards SoWhy 22:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
{{copyvio}} is also fine - it blanks the content from the public view, so it suffices for that purpose. I don't see any clear reason to prefer G12 to {{copyvio}}, unless this occurred so frequently that it would save substantial effort. Dcoetzee 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I lack the technical skills to determine how often this happens. :/ But I'll note that it isn't a simple matter of these sites deciding to change their licenses. They might want to make their content compatible, but the Wikimedia Foundation was only able to change our license because we got FSF to sign on. FSF explicitly set as the terms of this license that only Wikis could migrate, only GFDL content accepted by November 1, 2008, and only if the conversion was complete by August 1, 2009 (see [1], sec. 11). IOW, Wikipilipinas and other wikis have missed that boat. They cannot retroactively relicense their GFDL content unless FSF takes an unexpected direction with version 1.4. I can see making an exception for probable author-imported content (if an individual website has mistagged), but Wikipilipinas is the one I have seen the most, and delaying this doesn't seem to be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You are correct about entire wikis relicensing, it is at best unlikely (unless a small wiki can get the permission of every single contributor, which is improbable). There is no technical barrier to individuals cross-licenseing their contributions to an in individual wiki, or their free but incompatibly licensed non-wiki content. You may be right that this will not happen often enough for the delay to be worth while. Still I tend to resit any expansion of any CSD without a clearly demonstrated need. DES (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
@MLauba:I do understand how you feel about having work shoveled onto you with out anyone offering to help out. I have worked on one item listed on WP:CP since you posted, and will work on clearing more as i am able. DES (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In context, a few things:

  1. {{db-gfdl}} was created in September in response to exactly the same situation as the one that brought us back: an article listed at WP:SCV by CorenSearchBot, (user gets notification that something is amiss but didn't react or object), then verified manually and tagged for G12. An admin rejects G12 because, and sorry to be blunt here, he hasn't kept up with the licensing changes despite 4 months of advertising the license change discussion in early 2009, multiple posts about this at VP and AN once it got voted through to warn about it and multiple posts on VP and AN after it came into force to remind admins that GFDL content is no longer legal, yet still somehow feel they are informed enough to patrol CAT:CVSD. This sub-template to G12 was created to help them and alert them to the fact that the tagger (and it's almost exclusively used by the SCV patrollers) knows what he does. The whole intent was to make sure that even if the admin refused the deletion because he was unsure, he'd at least tag it with {{copyvio}} so that the article doesn't remain in plain view any longer, in violation of copyright.
  2. An incompatible license is a copyright violation no matter how you slice it, and is a speedy deletion candidate just like an "all rights reserved" source (which is, after all, just another brand of incompatible license). It is in no way different that any other copyvio, and all the rationale about biting vs holding out 7 days to see if permission could possibly be granted is, again, exactly the same.
  3. At the end of the CP process, the test done by the closing admin is, again, exactly the same as for a classical G12 deletion: Is it indeed copied? If yes, what is the license of the source? If incompatible, is there a reasonable claim of authorship or permission made? If no, delete, if yes, ensure the contributor knows how to proceed. There is no distinction between a GFDL source and a CC-BY-NC for instance, or "all rights reserved" in the way these are processed.
  4. In the vast majority of all cases I've handled, either at WP:SCV or WP:CP (and you'll have to bear in mind I've been doing that almost exclusively for 9 months now), the likelihood that a permission can be obtained is higher on "All rights reserved" sources than on GFDL-sourced content - the former is, from time to time, data uploaded by the author himself. The latter, with exactly one exception in my practice, is a user who acts just like any other copyright violator: in ignorance of the fact that he cannot copy / paste content without permission. And if you wonder, the one exception was Peter Damian posting an article he had first written on TheKohser's MyWikiBiz on Wikipedia, using a sock.
  5. In the same 9 months of working on those two queues, with the notable exception I just described above, not once has the uploader of GFDL-only content come back after he was informed that there was an issue with the license. The only people who did react to non-templated communication about the invalidity of GFDL-only text were the admins declining a G12. So from the user experience, bearing in mind WP:BITE, I've so far been confronted only to the normal brand of copyright infringers who copy / paste from a source without minding whatever terms it is released under. The well-meaning newbie who imports text believing he is allowed to and simply missed the licensing change, in other words, the one we want to avoid WP:BITEing, I've never met.

tl;dr: There is not one iota of difference between an "all rights reserved" copyvio or a GFDL-only (or a non-compatible CC variant), regardless of whether you consider it from a legal angle, from a copyright management practice, or in terms of WP:BITE. Preventing the correction of a slightly ambiguous wording in CSD policy maintains an ambiguity between CSD and both WP:C and our Terms of Use which nets us no further free content than its clarification would and has no further impact on newbies than its clarification would. It does however generate more work for a massively undermanned area of the Project. MLauba (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is one difference, that people who have already licensed their work under a free license demonstrate awareness of free licenses and an intent and willingness to license their work freely (albeit perhaps not under compatible terms). Few of us would expect to hear back from Newsweek magazine with a CC-BY-SA license, but from someone who already employs free licenses this is considerably more likely. As awareness of free licenses grows, however, this distinction is getting blurrier. Dcoetzee 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd gotten distracted from this by other things, but have just been reminded of its existence. We need to resolve this, because we have a template that I believe to be in occasional use (can't provide figures for it) at {{Db-gfdl}} and some disagreement on whether or not GFDL-copyvios are eligible for G12. This obviously isn't ideal. :) I imagine it's evident that I agree with MLauba that the template is applicable and G12 inclusive of all blatant copyvios, just as improperly licensed images are subject to speedy deletion for copyright concerns. But either way, we need to nail it down and either clarify the policy or take steps to eliminate a template that does not accurately reflect it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with the assumption that publishing information on any wiki under a free license demonstrates awareness of free licenses. This is like saying everyone who contributes here is aware of what is acceptable copy / pasting. Despite the various notices below this edit window, WP:CCI is an ever-growing testament to the fact that you cannot take such things for granted.
Yet even if you do, two points remain. The first one, to use an analogy, is like a homeowner having an agreement with his neighbour's son that he can borrow his lawnmower provided the youth also takes care of the first guy's lawn - until the day another neighbour is found to have taken the lawnmower. I doubt anyone would give him a pass for "I saw that the mowers' owner was freely lending it to the teenager so I thought I could reuse it too". And so it is with incompatible free licenses. Unless it is demonstrably clear that the two contribs are one and the same, we have no right to assume that we have any more permission of reusing such content than any "all rights reserved" text.
So making this distinction serves strictly no purpose. If there is a claim of authorship, it will be made and verified, regardless of whether it has been deleted or not. But if there is none, we prevent material to which we have no right from staying, needlessly, on the site for another week before it gets exactly the same treatment it would have before - except that we have left a copyvio standing, indexed, and ready to get mirrored and scraped for another week (article space is never noindexed).
It runs against the precautionary principle at the heart of our copyright policies to make this distinction, and I can only reiterate that I strongly object against maintaining a distinction that was, in practice, due to a simple oversight from the past. MLauba (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, well let's consider the analogy of how incorrectly-licensed images are treated on Commons. Such images are eligible for speedy deletion there, and you can use the copyvio template to request speedy deletion. On the other hand, if an admin believes the copyright holder may release under a free license, they may choose to use the "no permission" template instead, giving them 7 days to mail the author for permission. I think such a system would be adequate for text here as well. Dcoetzee 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
And again, with any other G12 case it is exactly the same. If the tagger or the reviewing admin believe there is a credible claim, they can and should list an entry to CP. The point though is that the people opposing the clarification of the wording mean to state that a text released under an incompatible free license is deemed to have a plausible chance to be released by default when this is far from a reality, in particular from wikis who did not switch to dual licensing (as it's not really possible to provide permission as soon as the foreign wiki has more than one contrib).
That being said, I would be perfectly fine if both the language here and on {{db-gfdl}} was clarified to make clear that if the source has one single contributor and there appears to be a plausible chance that he could release, the entry should be posted at WP:CP instead. MLauba (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Dcoetzee 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Works for me, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Amendment to A7

Wikiproject:Video games has difficulty placing speedy tags on video game articles which have questionable notability due to the A7 criteria being exclusive to individuals, animals, organizations, web content. This leaves users without a way to place speedy tags, as when they do they are repeatedly reverted. I believe these editors act in good faith, however video game articles have no sufficient tag to place for a speedy delete in regards to notability, so any A7 tags that get reverted by other editors require us to take it to AfD, effectively doubling our work. I am proposing that video games and related articles be added to the A7 criteria so that WP:VG editors can effectively do their work as well. --Teancum (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No. First of all, A7 is not about notability. Never was. Second of all, this has been proposed countless times and was rejected every time. Such articles do not appear often enough for CSD and cannot be defined strictly enough to fit under A7. See the archives for details. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem with that would be that you would have to extend A7 out to other things similar or parallel to video games, for the sake of consistency. I doubt the community at large will want to move into that direction as far as speedy deletion is concerned because A7 would really open up bigtime. Remember, there is still PROD which is also a viable alternative to AFD, which helps keep the number of deletion discussions (theoretically) as low as possible. –MuZemike 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason A7 is restricted to fixed categories is because these are categories that most people have some expertise about and can evaluate. Needless to say, not every admin is sufficiently knowledgable about video games to evaluate what constitutes an assertion of significance in that context. Dcoetzee 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A quick glance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion confirms video game articles aren't so frequently nominated that a CSD criteria is at all necessary or desirable. Nifboy (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The only way I could see this as being helpful is concerning online games, but that's already covered in db-web so it's not very realistic. Unlike bands and words-you-invented-because-you-are-bored, video games aren't something formed, worked one, and finished on a single lazy afternoon. Suffice to say, beta testers pretty much get rid of all the possible non-notable video game (and vg-related) articles we would otherwise be dealing with. The amendment doesn't have any practical purpose. -WarthogDemon 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to extending A7, and as things are at present. A7 does not cover video games or other computer hardware or and software, and should not be used for video games (except possibly web-only games, and i really would frown on even that). A7 is really intended for the floods of "articles" we get on topics that are not only non-notable, but obviously not worth even tying to establish notability. Things like "Mike my friend is a great guy"; "Jill is the best girlfriend in the world, and very cute"; "Joe Blow is the CEO of Acme products, and has three kids"; "Jim, Fred, and Mark formed the band The Amazing Guys and plan to issue their first EP in 2 years"; "The Happytown branch of the SPCA meets on the 3rd Wednesday of every month"; "MyFaveTunes.com is a really neat website where me and my friends review music videos"; "My dog Fido is a really great pet", etc.
When notability is "questionable" a speedy tag is NOT the proper way to handle it -- it should go to proposed deletion or WP:AFD so that there is a chance to actually question notability, and for anyone who thinks that the subject is notable to find sources that demonstrate this. Indeed i think it is better to put a {{notability}} cleanup tag on for a while first, and if that is not responded to then go to Prod or AfD. WarthogDemon is correct that video games aren't usually dreamed up on an idle afternoon. DES (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
... online games, but that's already covered in db-web ...: I just wanted to note that this is not always true. Browser games, yes, but not regular multiplayer games played over the internet. It's a common misconception that they can be speedied. decltype (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Dec, could you expand on that--I have always thought they were included. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think decl is referring to games like World of Warcraft or Age of Conan. They are played exclusively over the internet but otherwise they are like normal games you install on your PC and thus not included in A7, since A7 only covers content that is web-based, not everything that uses the internet. Regards SoWhy 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles which assert non-notability

I have just put a PROD notice on an article which states that its subject is little known, and effectively that it is not notable. I am virtually certain that the article is a hoax, but I don't think it's blatant enough for G1. If it were about a person, animal, organisation, web content, or musical recording it would be an obvious A7 or A9, but it isn't. It feels completely wrong to have to let the vandal who wrote the article have the satisfaction of seeing their nonsense remain on Wikipedia for a week, when they have effectively stated in the article that it shouldn't be there. I have known a similar case before be de-prodded and go to AfD, so various editors wasted their time writing notes there about why it should be deleted. Is there a case for a CSD for an article which asserts non-notability? I did raise this issue once before, but it was in the middle of a discussion about something else, and elicited little response. I thought bringing it up in its own thread might get noticed more. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Having written the above I have gone back to the article. Sure enough, it has been de-prodded, so it will be a question of wasting time on an AfD again. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, after a week I am disappointed, and slightly surprised, that nobody has made any comment at all. It seems so obvious to me that such articles should be speedily deletable, but evidently this is not a very widely held feeling. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If an article effectively states that it should not be on Wikipedia, then adding it can be vandalism and it can be deleted using G3. If it's a good faith contribution, I see no reason for a new criterion or to change a current one. How often do such articles appear in the new page log? I would say such articles appear very infrequently and thus fail #3 of the criteria for new criteria on top of this talk page. 99% of new articles either claim/indicate importance or significance or at least make no claims at all. Articles that actively claim that something it not important or significant are too rare to justify a change to policy. PROD/AFD can handle them. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy here. Moreover, I suspect that the author of such an article might have intended to say or imply that the topic was little known but nonetheless significant for some reason. This of course could be an example of the well known "He is a rising star" form of non-notability, but is another reason not to have a new speedy criterion. If the article really is a joke asserting insignificance, it may well be deletable as vandalism, as SoWhy says. OTOH, it may be real but fairly obscure, which does not mean non-notable, many generally obscure topics are notable in their fields. DES (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I fully understand what SoWhy and DESiegel have said, and I am in 90% agreement with them. However, there is a type of article which falls short of outright vandalism, but makes it perfectly clear that even the author of the article does not think the subject is of any importance. If the article is about the author's pet cat it falls under A7, but if it's about the author's back yard it doesn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If the "article" is in obviously bad faith, then it is at least arguably vandalism and can be dealt with as such. If it "falls short of outright vandalism, but makes it perfectly clear that even the author of the article does not think the subject is of any importance" then i think Prod should do, I don't see such pages as being common enough or urgent enough to need speedy deletion. DES (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Codify a timeline for stale userspace drafts

6 months has, roughly, been an informal standard (at least my standard) for deleting stale drafts in userspace at MfD. There's some compelling reasons to get this or something like it codified in some form, whether as a CSD, or in WP:UP.

  • People are MfD nominating userspace drafts and recently userfied articles mere days after they were created or userfied. Newbies who think they are doing the right thing are getting bitten.
  • Other drafts have languished for years.
  • People sometimes use "fake" articles in userspace as a way to get coverage in Google for their non-notable works. User space is indexed.
  • Right now the primary guidance is WP:UP#COPIES which as of now gives no specific timeline. WP:NOTWEBHOST is also cited sometimes as a policy basis.
  • At least one admin has told me they are IAR deleting stale material in userspace already.
  • There was brief discussion over at WP:INCUBATE where they wanted to adopt a more agressive timeline for removal of stale incubated material, I suggested they go for 6 months as well for consistancy.
  • Increasingly, notability standards are being applied to drafts of articles in userspace. I think this is partially because we have no timeline set out for users to try to establish it.

MfD is not backlogged to any serious extent. My concern here isn't about load on processes, it's about having a predictable standard which both protects newbs from having their (otherwise non-problematic) userspace draft nominated for deletion too soon, but still sets a timeline for what constitutes indefinite archival of material or using userspace merely as an end-run around AfD and notability.

Please don't reject this entire proposal because you don't agree with one part of what I've written. I really don't want a vote; lets figure out the best thing to do to address these concerns. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Earlier related discussion I happened to look at today and may as well link: here. –Whitehorse1 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. A strange discussion, since UP:COPIES was largely the same back then, yet the conversation seems to imply that we did have a hard time limit listed there. Really the problem isn't drafts of active editors, it's about how we handle new and marginally active users, some are misusing userspace as hosting that has a massive pagerank, some just want a little breathing room to work on their draft. I wouldn't want a witchhunt to clean out the userspace of active editors either, but I think we should do something. Gigs (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, any userspace draft can and should be tagged withn {{Userspace draft}}. This labels a draft as such, and also applies NOINDEX to it, so it is no longer indexed by Google and other robots-compliant search engines, which is most of them, and i think all of the major ones. Doing this routinely would help reduce the pagerank issue, at least, and thus the pressure for rapid deletion.. DES (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If something is not indexed and harmless, I see no reason to delete. Maurreen (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

**Maybe this discussion should be closed to consolidate the topic at the other discussion. Maurreen (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

      • If by the "other discussion" you mean this discussion, that has been archived and hasn't been edited in a year, it is stale. If not, what other discussion do you mean? DES (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks, my mistake. Maurreen (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest that WP:UP#COPIES be edited to specificvally mandate, or at least strongly recommend the use of {{Userspace draft}}on articels in progress in userspace. DES (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Stale userpages drafts are not even close to something requiring addition as a CSD. This discussion should be at WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Stale userpages should be blanked if found in an inactive user's userspace. If the user is active, you should ask the user about it. If you are sure of yourself, you are within your rights to boldly blank. If that leads to a discussion, good. If not, alleged problem solved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Admin has told gigs they are IAR deleting stale material in userspace already needs chastisement. The community has been clear before that IAR exceptions to explicit statement in deletion policy and specifically at WP:CSD are only for extremely unusual cases. Existing CSD criteria suffice for virtually everything imaginable. Blanking is almost always sufficient. For everything else, there is MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I did go back and forth about whether to post the discussion here at CSD or over at UP. The argument for CSD is that often the MfD nomination statements often come across as insulting and personal. You are a new user, you've written an article about a topic that you care deeply about, and now some guy has come along and called the thing you care about "utterly non-notable". A more mechanical and well defined process is something that new users can understand. A deletion summary that says "CSD U4 - Userspace draft that has been inactive for more than 6 months" ... no way to take that personally. I think it's something to consider.
    • The other thing is that I don't see anyone addressing userspace drafts hitting MfD when they are only a day or two old. To be honest that was as much a reason for raising this as anything else. My primary concern is the biting issue. We usually deal with the promotional side of things pretty well these days, and I mostly mentioned that so that people would have the full background. Gigs (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • In that case, setting a floor for MFD might be good. Maybe a month? Maurreen (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In favor of all 3 of: - NOINDEXing userspace entirely, moving drafts from userspace to a new Draft: space for better communal visibility, and encouraging the pruning of stale drafts (encouraging if not a problem, blanking if a problem).

    I would suggest blanking not deleting as a better response to stale drafts though. 3 months sounds long enough to at least template "I notice you haven't touched this page..." 6 months or 1 month also fine. However if the draft isn't a "problem" (or if it's NOINDEXed/blanked with any BLPvio's attended to) then it can be left almost indefinitely. Would automatically support any/all of these. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Same idea really. I think a namespace is better than subpages (and would readily migrate all INCUBATOR subpages to a suitable namespace), but that's a whole separate discussion and off topic here. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

RfCs in userspace

I am sure this must have come up before - have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Such cases have been taken to MfD on occasion. No hard and fast time limits have been agreed to that I know of, it seems to be a judgment call based in part on how active the editing of the page was, and how sincere the user seemed to be on actually using the page to file an RFC. I suspect that a month or so would often be granted. I don't this this happens often enough or is clear cut enough for a speedy deletion criterion. If there is no serious intent to file and RFC such a page might be deleted as an attack page. DES (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, a month seems a little long IMHO. We could always vote on it....nothing like a bit of polling to brighten up the day Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The real answer is, until some one decides to file an MfD, and manages to obtain consensus to delete. But I think i have seen MfDs where the consensus was to keep but revisit if an actual RFC was not started "soon". Add time before an MFD is filed, plus the 7-day MfD, plus however long the delay might be, plus a 2nd mfD if nothing happens, and you are near a month if not over in many cases. DES (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We-ell, here is one and here is another, which is what led me to look at this page in the first place. I can't see any relevant discussion in the archives of this place or in the archvies of RfC pages either. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Context

To give these discussions better context and to understand what brings Casliber here, there are presently three such "RfCs" from one user's page:

  1. User:Newman Luke/dDb
  2. User:Newman Luke/AV
  3. User:Newman Luke/Zq

that were created by User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) in response to a genuine RfC that was brought up against him at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke where he went ahead and used his own versions of "RfCs" in his response at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke#Response.

This in turn resulted in three MfDs, nominating User:Newman Luke's "RfCs" at:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq

where questions about how long MfDs for RfCs should last, if they should be speedied, one was turned down [2] and there is no consenus if these "RfCs" can be regarded as WP:Attack pages or just the "private affairs" of a user. See the discussions at all the MfDs mentioned above for a more in-depth onfolding of the questions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see RfCs in userspace be deleted after a very short time, less than a month ideally, because they create a toxic workspace for whoever they're directed at (not commenting on the examples you've given, IZAK, which I've not looked at). There's no good reason to have draft RfCs in userspace at all, in fact, because they can easily be created offwiki, but if they must exist, it has to be only to put the finishing touches to the draft, and they should be deleted as soon as that's done (or when it becomes clear that the RfC is not imminent). I also think it's extremely poor form to have an open draft that others are editing too, because that really is an attack page: I had it done to me once, and it was an experience I wouldn't wish on anyone else. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 09:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A month was pretty generous Slim, I was thinking more along the lines of a week max in userspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd support that. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A week makes sense to me too. Everyone has a text editor, there's no need for user conduct RFCs to linger on Wikipedia in user space, where they are not actionable, but may cause distress. Fish or cut bait. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Since we're on WT:CSD: As pointed out by DESiegel, such drafts are seldom clear-cut attack pages, and I think the mass-creation of RfCU drafts is the exception rather than the rule. This leads me to think that more often than not, MfD will be the ideal venue to pursue their deletion, rather than speedy. decltype (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We ought not specify a deadline for such - there are plenty enough actual deletable pages to go around already <g>. Current processes seem to work pretty well so far on average (exception being where CANVASSing occurs WP:False consensus). Collect (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with Collect. We should not put any limits on this. Or be very lenient with them. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • My initial instinct was "a couple months", but I think I might !vote delete sooner if it were more clear cut. I'm against any particular hard deadline... pages that are more like attack pages should be sooner, and mostly factual pages can be a little later. Gigs (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd really prefer this be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some pages are malicious, some are well-meant but still disruptive, and some are easily ignored, so I'd be just as happy to keep ignoring them.--Father Goose (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure, I am the "target" in the "AV" version. I'm more concerned that the user really does not understand wikipedia process, for example, by trying to file a RfMed on user behavior when it specifically is for content dispute, by not tagging these drafts as {{Userspace RFC draft}}, etc. As for the time limit, I'd say one-to-two weeks is reasonable, and a month at the outside. If the draft has not been filed within a month, it obviously is nowhere near ready, and it can be taken off-line in a text file. -- Avi (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There is one advantage in having a preset time limit that avoids the need for MfD--the MfD discussions tend to evoke drama, as a preliminary run-though of the RfC. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC) ~ ~~
  • I don't see how it is a big deal. User pages aren't indexed anymore, right? -- so out of sight, out of mind. However, if the author is running around linking to their "unfinished" RfC page in order to poison article talk page disputes, etc., that's much more problematic, and speaks to it being actually an attack page. If it is off on an island all of it's own, no harm no foul. There's an old saying about detraction and trying to regather feathers blown in the wind, but if they are just in a bag somewhere I believe that's called a pillow. Maybe we should just prohibit overlinking to such pages and be done with it. -- Kendrick7talk 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • User pages most certainly are indexed, unless placed in Category:Noindexed pages; {{Userspace draft}} will do this by default; {{userpage}} will also do this provided that you feed it |noindex=yes.see revision below 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Case in point: I'm out of work, and my local jobcentre offered to help with a job search. They asked me my skills; I told them; they went onto Google, entered a few keywords plus my home town. What came up? User:Redrose64 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, that's what. They said "why don't you contact this guy?", all I could say was "Er, because it's me...". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, OK, my mistake. Still we could add that as a tag requirement at Wikipedia:RfC#Request_comment_on_users which is fairly vague at the moment. If fact, there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to discuss repairing the process at WT:RfC before jumping straight into speedy deletion discussion over here. -- Kendrick7talk 18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I am revising the first part of my last comment to read:
    • The principle remains though: users must take conscious action to de-index pages in userspace. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Not if we require a template that includes the tag, imo -- Kendrick7talk 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Placing of such a template would still need to be a conscious action. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help with CSD#G4

I obviously have misunderstood and misread this guideline, and in particular the meaning of "sufficiently identical and unimproved".

I created the article "Israeli art student scam" from scratch. Avi, an experienced and capable administrator, | informed me that I was in contravention of Wikipedia policy, stating that the new article was in violation of CSD#G4 since a previous article "Israeli art students" (which I had no involvement in) had been deleted via a deletion discussion.

You may compare the new and old articles at User:Tiamut/IAS. In particulare note that the new article ("Israeli art student scam")

  • Was created entirely from scratch and was not based upon the older article either entirely or in part
  • Did not share any of the prose, sources or other material of the older article whatsoever
  • Did not share the same title as the older article ("Israeli art students")
  • Did not focus on exactly the same topic as the older article (the new article concerns the Israeli art student _scam_, and mentions the spying scandal only subsequently. The older article was concerned entirely with spying scandal and does not mention the scam whatsoever).

The only similarity is that they roughly share the same topic.

I interpreted "sufficiently identical and unimproved" to mean that the articles at least shared some material, but this is obviously wrong.

Could experienced Wikipedia editors or administrators please clarify this rule for me so that I don't make any similar mistakes in future?In what ways are the new and old articles in question "identical" or "unimproved"?

Thanks for your help. Factsontheground (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To got it overturned, you could go to Deletion Review. Maurreen (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Maurreen, for suggesting that option. For now it's more important to me to make sure that I understand Wiki rules correctly than this particular article, however. Factsontheground (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The objective concerns raised in the old article's AFD (that it was poorly written, contained original research and weasel words) do simply not apply to the new article which is competently written, richly sourced and uses direct language and avoids weasel words. However most of the concerns raised in that AFD are subjective, arguable opinions - that the topic itself is not notable or "encyclopedic", that it is a conspiracy theory or rumor.
It seems difficult (or impossible) to be able to entirely address every concern raised in a prior AFD about an old article when writing a new article on any subject. Moreover, WP:CSD#G4 does not say that the new article has to address every concern raised in the prior AFD to avoid speedy deletion. If that is the case perhaps the language of CSD#G4 should be changed to make this clear to inexperienced users such as myself? Or maybe you are talking about another Wiki guideline of which I am unaware, perhaps you could elaborate please? Factsontheground (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. This experience gave me the impression that my interpretation of CSD#G4 was completely incorrect, but it's a relief to know that my reading comprehension of Wiki guidelines is not totally erroneous :) Factsontheground (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have compared the two articles and I would not have deleted this as a G4. That being said, some of the complaints given in the AfD debate can be said to remain, though to my mind it is far from substantially identical and unimproved. I don't think the admin who deleted this is unfamiliar with G4, but the criterion is in my experience misunderstood more than most of other CSD. (I created {{Notg4}} to address this). Anyway, let me compliment you on your handling of this matter thus far. Calm polite discussion with the deleting administrator and exploring options, as I would describe your reaction, is the best way to foster your desired result, but it is far more common to see apoplexy, demands for restoration, "you've trampled my first amendment rights!" etc. which never help and often hinder.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Your positive feedback is much appreciated :) Factsontheground (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Admins should check that the tagged article is very similar to the deleted article. I would expect the taggers mostly don't have access to see the deleted article, but then they should probably refrain from attaching the db-g4 tag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD F5

This CSD criteria states that orphaned images are to be deleted in seven days and that "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. " In practice, no such exceptions exist. In January of this year, I suggested a change in our policy to accommodate developing articles. That suggestion did not gain acceptance. I think the F5 policy needs to be changed to reflect reality, and this last sentence as quoted above needs to be dropped. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the above archived discussion. There was some objection, but also some support. The idea seems like a good one to me. i would suggest renewing the discussion, and perhaps going to a full RFC in an effort to gain consensus for the change. I would support such a proposed change. DES (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well this is only supposed to be for fair use images. For other kinds of free images they can hang around harmlessly forever, and if they were in a past history edition of an article will make that look better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User blanking of pages

The policy says "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it", and in general I fully agree with that. However, I am not entirely happy about the following, which very often happens: New user creates new article. Article is tagged for speedy deletion. The new user blanks the article. An editor comes along, restores the article, and puts a warning message on the new user's talk page. In this situation it is probable that the new user had accepted that the article should be deleted, and had done what they thought was deleting it. Someone then bites the newcomer by giving them a warning that they have done something wrong by trying to comply with the deletion notice. I always think that a better procedure is to accept the blanking as a request for deletion, and tag the article for speedy deletion with {{db-blanked}}, as specified in the policy by "If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request". However, many editors are unaware of this provision, and it seems to me it would be helpful for it to be mentioned at the point where the general prohibition on author-removal of speedy tags is mentioned. I therefore propose adding a note to this effect to the policy, say:

The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. However, if the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request (see G7).

This does not change the policy at all, but merely calls more attention to an aspect of it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure - seems to reflect current practice. –xenotalk 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd be happy for that to be added. My bot attempts to come in between this problem by marking pages which are marked for speedy deletion and then blanked by the creator as CSD G7 , but it doesn't always get there first. I'm not, however, completely convinced that adding this to the WP:CSD page would make much difference, since the problem is more from RCPers who don't check the page history, than NPPers. Maybe a change to Huggle... - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If I recall right, Huggle already offers to G7-tag pages blanked by their creator when you try and revert. I certainly have no objection to changing the page to reflect this, it's clearly current practice. ~ mazca talk 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That is interesting, because in my experience the reverting and warning is very often done with Huggle, which suggests that maybe users are deliberately choosing not to take the more friendly line. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't huggled in a couple of months, so I may be remembering incorrectly or it may be an option many people don't have turned on. I'll experiment later today if nobody else confirms this. ~ mazca talk 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If the sole author blanks a page, Huggle notices that and asks if you want to tag it as G7. However, if anyone else has edited the page, Huggle will do what you told it to without question. When I see someone blank a page that has been marked for speedy deletion I check the history to see if that user is the page creator. I then use Huggle to tag the page for speedy deletion as G7 rather than reverting and warning. Reach Out to the Truth 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kingpin13 that this may not make much difference, but it may help a little. Since nobody has objected I shall go ahead with the change. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Frankly i am in any case very dubious about our convention - it is no more -- that page blanking equals a request for deletion. Particularly with a newbie, i would never take it as such unless an accompanying edit summery or talk page message pretty clearly indicated that it was so intended. I agree that in the sort of case described above biting the newcommer is a real risk, whatever you do. An individually crafted note is often best in such a case, IMO, whatever is done with the page. DES (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • As someone who sometimes monitors shortPages, I can say that 9 times out of 10 blanking is indeed what newer editors do when they want to delete a page. I do take care to examine the context of the situation so I can catch that 1 out of 10 before tagging it for db-author, and I'd hope that admins processing the db-author would take similar care. It would create a more bitey situation for people to restore stuff that was author blanked against the author's apparent wishes. When there's doubt I do leave an individual note for the editor asking them what their intentions were and telling them how to db-author tag if that's appropriate. Gigs (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Do these newbie page blankers put a reason in the edit summary? I'll bet they don't, since a fair proportion of newbies either ignore or misuse the edit summary. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
        • It is true that many new users do not provide meaningful edit summaries. That however does not mean enough information to make an educated guess as to their intentions is not available. In my experience about half of all page blankings occur after a speedy deletion template has been added to an article, usually with an accompanying message to the article creators talk page. If such blankings are not meant as an indication the new user wishes the article deleted, as opposed to actions such as removing the template or adding {{hangon}}, then what else could they mean? Other blankings as accompanied by edit summaries such as "delete", "oops", or "wrong name" and are obviously meant as deletion requests. --Allen3 talk 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I always take blanking as request for deletion. We have long established users who don't always use edit summaries, so it's a bit much to expect of someone inexperienced enough create a speediable article to think to use an edit summary. I feel it is wholly and always inappropriate to treat as a vandal someone whose sole offenses are to first create a CSD candidate and then to blank the article after receiving a CSD notice. Nothing is lost by assuming good faith, extending a little patience and being less eager to lay on warning templates. Much is lost by running off a potentially constructive editor because they did not understand not to blank a page they've been told is rubbish. If a user is truly a vandal, it will become clear soon enough and they can be dealt with accordingly. I think the proposed change is a good idea if it reduces biting. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Of I agree such a person shouldn't be treated as a vandal. But I might well drop a polite note asking if deletion was intended, and if not what the intent was. DES (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That's good. Very good. Dlohcierekim 04:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

problems with WP:A7

WP:A7 states that stuff may be subjected to speedy deletion if an article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Problem is, "importance" is not a criterion for inclusion, anyway. If it were then presumably all the articles in Category:Low-importance articles would need to be deleted.

For example, Cousins Properties was subjected to speedy deletion recently [3]. In a subsequent AfD, User:Eastmain said "[companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange] aren't (in most cases) automatically notable" and I can agree with that. However, that's not the criterion for WP:A7. To quote WP:A7, the criterion "is a lower standard than notability". So while it may be fair to say that companies listed on the NYSE are not automatically notable would it be fair to say that companies listed on the NYSE are automatically "important" (at least for the definition of importance that WP:A7 is using, even though it may be at odds with the definitions used elsewhere)? ie. although they're not immune to AfD's that they should be immune to speedy deletions? TerraFrost (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A7 uses "importance or significance" as a way to say "lower standard than notability". It's separate from "importance" as used by WikiProjects to classify articles based on their scope (i.e. "important to the project") which Category:Low-importance articles lists.
As for your example, good question. Many companies are listed on many stock exchanges without being notable but imho being listed is indeed an indication of importance or significance since it almost certainly means that some coverage for the company exists, at least related to being listed (see GNews hits for your example). Usually, whenever there is doubt whether something really fits A7, PROD or AFD should rather be used. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Why are schools excluded from A7, while they are clearly included in WP:ORG?? Click23 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have used the archive search before I posted the question. I just do not see how we can have a policy that say schools fall under WP:ORG, yet they cannot be nominated as a CSD. Click23 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, it's been discussed many times and always failed, so I think it's safe to say that this proposal will have the same result – sorry about my Howler tendencies here. :P JamieS93 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unremarkable product

If an article is about an unremarkable product, yet it is not unambiguously advertising, which criteria I should choose A7 or G11. Sole Soul (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither. You might propose if for deletion or you might start an articles for deletion debate but from your description it meets neither criterion you've asked about, and we apply the speedy deletion criteria strictly. Advertising needs to be quite blatant and require a fundamental rewrite; A7 is limited to real persons, individual animals, organizations and web content and does not apply to products.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. "A7...and does not apply to products." It does not make sense not to. I don't think this was intentional. Sole Soul (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It is actually quite intentional, and the matter has been debated substantially before. One reason why A7 does not apply to products is that it is very different to determine a credible claim to the importance or significance of a product because it requires knowledge of a particular market. Therefore best left to discussion at AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Then I'm mistaken about the "not intentional" part, though I'm not entirely convinced by the reason given because it is not unique to products, it applies also to companies and organizations. Sole Soul (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the CSD criteria are meaningfully narrow, but also that they are not exclusive. For example, a page may be clearly a non-notable person page, but not an attack page, and it still qualifies. In other words, CSD categories are overlapping and non-exclusive. So if your product page is not advertising, but is a corporate page, it may qualify. Of course the criteria are limited for the same reason. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You might call this a perennial proposal. For some of the many past discussions on adding products to A7, see here, here, here and here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, the links are very helpful. Sole Soul (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


How is "unremarkable" defined? It is not up to WP to deem a product "worthless" for sure -- I suspect the usual "notability" issue can be raised where it should be raised - on AfD. Else we might be in the wondrous position of the 1870 WP editors who deleted "telephony" as unremarkable <g>. Collect (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Sole Soul was using "unremarkable" as a shorthand to refer to the A7 criterion, which of course is not well described by that word, especially because it invites an assessment of whether the subject is unremarkable rather than whether the text states the subject's remarkability sufficiently, which is much closer though not quite what A7 is about. Anyway, I don't think he was attempting to describe a new standard but an addition to the types of articles that are within the purview of the existing standard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename CAT:CSD

Please express your opinions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Now signing as discussion is closed as SNOW keep. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

One-step or two-step process?

I'm not sure where is the right place to ask this. ... If an admin sees a clear Speedy candidate, is the admin supposed to tag it and let someone else delete it, or is it OK for the admin to delete on sight? This is supposing the text is not objectionable per se, but just not appropriate for WP. Maurreen (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally prefer the two step process, but practice is that it can be a one step process. I don't think this has ever been enforced and I suspect that any effort to dictate that it become a 2 step process would fail to garner conensensus.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Maurreen (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the proposals (of which there was never, as far as I can recall, a terribly formal one) for this were mainly opposed by administrators who thought it was an unecessary hoop to jump through to delete an article that says, "My dad is really cool. His name is Bob Johnson." And of course coupled to that is the impossibility of writing a policy to distinguish between bad articles, and bad articles. The time-limit CSD proposals, which would have much the same purpose as a two-step process, also have the same issues. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think most admins in this area think like this: "If you think anybody could possibly object to your deletion, tag it instead for another admin to review." And most admins can be trusted to delete without tagging in very few cases only. Regards SoWhy 13:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Many admins, including myself, stated in their RFA that they would always use "tag & bag", that is they would never speedy delete a page not already tagged by another editor. Some except blatant attack pages. Some do not follow this practice. DES (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I certainly don't. I ask myself if it clearly meets any of the criteria, same as I would on an article tagged by someone else, and if it does, I delete it. If I have any doubt, I don't delete it, again same as I would for an article tagged by somebody else. I've never been able to understand what is supposedly wrong with that approach. RFA candidates are grilled on CSD (at least I sure was) specifically so that we can be sure they can be trusted to interpret the criteria correctly. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason I follow it is that I think that four eyes are better than two. i have seen lots of cases where something was poorly or improperly tagged for speedy deletion in many cases by an admin, and I have seen a number of cases where something was improperly speedy deleted. Having an extra set of eyes does not prevent this, but it helps to cut down the frequency IMO. I once supported a proposal to make this practice mandatory, but it did not gain consensus. DES (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, tagging and the accompanying notification can help educate new users, and in some cases give those users time to fix a problem article or to supply information on why it really should not be deleted. Please consider using tag & bag on CSD. DES (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I spend a lot of my time sipping from the firehouse that is special:newpages trying to catch the attacks and vandalisms as fast as they come in. I frequently delete articles without tagging them for a second opinion, but I consider myself a fairly cautious deleter and can't remember when I last had such a deletion overturned as a bad call. However I very rarely delete a good faith article unless someone else has first tagged it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I tag things that I feel uncomfortable to delete without 2nd opinion (companies, biographies, etc.) and delete on sight things like pure vandalisms, leftovers of incomplete moves, etc. The main idea: If you don't feel sure, ask a 2nd (and a 3rd opinion), if you are 100% go ahead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD template removed by editor

What exactly am I meant to do if the only editor removes a speedy deletion tag I left on an article that obviously doesn't meet the notability requirements. I have a feeling that if I place the tag on again, he will simply delete it. Forentitalk 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's removed by the article's original creator, then warn them to stop using {{uw-speedy1}} and its followup templates. If they persist, report them to an admin, generally via WP:AIV. Obviously, this only applies to articles de-tagged by their creators - if anyone else removes it, assume the deletion is controversial and consider using AfD instead if you wish to pursue it. ~ mazca talk 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
In the specific case I'm assuming this related to, I've deleted the article and blocked the creator as an obvious spam-only account. ~ mazca talk 01:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that was the case I was speaking of. Forentitalk 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD of blanking by only editor?

Let's not revert war over this. Talk, people. Maurreen (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Cheers. I understand the basis of that little revert war is that User:Atmoz is dissatisfied that his/her G7 tag of Owen Toon was declined. In my view, G7 was satisfied in this case, but it was open to the admin (User:DGG) to decline it on the basis that the subject appeared obviously notable and warranted an article (in addition the article was well-referenced). Speedy deletion is discretionary: it may be refused for good reason even if one of the grounds for speedy deletion is satisfied. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It might be that the text of G7 should be clarify to make it clearer that an admin may choose to declien it even if its terms apply, but I oppose deleting it. DES (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Any admin (or really any user) can decline any CSD nom. Just because we can delete a page does not mean that we must delete it. If DGG was able to turn a soon-to-be-deleted article into a "keeper" that's a good thing and we should be thanking him for being thorough and not just rubber-stamping the request to delete. As we all know nobody owns Wikipedia, a pages author can ask that it be deleted, but if it doesn't merit deletion then they can be overridden. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If DGG has expanded the article to make it viable, then G7 no longer applies. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Our policy has always been that any editor, whether an admin or not, may contest a proposed CSD by removing the tag (unless they are the article’s creator). Once a proposed CSD has been contested for any reason, the appropriate next step would be PROD or AFD. There should never be any revert wars over CSD tagging. — Satori Son 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a new CSD, CSD U4

CSD U4 could be "User page created by user other than account owner." I had to tag several pages like this. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msgchanges) 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • If there is no such user, use U2. If there is such a user, it is the user's business, and they can use U1. If there is something offensive about the page and you can't wait for the user to return and be bothered, consider the general criteria or just blank the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The summary creation of a legion of user pages, such as that by Limmarme (talk · contribs), is a rare occurence. I don't think it occurs frequently enough to warrant an own criterion. There are legitimate reasons to create a user page for someone else — otherwise the page usually fits one of the general criteria, (such as G2, G3, or G10) as SmokeyJoe points out. decltype (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It's mostly vandalism or attack pages in those cases anyway and as such is already covered. And everyone can U1 a page that was created against their wish. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And does happen that a mentor or experienced editor will assist a user by userfying to that user's space. This can also be done at AfD and DRV closes. DES (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
G6 works fine for the rare instances this happens. –xenotalk 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new CSD template: {{salt}}

I am hereby proposing that a new template be created so that a newpage patroller may alert administrators to the fact they are dealing with a multiple recreation. The template, {{salt}}, would accompany an appropriate CSD template and use the same color scheme, or perhaps use a darker shade of red for the background. Any comments before I proceed? I mean, with regard to WP:BITE, I would also have the template alert the creator to alternate venues, etc. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for this. Admins will check previous deletions when considering whether to delete and I think are more than capable to judge whether SALTing is required or not. Alerting the creator is a good thing but there are templates for that already and they can be placed on the talk page where they will more likely be noticed. Regards SoWhy 13:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I know where SoWhy's coming from, and I certainly salt if I see multiple recreations, but equally I see requests for salting at RPP quite regularly, so I guess not all admins do. GedUK  16:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed a template by that name has been deleted as unused and deprecated. What was the purpose of the old template? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what it is - it links to another deleted template, but I'm sure that it has nothing to do with this proposal. Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth having this if it is a recreation using a variant name. In which case name the article variations that have been deleted before. Otherwise when the administrator deletes the article they see all the previous deletes logs, if the name is the same that is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't routinely salt unless recreations are so numerous as to be disruptive editing, indeed unless they are at or approach the block level. After all a speedy is by policy no bar to recreation (G4 does not apply to content deleted by speedy deletion), and an altered version that deals with the speedy deletion reasons is perfectly acceptable at any time. I'm not sure exactly what policy says about salting, but I would be reluctant to do it unilaterally except in very clear-cut cases, mostly when content has been deleted by AfD or when the very title is unacceptable ("<person's name> is an <epithet>" for example). So i would tend to oppose creation of such a template. It would have some valid uses, but I fear would often be mis-used. DES (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
So looking at the above comments, I would say that the only circumstance where such a template would be useful is when we're dealing with a recreation under a different name. By my experience, that happens fairly often, and the admin dealing with the recreation might not be aware of the previous salting of the other name. So if I were to create a template with a mandatory "otherpage" parameter linking to the deletion log of the previous name, would that be acceptable? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need a special template anyway for those few cases? You could just add a comment on the talk page - most people do that already if they want to tell the reviewing admin something, don't they? Since admins should always check the talk page anyway, it will usually be noticed without an additional template Regards SoWhy 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There's the general purpose {{info}} or {{notice}}, just stick that beneath the SD tag and write whatever comments you find important. Amalthea 23:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I know, and I use that template fairly regularly (mainly to point articles created by serial hoaxers, which by themselves are not obvious G3 candidates), I just want to streamline the process, that's all. The potential for misuse mentioned by DES is the only reason I haven't gone ahead already. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Schools and A7

I recently removed an A7 tag from the article Boundary oak school on the basis that the policy would seem to exclude schools from the criterion "an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)" - emphasis added. The article was later deleted under criterion A3 but an editor has questioned my removal of the original tag on the basis that only secondary schools (and not primary/elementary schools) are exempt from the criterion. I wanted to confirm whether or not this is the case - if it is could I suggest that the policy be amended so that this is more clear. Guest9999 (talk)

  • I think you were quite right. A7 says "schools". That should be given its plain meaning: all schools. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • When I'm on newpage patrol and I see an article about a non-notable grammar school, my first reaction is to look for a school district, and I turn the article into a redirect if I'm successful. Otherwise the article gets prodded unless it is eligible for an A3 speedy. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 22:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, the template specifically states "except schools." In case anyone is wondering, primary (elementary) schools have to have significant coverage in outside sources or have several awards in order to be notable. Secondary (middle and high) schools are generally notable on their own, per WP:SCH. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msgchanges) 23:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Whilst it may represent general practise to a degree it might be worth noting that Wikipedia:Notability (schools) (WP:SCH) was a failed proposal. Guest9999 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That is true, but when A7 for organizations gained consensus, the school exception was a requirement -- consensus would not have been achieved without it -- and ad that tiem it was clear that no schools were included. Primary schools may not be inherently notable, but A7 has a lower bar than notability. Primary schools may be said to have an inherent claim to significance, if you like. DES (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The school exception (which I'm all for) has been explicitly part of policy since 2007 following a number of talk page discussions. Redirects are a good solution for non-notable primary schools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I was the admin who deleted this article, though not for A7. I declined the A7 tagging, and then deleted it as no content (it was just an infobox). As far as I'm concerned, schools are schools, regardless of the level; I decline A7s on colleges (Indian and Pakistani ones seem to come up from time to time) and would on unviersities as well, if I ever saw one. GedUK  14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Clearly good call on this one; redirecting from an improperly capitalized title isn't really the thing anyway. :) People are A7ing colleges? :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Yup. Like I said, mainly Indian and Pakistani, often specialist/technical/engineering colleges. I've never understood why colleges and secondary schools are automatically notable, but consensus is consensus. GedUK  21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>I wasn't part of the original discussions, but here is my two pence on why they would be worth having an article and why professional atheletes who only pay one game are worth having an article. Individually, they may not really be notable, but collectively they are. It's a case where IAR would apply. Let me explain, John Smith plays a single game for professional team-X. Suzy Que watches the single game and wonders, "Did John Smith ever play for somebody else?" Logs onto WP too look up that professional player. If there isn't an article of John Smith, she doesn't know if that is because John failed to meet the criteria or because we simply had never written an article about him. Thus, in the case of pro-athletes (even those who aren't really notable on their own) having a stub that says "this player isn't really notable" is of value. Similarly, people will often wonder about schools (especially colleges/secondary schools) and look them up to find out what information exists. This is especially true when somebody is moving and they want to know if the local school system is any good. They may want to know if the school has a successful sports/drama/music/math/science program. If there are no articles, then they don't know anything, but if there is an article, even if the article only says "The ABC School is a secondary school of the YZA school disctrict" they know that the school probably isn't known for anything significant. Individually, the schools may not rise to the level of importance worth keeping, but as genre, they are generally notable and of interest to people.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of A7 is that you already know every last !vote at AFD would be "delete, fails WP:N". Since you don't know this with secondary schools (in fact, you're positive they're be keeps", you don't apply A7 to schools. (And yeah, all CSD are just "every last person would argue delete). WilyD 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision of {{oldcsd}} tag

I have boldly made a slight revision to the {{oldcsd}} tag to allow it to be used by non-sysops who remove CSD tags. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I never use that, but really it still does not go far enough. Any user who is not the creator of an article can remove a csd tag if they feel it does not meet the specified criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Does it have more weight cause an admin detagged? I don't use it anymore. It just does not feel right. I watch pages I delete or decline to delete, so I can always discuss if there's a problem. Dlohcierekim 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Was this OK? / How to address?

This may have been encountered before, but in patrolling the WLH-hangon list, I just encountered this page which was created with a hangon in place from the moment of creation. It was followed, as shown in the diff, by the addition by a third party editor of a G11 CSD tag, and then by comments opposing deletion on the talk page. I'm going to replace the CSD and hangon tags with a PROD due to the talk page opposition, but let's suppose that opposition had not been there. Would it have been inappropriate to remove the hangon, either before or after the CSD tag was added, on the basis that adding it before a CSD tag was added was gaming the system? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This happens typically when the article is deleted while the user is posting a hangon tag. They then repost a new article with a hangon tag in place. –xenotalk 16:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That or the page was deleted and the creator assumes that a hangon-tag will prevent further deletions of his new article. It's not gaming in those cases, since the creators usually do not realize what the system is and as such can't be accused of trying to game it. Regards SoWhy 18:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

U1 and userfied pages

Normally, for pages in a user's own space, we normally just delete away per U1. However, and let me know if other users have experienced the same thing, when we try to find articles that may have had a deletion history, the first place we normally look at is in the mainspace for the edit history; when an admin userfies a page and then that user just straight wants it deleted, we lose what's in the mainspace completely.

For example, this is what I've done with a userfied page User:Haunted360/Haunted Games when it was tagged for U1: I moved it back into the mainspace temporarily at Haunted Games, and then I deleted the page in the mainspace so that the deleted history can be available in its mainspace entry.

Any thoughts on this? Would this be proper procedure for admins to do in situations like this as far as attribution is concerned? –MuZemike 00:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good practice, but we can follow the breadcrumbs either way to get back to grandma's house. –xenotalk 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with xeno. Since the log on deleted pages shows moves now as well, anyone can easily spot that the page was moved and look there for deletion. I don't think it's needed to move it back to mainspace just to delete it. Regards SoWhy 09:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes we can follow the breadcrumbs, but it can be confusingly difficult to do so if the page was deleted from an unexpected place. I think MuZemike has a good idea, though I'm not sure how easy it would be to get all admins to follow the suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the total overhead for following breadcrumbs in a small minority of cases is less than that involved in educating and persuading the admins to change behaviour, then to check that they are all doing it, and to deal with failures to adhere to the new rule. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin-bot proposal: Deletion under U1

Hi there guys, this is a fairly common topic, there is currently a BRfA to actually put it into place. The bot request for approval is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT 2. Please leave your thoughts at the BRfA page, your input is welcome. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddness at Cat:CSD

Can someone more knowledgeable take a quick look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion? It has a number of AfD pages listed in it, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hajinikitas, but I see nothing on the AfD page that indicates someone has requested a speedy. I'm so confused... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this a few times before. Usually it's because something is transcluded onto the page that is somehow adding it to the cat. Rather than trying to figure out what it is, it's usually easier if it's not a mainspace article to just add <noinclude></noinclude> around the entire page. I tried that on the example you listed and it seems to have done the trick. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that's right (edit conflict) Template:CB-keep, which is transcluded in the AfD page, was recently nominated for speedy deletion (without <noinclude> tags around the deletion template). Since categories are carried across onto pages which they are transcluded on, the candidates for speedy deletion category got transcluded. Since the page has now been deleted it'll go away soon :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Although I can't think why noinclude tags (on the AfD page) would have any effect, I expect it's actually the edit which is forcing it to update the categories, so a dummy (or possibly even null) edit would be enough. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the technical reason, this is the advice I was given when I asked essentially the same question a while back, and it seems to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason it doesn't update the category page as soon as the transcluded template is deleted is because of the job queue. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Null edit bot is quite interesting if you want to read a load of tech-savvy geeks discussing this topic :D - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this so quickly! I should have thought of the null edit trick, as I've used that before, but it didn't come to mind. *sigh* --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting user feedback on speedy deletions

We're quite regularly worried at how new users react to speedy deletion and how to make it easier on them, a direct way to better know is by asking them to give feedback. We can do this using Template:Leave feedback in the speedy deletion templates or warnings. We need to devise good questions, however, to get useful data and then use it to improve the system. It may be questions of the sort "were the reasons given for the deletion of the article clear enough ?" "did you know what to do to avoid the deletion of the article ? have you had enough time ?" "how would you suggest we improve the system ?". It doesn't have to be permanent, we can run this for a month or so, then get the results. This kind of feedback campaigns can be performed in other areas as well. Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Any opinion, do you think we should do this ? Cenarium (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I almost always try to educate the article creator as to why the article was deleted and invite them to discuss with me if they think I've erred. SEE User:Dlohcierekim/del. Not sure how we can easily seek feedback in general, though. It could be see as rubbing salt in a wound if we do it wrong. Dlohcierekim 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
We'll probably get some complaints. We should be able to canalise by asking good questions though, and mentions of users can be removed. And it's easy to turn off if this goes wrong, i.e. if nothing usable comes or it's too abusive. Cenarium (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that every speedy deletion should link to the speedy criteria applied (WP:CSD? WP:CSDX?), and that on the linked page there should be a newcomer directed explanation, and instructions on how to ask questions or even appeal the decision, and a note that if they don't understand, that they we would appreciate it if they explained the problem here at WT:CSD. In general, I think the admins do this pretty well. One problem is that questions are often directed to the deleting admin, but the deleting admin can be slow to respond. Certainly, the unexpected deletion of an early contribution is a confronting thing, and an explanation, even generic, goes a long way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It may take more than one set of questions. For about 1/3 the articles that get speedied, the person who wrote the article knows perfectly well that they weren't suitable, and questioning about it will be pointless--especially since they may well be blocked by then. For another 1/3, the problem is they simply have no idea about NOT DIRECTORY, and the topic could never be an article. The problem is sometimes to convince them of that, but otherwise to try to suggest what they should do instead. For the last third, topics about which an article could be written but not the way they've gone about it, this is where customized help is needed. for most speedies, I think that the elaborate instructions we give on the speedy templates are in fact too long and unnecessary. If they don't apply to the specific situation, then they'll be seen as meaningless. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic pages

Ok, so I've been thinking about new page patrolling and there seems to be a definite gap in the CSD policy for something along the lines of: This article (or page) may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that consists purely of material that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia including but not limited to blog posts or other social networking type content, instruction manuals or "how-to" type guides, reviews, personal opinions or essays on any given subject or pages consisting purely of poem or song lyrics. This however does not include any articles on Blog or other social networking sites themselves, or songs/poems if notability has been established and/or where encyclopedic content has been provided. I'm sure this could be expanded upon but as for now does anybody have any thoughts on this? Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 23:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen too many good but somewhat technical articles tagged for deletion, incorrectly, as "how to" type guides to be comfortable with that as one of the speedy criteria. And the "reviews" part seems to open the door to indiscriminate deletion of any article on any book or movie. I get your point that there are some blatantly inapproperiate pages created and we should be able to delete them, but I don't think this description captures that accurately. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you think of any way to improve on or even completely rewrite what I've written in a way that you feel would better or more accurately convey this as a criterion? Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 00:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see "unencyclopedic" as being appropriate speedy criteria. For one thing, it's subjejctive. Another thing, some of these are salvageable, which could happen with a prod. Maurreen (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That's right. Let the prod process handle the pages that are unsuitable simply on the grounds that they are "unencyclopedic." Sometimes, such pages only require a cleanup. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 05:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This reminds me that we really need a WP:PEREN for CSD. As said above, such a proposed criterion fails most requirements on top of this talk page, not being objective or uncontestable and probably not appearing frequently enough (or too often, depending on how you define "unencyclopedic"). Regards SoWhy 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hmm, would probably be better off sticking to {{NOT}} and {{Prod}} in this case then, either way I'd like to keep this discussion open a little longer however as I'd be interested in a few more comments regarding this criterion. Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 15:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If it does not clearly fit any of the current CSD, it probably should just be prodded. I've from time to time rescued articles that at first and second glance were clearly "unencyclopedic." A quick Google search pointed the way to remedying the problem and expanding. Even for those that would clearly fail at AFD, but assert some significance, there's no harm in waiting for the PRDO to expire just in case. Dlohcierekim 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you recast this in a more objective manner please? Stifle (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I have occasionally deleted obviously inappropriate articles that nonetheless did not fit a speedy criteria, such as Potential Collaboration in AFRI - Southern Region which I deleted just a few hours ago, but it is a rare enough occurrence that a new criterion is probably not needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

G7 for redirects created as a result of a pagemove

I'm not sure to understand the reason for this sentence in G7: For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the page prior to the move. Why? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What comes to my mind is the case in which someone originally creates an article under either an incorrect title or under some typos of some sort. Article creator notices the mistake and then moves the page to the correct title. The redirect left over from the move could be deleted if it was implausible (as many mistaken titles are), even though that may be considered R3 as opposed to G7. I think this is placed in G7 for flexibility reasons; perhaps not everyone will understand R3, but most do for G7, and I think many would tag as G7 (the same is done with userpages even though they're technically U1). –MuZemike 22:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the answer to that that deleting a redirect created by a pagemove amounts to a merge-and-delete and violates WP:MAD? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to merges, just straight pagemoves. Remember, in a pagemove, the page's history gets all moved to the new page; that's all preserved. When a pagemove is completed (by a non-admin that is, as admins have the option not to leave a redirect behind as they have the all mighty "delete" tool), a new page at the old location is normally created as a redirect. –MuZemike 23:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It also stops people from moving a page and then deleting the redirect (of which they will always be the sole author) as a way to hide where the moved page has gone. At least, it instructs administrators not to be complicit in this. Gavia immer (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I see, thank you. What said Gavia is likely to be the only reason for that sentence. I'm going to run a bot and this left me with some questions:
  1. What do I have to do when I find a not-so-implausible blanked redirect from the move of a multiple authors page? Revert blanking?
  2. does G7 applies to single-author manually created (and then blanked) redirects?
Basilicofresco (msg) 06:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes and yes. First because it's not a valid G7 to blank a redirect just because you moved the page. You could let the bot revert it and let it tag R3 for an admin to review. Second yes because G7 applies to any page blanked by the page creator, no matter if it contained actual content or only a redirect. Again, it's for the admin to decide whether it should really be deleted since it might still be a useful redirect. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One qualification: when I move drafts from userspace to mainspace, I usually tag the resulting cross-namespace redirect for deletion as "G6 housekeeping". No one has objected to that...yet. – ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is no reason to. Since you are the principal author prior to the page move (G7), and the page resides in your user space (U1), there is no problem with you requesting it to be deleted. decltype (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

G10 - new category, reword warning, or leave as is?

G10 is currently used for attack pages and for articles that are unreferenced and heavily biased against the subject. I have no problems with the wording of the template as such, but the wording of the warning to be left on the editors page is very bitey. Not an issue if the article is something along the lines of "John Doe is a Smelly git", but what if the article was written in good faith, but largely unsourced?

Take for example this version of Political Sex scandals of the United States, taken just before it was coutesy blanked and nominated for speedy deletion by User:Aboutmovies. I reviewed it, and decided that it was not an attack page, and declined it for speedy deletion. After a discussion with Aboutmovies, I have since gone back and removed all the unreferenced scandals.

The warning given to the editor User:Richrakh was the same as that given to a vandal writing a malicious page. Looking at Richrakh's previous edits, it is hard to think that this editor is a vandal. In other words, the warning we are supposed to use when informing an editor the article will be deleted is not AGF. As WP:IAR is important in allowing newbies to vreate articles, we can't expect that they will have full understanding of WP:BLP.

The perception of G10 (at least to me) is that it is used for attack pages rather than attack pages and unreferenced damaging article. I admit that I reviewed the original article as if it were an attack page, rather than an unreferenced article, which meant that the action to remove the unreferenced scandals was delayed.

So this is what I suggest:

Option 1 Create a new category to be used for articles that are negative and unreferenced, but were created in good faith. I guess that this falls into the BLP deletion debate that has been going for a while/ However, an article about problems with companies that are unreferenced are equally as valid.

Option 2 Have two different warning templates listed in the CSD box- the existing one that is used where malicious intent is obvious and a less bitey one where we can assume that the editor created it with good intent but without full awareness of BLP.

Option 3 Leave as is.

Option 4 I'm open to suggestions!

I look forward to reading your thoughts. Stephen! Coming... 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I favor using different template warnings. But templates don't cover all situations, and I drop a real note on a user's page if the template waning does not fit. People need to look at the message they're about to leave and consider its appropriateness. The new warning should something along the lines of, "thanks for trying, but I'm sorry to say this does not comply with WP:BLP. Dlohcierekim 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I like Option 2. I also agree with Dlohcierekim in that some people over-rely on templates. A friendly note takes a little more time but shows more humanity. Maurreen (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not hard to write a handwritten note to someone if they are not obviously doing it deliberately. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)The problem is that some people won't spend time to write it out, and will just copy the templated warning. Templates are there to save time, and there is a lot of information that needs to be given - relevant policies, the process about saving it, etc. A less bitey template would be good here. Stephen! Coming... 13:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
For reference, the template is at Template:Db-g10 if people are unfamiliar with what it says. IMO, if an article is made by a new user, and it is a BLP that is overly negative and unsourced...I don't see any reason to change the template. The burned hand teaches best. If the article is a neutral or positive unsourced BLP then the G10 criterion doesn't apply, right? So essentially, the template and CSD criterion already are assuming bad faith so there's no real reason to soften the message. Syrthiss (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine for those who are being malicious, but what about those who created it in good faith? Should we still assume bad faith on their part? Stephen! Coming... 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If its negative and unsourced, I begin to lean towards bad faith. As such, the template notice is fine to me. Syrthiss (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to throw a spanner in the works, many editors, including myself, use Twinkle for speedy deletions which tags the page and then automatically templates the author. I think the creation of a new criterion could be a good idea so we have one that's for bad faith, plain and simple attack pages (the existing G10) and one for articles that introduce negative unsourced material on living persons, but where we're more incline to AGF- rather like one might decide to AGF and use G2 instead of G3. HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

No, I've deleted negative unsourced that was not clearly bad faith. Usually, it's about someone who is notorious in a small way rather than notable. We must remember that many users only understand WP:BOLD. They never heard of WP:BLP. They should not be treated the same as the one's who are clearly out to harm someone. Dlohcierekim 14:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've recently deleted a couple of unsourced negative bios where I've left a tailored message on the users talkpage, in both cases there was no way I could tell without trying to source the article whether the article was a very neutral article about a controversial figure, or a smear on an innocent person. I don't think it happens often, but surely twinklers et al can drop out of twinkle and write something more appropriate on the small minority of occasions when needed. ϢereSpielChequers 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle? Template? I wish I knew what you folks were going on about! I can only say I'm looking up referneces just as fast as I can. I could also say I've run across lots of articles in Wikipedia with a lot less references than mine. Since the term 'attack' has been used in this context on articles about politics, someone obviously thinks one party or the other is being 'attacked.' Such is not the case. I make it my business to seek out jerk wads of every stripe. And reference them. Richrakh````

I think WP:DTR applies here. Certainly, delete unsourced negative material or even (per G10) whole unsourced negative articles about living people even when, as in Richrakh's case, the deleted material is clearly written in good faith. But a short and personalized message explaining what you're doing and why makes more sense than a template aimed at newbies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Richrakh, and welcome.
Yes, Wikipedia does have a lot of inconsistency (some good, some bad; some by design, some by happenstance). It can be hard to learn.
In an ideal world, all of WP would be referenced. But referencing (or lack thereof) gets more attention when it is negative, has to do with living individual people, or concerns work by newer editors and newer pages.
The "attack" as generally used in Wikipedia context is usually not intended to indicate partisanship. It roughly means something that is unduly negative. But as happened with some of your work, sometimes different people interpret things differently.
"Wikipedia:Templates" in this context are, roughly speaking, Wikipedia's version of form letters, often warning notices. A common use is to inform editors, especially newer ones, about something they should do differently.
"Wikipedia:Twinkle" is some technotool used by some editors. I don't know much about it. But I think it helps people do certain routine things more quickly. I think it's more-used by editors who do what we call Wikipedia:New page patrol and Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol.
It looks like you might be having a little trouble with your signature. It took me a little while to figure it out. I think you're using the right key but need to also use the "Shift" key at the same time.
Hope that's helpful. Maurreen (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If someone with skill in that department wants to knock up a new softer warning, the folks who run Twinkle are usually pretty good about adding useful new stuff to it if you just ask. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My skill with HTML is second to everybodys, so I'll just suggest some text as a starting point:
Hi, and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created for Wikipedia Article has been nominated for speedy deletion as Under CSD#G10: An unreferenced article that represents the subject in a negative manner. Please read the guidelines on adding references, neutral point of view and Biographies on living people. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
(I've just added itallics to distinguish it from the rest of the thread). Anyway, what do you think as a starting point? Stephen! Coming... 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification required for G7

I've had three G7 requests recently rejected with CSDH claiming "Creator was not the only editor of this page": [4] [5] [6]. The actual criteria is "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author". In both cases I was the only provider of "substantial" content and in both cases there were no talk pages. -- samj inout 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I might have deleted the cloud networking page, but on the other one this [7] would be considered a substantial edit. It's an instance of the difference between if a deletion is technically permitted as a matter of rules-vs-if there is an actual obligation to delete it. In other words, just because something could be deleted does not mean that it must be deleted. I'd suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD as alternatives. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced this is substantial (not to mention that it was WP:OR and spam) but that's not so much the point - rather that the criteria should be clarified as to what "substantial" means. If it's "non-trivial" then why not call it "non-trivial" rather than "substantial"? -- samj inout 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Policies are often worded in a non-specific manner because we want admins, and hopefully everyone else, to exercise judgement and common sense. I'm really not sure how changing the language from "substantial" to "non-trivial" is any more specific anyway. I think you will also find that many admins are reluctant to speedy delete any page with a substantial editing history. Again, we don't have to delete it just because the primary author has asked for it. As I'm sure you know, once you post it, it's not yours anymore. If there's even a possibility that Wikipedia would be better with it than without it, a full discussion is warranted regardless of whether the primary author has asked for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
For cloud networking, I considered this a substantial edit. Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Cloud networking was not eligible for WP:CSD#G7. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no category for violations of WP:CRYSTAL (particularly for movies, music, TV shows and/or games)?

I'm trying to figure out why the proposal to create a category (or an expand an existing category like G1 or A7) for flagrant WP:CRYSTAL violations was never put to a vote. Where is the discussion, if any, archived?

I've generally found that the most common type of inappropriate page I've encountered (that lacks a speedy category) is pages for movies, television and musical recordings that have been announced, but haven't even entered production. WP:NFF, while admittedly a guideline for movies alone, not a policy like WP:CRYSTAL, describes the reasons why movies in production or pre-production almost never qualify for notability due to WP:CRYSTAL (with the exception of movies in production for which the production itself is notable). While I'm not aware of a relevant guideline, the same reasoning applies to TV shows, musical albums, and most games. But the only recourse in cases like these is either a {{prod}} (which some gamers of the system like to leave in place for six days, editing the article all the while, only to remove it at the last second to force an AfD, assuming the original prod-er notices), or going straight to AfD. When I'm performing new page patrol regularly, I often run into half a dozen such pages per day, not counting the ones that slip by me. While a broad speedy category for any flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL would make sense, I recognize the possibility of conflicts over the exact point at which an announced event becomes sufficiently set in stone for matters of greater import. Given that, I'd be happy with a more constrained category of WP:CRYSTAL violations specific to entertainment (movies, TV, music, games). Given that the vast majority of WP:CRYSTAL violations fall into this category, the risk:reward ratio is markedly improved. Overzealous deletions are less critical since, frankly, the subject is less critical to Wikipedia's utility than something like an upcoming election. Simultaneously, even though the range of topics covered is restricted, it still covers, in my experience, at least 90% of the violations. Any thoughts? Again, I could use a link to any archives of previous discussions in this area. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that in the vast majority of cases of crystal ball gazing there is an appropriate target to redirect the page to until such time as a stand-alone article is warranted. That is vastly preferable to deletion. I also think there is a bit too much grey area involved, which would making it very difficult to make a clear and unambiguous criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What about in cases like movies that aren't due for release for three years, and haven't entered production? —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 13:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Upcoming projects often receive coverage in WP:RSs, and in those cases consensus sometimes is that an article is warranted in advance. See also WP:NALBUMS. Speedy deletion should be uncontroversial. If the article is deemed to be an uncontroversial deletion candidate outside of the usual criteria, consider PROD. I must admit that I find it a little hard to believe that "gaming PROD" is a common occurence, as it assumes the user is very familiar with our deletion processes. The vast majority of such users contribute constructively. decltype (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I found WP:NFF to be very effective at AfD, although the result was usually to redirect, not delete. Excitement about a future film usually means that there is an existing book article, or similar, to redirect to. Is ShadowRanger saying that blatant NFF violations are so frequently requiring deleteion that they need to be speediable (I long since gave up trying to keep up with even glancing at all AfDs). Could "speedy redirect per WP:NFF" be a solution here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Contentious BLP deletion

WP:BLP says:

  • "If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page."

Why isn't this codified into a proper CSD? The community has consistently rejected the widespread use of speedy deletion outside of CSD. It seems to me that we should either create a new CSD for this, or get it out of WP:BLP. Gigs (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think G10 covers it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying that this line in WP:BLP justifies nothing outside of what G10 permits? That's not what you have been arguing on other pages. If that's the case, then we can reword the line to make it clear that it only covers negative attack pages, right? Gigs (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of what may have been said elsewhere I think you both have a point here. If a page's primary content is undeniably unsourced negative information about a living person, it would qualify as an attack page and could be speedied. Anything not so obvious however would probably require a PROD or AFD as it now stands. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
"Poorly sourced" doesn't appear in G10, no doubt because that is too subjective a judgement. As an aside, in my view, G10 is the one criterion that should be interpreted liberally. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, the current wording in WP:BLP doesn't require the information to be negative, merely not "policy compliant". I've seen the argument recently that unsourced information is not policy compliant, therefore this line justifies deletion of merely unsourced, non-negative, articles. If this is the case, then either G10 needs to be updated to say what this says, or WP:BLP should be updated to reduce this remit down to what CSD allows. Gigs (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "delete the page", not "speedy delete the page", so it does not say that the deletion has to happen immediately. Especially if a page is "only" poorly sourced, an AFD is often a way to rectify the situation. Imho the "administrator" part in that sentence does not refer to the fact that the admin is the one deciding the deletion in every case but instead refers to the simply fact that only admins can delete pages. Updating G10 to allow subjective reasoning like what constitutes "poor sourcing" has been rejected for good reasons multiple times so WP:BLP should be clarified that deletion does not always mean speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 20:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The section is entitled "summary deletion", it's not referring to AfD, it's referring to a single administrator summarily deleting an article out of process. Gigs (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like WP:BLP should be reworded to CSD G10 -- attack pages. Maurreen (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
spoon feeding is good, but seriously why is it that we spend days abusing potential admins and ensuring that we can trust them if we dont let them use good judgement and common sense. The more we define to the n'th degree the more we lessen the ability of admins to deal with issues and thegreater we empower the vandals, at some point BLP needs to common sense or we'll reach to the point where while we discuss whether its a BLP issue the lawyers are able to successfully take action against The Foundation. Gnangarra 06:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Gnangarra, I can understand where you're coming from. But to some degree, they are related. A small number of admins do not use good judgment.
Another option would be rewording the WP:BLP sentence, to change "contentious" to "negative" here: "If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page." 06:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Because someone writes an article about "Joh Bloggs" that says how wonderful he is, how many charities he works for, how he written 100's books on personal development and spiritual growth doesnt mean it shouldnt be deleted or ignored. WP:YESPOV is as big a problem, having an article about a person thats uses false positive material is as contentious a having a negative article that's the whole point of using the term contentious. This is more important to lesser known peoples who use(abuse?) wikipedia to promote themselves and we need to treat all additions to BLP's in the same light not just the negative side of the equation otherwise how can we be trusted. Gnangarra 08:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
xxxxxxx Is a notorious mafiosi hitman child abuser is a fundamentally more serious problem than xxxxxx is a military hero and successful filmstar. Ethically and legally we should treat attack pages as a much higher priority for deletion than fancruft and hagiography. That isn't to say we accept spam and yespov, but no they should not be treated equally. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
unsourced contentious material is unsourced contentious material whether its positive or negative is irrelevant, it should all be dealt with exactly the same its called being neutral thats the fundamental principle of Wikipedia and WP:BLP. Gnangarra 13:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems our opinions are at odds here. Longstanding policy is to treat {{G10}}s as a more serious matter than {{G11}}, so I don't think I'm alone in my view. NPOV is about ensuring that wikipedia articles are neutral, not about treating all bad edits equally. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with WereSpielChequers here. Certainly unsourced contentious material of any kind is unacceptable, but to claim that all unsourced contentious material is equally urgent is nonsense. Material which is contentious because it may be libellous is a very different matter from material which is contentious because some people think it is unjustified promotion. In the one case we need to get rid of it at once for both legal and ethical reasons, while in the other case it is reasonable to allow time to discuss whether or not the material is justifiable, and whether it is possible to remedy the lack of sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "contentious" is in the policy for a reason. The word negative should be there also, except that there is a certain amount of actually contentious material that is not exactly negative, but subject to variable interpretation. To call someone a liberal might, depending on his politics, be both contentious and--as far as he is concerned--negative, and be intended to harm his reputation. The word in or not, we still need good judgment, and it is unrealistic to pretend that all admins have it. Unsourced positive material that amounts to puffery is not a matter of contention--it just gets removed--or if there's nothing much else there, we have G11. True, editors here can contend over anything, but the instances of contention over things like year of birth or nationality are quite rare--and the problem is not generally lack of sources, but multiple sources that say different things. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Page blanking

G7 means author requests deletion. Page blanking (if the blanker was the only substantial contributor) is also taken as a speedy deletion request. However, I have noticed (since I began NPP two years ago) that if a page is tagged with speedy deletion, the article creator sometimes blanks the page apparently to remove the tag, but we then tag it as G7 and then delete it. I propose that G7 should no longer apply to pages that have CSD tags. If they blank the page while there is a CSD tag, it should be taken as an act of removing speedy deletion templates and not requesting deletion. I have no problems with G7 author requests deletion by blanking however if they really mean it (as in no CSD tag or they state it on their edit summary). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you proposing be done with the blank pages left behind if this proposal is adopted. The common interpretation of the situation you describe is that a new user after creating an article that is for some reason inappropriate for Wikipedia attempts to "delete" the newly created article by blanking the page, not realizing that he lacks the technical ability to perform an actual page deletion. If G7 is not used and the article never contained material appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia (a circumstance that is very likely given the situation you describe) then the apparent options are speedy delete using a different criteria (A1 of A3?), use a more resource intensive deletion process, or let an ever growing number of blank pages build up as places for vandals to utilize without having to face new pages patrol. --Allen3 talk 11:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ahhh never mind, feel free to blank this section. I get it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Allow speedy deletion of newly made up nonnotable neologisms

I note "noncriterion 4" says "Neologisms. New specialized terms should have a wider hearing." Speedy deletion was refused for a nonnotable neologism made up today by someone on Facebook, which immediately had a lengthy article inserted about it in Wikipedia. I found it at AFD, but I will not link the the particular discussion to avoid canvassing. It was nominated as nonsense and that was refused, because the text was coherent. But we should not have to waste a lot of time and discussion at AFD everytime someone makes up a neologism and writes a Wikipedia article about it. Who says that every term someone makes up "Should have a wider hearing?" Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and not a publisher of original thought, and not a collection of indiscriminate information. not a forum for promoting a new term one just made up. If someone makes up a neologism, writes a seemingly coherent article about what it means and how it originated, but it has not received any secondary coverage, it should be permissible to speedily delete it. Using AFD to delete such a vanity article about something made up one day is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Edison (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree completely, but for some reason we've never been able to come up with a wording for a speedy criterion for these things that gains any real consensus. I remain very much open to suggestions - I've occasionally made speedy deletions citing WP:NFT when it's really very obvious, but it's certainly never been codified. ~ mazca talk 16:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that this is somewhat problematic; however, in the past there has been opposition to such a criterion on the grounds that one admin should not be the judge of what is "made up in one day" and what isn't. If I recall correctly, some suggested that a liberal interpretation of G3 (vandalism) could be applied to delete particularly obvious violation of WP:NFT; however, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, as WP:VANDAL states that "creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism." Because neologisms can be notable, I think it follows that speedily deleting articles on non-notable neologisms is typically an invalid application of G3.

In general, unless another CSD is met (e.g. G11 or G12), WP:PROD is probably the best way to go. Sorry. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The neologist of course can immediately remove the PROD, necessitating AFD. Trolls or folks with too much time on their hands can create neologism articles pretty quickly easily, and a lot of editor time is required to go through the full process of AFD, which might better be spent improving the encyclopedia in other ways. Edison (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Related discussion, WP:NEO is currently part of the MOS. MoS people want to merge it into the main MoS, which I think is fine, except that we should pull out the parts of it that are actually misplaced notability guidelines and merge them into WP:N. Discuss: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Neologisms Gigs (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with A Stop at Willoughby. CSDs are for clear cases that can be objectively determined. I don't find neologisms to be clear objective cases, and potentially good articles could get inappropriately deleted. It isn't like AfD is getting backlogged with neologisms and we need a CSD criterion to get around it. Sure, these things are often garbage, but it is the kind of garbage we can tolerate for seven days. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this situation can be partially addressed at AFD by allowing a discussion to be closed as "delete" early if it quickly becomes apparent that the subject is completely unverifiable. That is, the nominator can't find anything and and neither can several other "good faith" !voters. This is sometimes done now with the closing admin invoking IAR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW and WP:IAR are for instance where commonsense can be objectively determined in an afd, but that doesnt mean that CSD#G3 should be excluded either sometimes is very obvious its a waste of the communities time to send it to afd. Specifically excluding them would be feeding the trolls and vandals unnecesarily, where as the current undefined practice gives some descretion. Gnangarra 07:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've seen cases where G3 applies--or even G10, when the neologism is based on somebody's name. The ones where these apply are not all that common that we need a rule specifically for them. Aside from this, neologism are not the sort of thing a single admin can decide. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Nelogisms were explicitly excluded because what appears to be an obvious non-notable neologism might just be a gold mine waiting to be enhanced.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Are there really uncontroversial deletions of neologisms that aren't covered by G3: Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes? Either we're 100% sure the neologism is just something someone made up one day - and so it's fine for a G3 - or we're not, and so we shouldn't be speedying it in the first place. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Image spam?

100px

I ran across this image, "Sri_Rayaru1.JPG", which has an obvious web site address in it. If this were an article it might qualify for speedy deletion under "G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, there appears to be no analogous classification for files. Also, WP:SPAM does not appear to address this type of problem. I think the file should be deleted, but I'm unsure of the right way to go about doing so. (I start by removing it from the only article that links to it, Raghavendra Swami) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The "G" series reasons are general reasons, applying to all namespace - not just articles. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I should've seen that! Thanks... Justin W Smith talk/stalk 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This file is not on Wikipedia, it is on the Wikimedia Commons. Though you can request speedy deletion there using {{Speedydelete}}, if you wish to go ahead, I think this is probably best listed at Commons:Deletion requests. See Commons:Deletion requests/listing a request manually for how to do so. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You just created a local file by adding the G11 template. I deleted that, which does nothing to delete the Commons image;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this is starting to make more sense. Some images are on Wikipedia, and others are on Wikimedia Commons. I'll look for that next time. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 05:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested deletion on Wikimedia commons. The discussion is here. Thanks for directing me to the right location. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It looks like the watermark will just be removed from the image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the purpose of F9?

Why do we need criterion F9? I've never understood how it has any purpose other than what G12 already does. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like a mistake. Maurreen (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
For files, there's the "fair use" policy getting in the way of deleting some copyright infringements. So that's a condition that does not apply to textual infringements. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There's such a thing as a fair use of textual material as well (for example, quoting from a copyrighted text to illustate the author's style of writing); note that G12 permits the deletion of "Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license". Since F9 doesn't include pages with a claim of fair use either, I don't see the difference. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair use text cannot be the only content of an article, whereas a fair use image doesn't have that restriction. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

F8. Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons,

When you delete files that have been moved to Commons you have to check that there is information about the source and author on Commons. Now there are lots of files that only say who was the uploader at en.wikipedia and that the file was transferred from here. If the uploader is the author it is easy to fix by removing "Original uploader was" from the author field, and adding something about own work in the source field. As long as the file is not deleted here anyone can do these changes, but after the file is deleted only English Wikipedia admins can look at the file information here. /90.229.128.74 (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

autobiography

I'd like to see autobiography as a valid criteria for speedy deletion. The current guideline of "strongly discoura[ing]" autobiographical articles lacks any teeth. History has shown us that it's very difficult for a person to write objectively about themselves and these autobiographical articles rarely meet notability guidelines. While we can use A7 as a deletion criteria, in cases where it can be clearly determined (based on the username) that the article creator is that person (or even owns that business) and no other significant contributions to the article have been made, it would be nice to have a speedy deletion criteria to quickly delete spammy, unremarkable articles. Thoughts?--RadioFan (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

These can be turned into something decent, as long as the specific subject fits. Maurreen (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Maurreen. As loathsome as some autobiographies can be, they can turn out to be about notable subjects, or at least subjects whose notability is debatable. We do have editors that wrote about themselves, autobiographers just need to be educated like all editors about our policies and guidelines. CSD is for clearly, indisputable deletable articles, so if one of the existing criteria don't apply, it's better to prod or AFD. Elements of COI or POV are amenable to education and judicious editing by more experienced editors. If the subject is truly unremarkable, or the the article clearly promotional, existing criteria serve without making autobiography a CSD category. Dlohcierekim 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that an autobiography damages the notability of that person and that a good article could never be written about the subject. I'm suggesting that the article written by that person is tainted by personal bias and so invaluable as a result that deleting it and starting fresh is best. --RadioFan (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it lacks the required indication of importance or significance to satisfy A7, it can already be deleted. But just because someone wrote about themselves, it does not mean we cannot keep the material, does it? There is no reason to treat them different imho. Quite a number of perfectly legit articles were created by people affiliated with the subject but have been turned into valid articles or sometimes even were valid from the start. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I dont think editors can objectively judge their own notability and any material they write about themselves, their business, their products, etc. should be deleted. Please dont misunderstand, I'm not saying they could never be notable, not am I suggesting that an article that was created by the subject of the article and then edited by a dozen other authors should be deleted. I'm talking about the articles where the subject of the article created it themselves and are the only ones that ever contributed to it. The article was created to promote themselves. That's not what Wikipedia is for.--RadioFan (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
RadioFan, I'm quite bothered by autobiographical spam as well, but in your view, what's wrong with using G11 on articles like that? I don't have a long history of digging through the new article slushpile, but that seems an appropriate preexisting speedy delete criterion for most of the articles I've seen. Is it just that those efforts always turn into battles between the subject and the rest of Wikipedia about what is and isn't promotional, and end up dragging? I certainly understand the desire for a bright-line test. *ponders* --Joe Decker (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I like your way of thinking but unfortunately enough admins see G11 as expendable to self promotion of a person to make it practical for weeding out crappy autobiographical ones. I've tried that in the past and got too many unpleasant notes on my talk page from otherwise well meaning admins declining the speedy, telling me G11 was applicable to products or companies and not biographies and admonishing me to read the guidelines (I hate getting that last part). Perhaps that's the solution here, update G11 a bit. G11 is vague, probably purposely so. Perhaps we could add some language to G11 to mention biographical articles (autobiographical or otherwise) which are purely promotional. Thoughts anyone?--RadioFan (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
G11 does not mention either companies nor products as requirement for deletion at the moment. The confusion might come from the second part of the current wording though, I'd propose rewording it:
Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject and/or having been written by the subject itself or someone affiliated with it does not qualify an article for this criterion.
That should clarify that (contrary to your proposal but in line with comments here) being autobiographic or written by the subject itself is not a reason for deletion itself but that such articles can be valid G11 deletions if a fundamental rewrite was really necessary to fix the problems. Regards SoWhy 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In the Spanish Wikipedia, speedy deletion criterion G3 (the equivalent of our G11) is worded as to explicitly extend to autobiographies, and refers to it as autopromotion. However, not all autobiographies are promotional, and it is often hard, even impossible, to determine the identity of the creator of an article. If the creator of an autobiography chooses a username which, by itself, doesn't show any link to his real-life identity, then the link between subject and creator is impossible to determine. Articles should be speedied based on what's in them, not who created them, with the only exception being criterion G5. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The tendency, cautious or not, is going to be towards promotion, so it's fair to characterize it that way.
Bad tendencies, including toward promotion, may be remedied through judicious editing and the overall improvement process. Blanchardb puts it very well. Dlohcierekim 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
This is partly a visibility issue - people have and do write autobiographies that are not biased. Nobody gets upset about them so they fly under the radar. We're speculating without any real data. The current policy lacks teeth precisely because these articles aren't always bad, and even when bad, are less work to edit than to rewrite. Dcoetzee 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For early background, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel C. Boyer and Wikipedia:Autobiography. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

About G5

How could a blocked user create their user page if they can't edit it while they are blocked? Keyboard mouse (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK. As soon as the deception is exposed, all contributions are fair game to revert. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 02:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that the page can still be created by using another account to circumstance the block? Keyboard mouse (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. A blocked user can still create a new account to edit (unfortunately) and if they do so, all their contributions with this new account can be speedy deleted under G5 to enforce the fact that they are not allowed to edit. Regards SoWhy 07:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos of copyrighted material

What would be best criteria for a photo of copyrighted album artwork such as this? Simple F9 (no url source)? Are they speedyable? What annoys me about the example tags in F9 is that they seem to suggest you have to provide a url for the source. Rehevkor 03:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to provide an URL if it's clear from the picture itself (F9 says that a "URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned). In this case, the uploader (mistakenly) believed that if they take the picture, they are the copyright holder, which is not the case. I'd recommend posting a message to the uploader's talk page so that they have the chance to add a WP:NFCC rationale before we have to delete it. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgot I had left a comment here. Since there is already a fair use album cover here. I see the image has been deleted anyway now so will keep it in mind for the future, cheers! Rehevkor 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

G7 on ns3?

Hi! Does in your opinion this belong to the criteria G7? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It could - but given that NuclearWarfare is an admin he could have just deleted it himself if he felt it appropriate. As it is, just having a blank talk page for that IP is fairly harmless. ~ mazca talk 10:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I mean: are usually user_talk pages included in G7? I do not understand if "userspace" refers only to ns2 or both ns2+ns3. Thanks. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Depends on where it's used. In the context of U1 for example it only applies to User:, not User talk: while in the context of WP:UPAGE it might to both. In the case of G7, the exception to blanking as a G7 request applies to User talk: as well, since our guidelines allow people to blank their talk pages. G7 does apply to user talk pages though if requested explicitly (unlike U1 which doesn't). Regards SoWhy 18:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates with only plain text

Would templates such as Template:Catscan_Portal, which is orphaned and contains one linkless, plaintext sentence be CSD-able under something like G6? If not would a T4 criterion for such templates (plaintext, orphaned and not used via subst) be useful? I'm trying to clean up the list of unused templates, and I'd rather not flood TfD with what are quite evidently 'snowball' deletions. - Mobius Clock 19:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The page you use as an example is pretty new. How about asking the experienced user, Bermicourt (talk · contribs), who created it? Generally, really old and unused templates may fall under G6 but you should first try to find out, why they were created, especially if the creator is an experienced user. Regards SoWhy 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't specifically gunning for that page to be deleted right away, I was asking more of a hypothetical question and used that template as an example (there are others). Thanks for the advice, and I'll be sure to ask about the purpose of the templates before CSD-tagging or taking to TfD. - Mobius Clock 21:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To help0 out with this sort of thing, is there a search option that searches through all the histories of pages to see if text is there, or a page/template used in the past history of something? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a toolserver job to me. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

cross posting

CSD related discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of that conversation is the next section on essay and how-to. — Timneu22 · talk 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

speedy warning templates

The warnings placed on an editor's talk page to alert them that an article they've written/edited has been tagged needs some revision.

  1. There should be a link to WP:DRV, particularly to the information in the "Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions" section. Many times the warned editor doesn't get to see the warning notice until after the article has been deleted. While some just go ahead and recreate the article (Bad editor! Bad!), others actually read the warnings and wonder what to do next. Let's encourage this good behavior and give them the information they need to take the next steps of contacting the admin or filing a DRV.
  2. The warnings seem to me to be too much of a block of text for many of the more enflamed authors/editors. Can we recraft these warnings so that they include my first point, but also are easier to read and follow? I'm thinking that the text should be pared down, putting the relevant links into a box to the right of the text (replacing/displacing the Article Wizard box). the text should state simply that another editor feels the article should be quickly removed because it doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion into the encyclopedia. (Shorten the first paragraph.) Next sentence should be something along the lines of "If the article still exists...." followed by numbered list of steps the editor can take (courteous contact with the tagger, hangon tag & explanation of the hangon). Next If the article is already deleted... followed by a numbered list for what steps they can take (courteous contact, DRV, etc). Finally a reminder that removal of speedy tags and recreating the page outside of the listed steps is vandalism and may cause their account to be blocked. I'll try to work on a sample template based on the existing speedy warnings, but my ... errr... style often leaves something to be desired. I'm better at ideas and editing than re-creations. ;)

Oh... and I hope this is the right place to discuss this. Otherwise point me in the right direction and I'll take it up there. thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made my first redraft of the warning. The first sentence should be dependent upon which CSD A reason the article was tagged for, as should the upper box's list of links to read. Comments? I like that there is more whitespace so the reader's eyes don't gloss over and ignore the whole thing, and that the eye is drawn to the steps to take. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a big improvement over the current warnings. One improvement I would suggest is to add a link in #1 under if your article has been already deleted to the deletion log. This will make it easier for new editors to find out who they should be contacting initially for a review. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I would do away with the warning against recreating the article, or at least add the qualifier, with the same content. Sometimes speedied articles are recreated in such a way that the concern that led to deletion has been addressed, and in this case I see no reason to go through any further deletion process. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

GB fan - yes, but I'm not savy enough in wikicode to make a proper wiki-if statement to have that happen. Infact, I'll need help making a single warning template to handle all CSD-A cases. (That's a part of the goal is to make one template that can do the job for all CSD-A cases.) - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanchardb - I think adding the qualifier is great! It's that condition that would be vandalism. Perhaps with essentially the same content might even be better, 'cos changing one word probably wouldn't be good enough to fix the article.... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

U1 for pages created by another user?

The page User:GD 6041 was created with the text of "this is a bot" by a user who does not appear to have any connexion to GD 6041. Just a little bit ago, GD 6041 tagged the page for speedy under U1. Since we normally assume that userspace pages are created by the user whose space it is, U1 appears to me to be a specialised case of G7; consequently, I'm not so sure that this page should be deleted under U1. Is U1 deletion appropriate here? Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is exactly the kind of thing U1 is intended for. When a user has their user page created by another user (so G7 doesn't apply), when they don't want that user page. I don't see a problem with the deletion request, would suggest deletion - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It could be deleted under U1, or G7, or G3, or you could just write a rationale in the deletion box rather than using the drop-down, it really doesn't matter--Jac16888Talk 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the input. The user readded the speedy tag, and it was deleted some minutes ago by Lifebaka; given your opinions, I would have deleted it if s/he hadn't already. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the same issue as Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_38#How_about_a_new_CSD.2C_CSD_U4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A7-like criteria for words?

Okay, this is the first time I've posted here, so if I'm completely off the mark with this idea feel free to just say so and leave it at that, but I've had a quick look through the archives and while this has been dealt with, none of them seem to put quite this spin on it.

I'll take Steeze as my example here. I can't see the content of the most recently deleted one (I'm not an admin), so I'll go by memory and say it was something like "Steeze is a combination of style and ease". The two times I saw this deleted (as you can see from the deletion log) were as an A7 by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) and as a G1 by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs). Thing is, it doesn't meet either of these criteria: its not an A7 case because it isn't an individual, organisation, animal or web content, and it isn't a G1 either because it isn't nonsense: you can clearly understand what the article is saying. However, it can't be transwikied, since it doesn't meet Wikitionary's criteria for inclusion as required by the Copy to Wiktionary template (in fact, the word was deleted from Wikitionary in 2008 as a "Creative invention or protologism", see here).

Now the point I would make here, is that this article (and many like it) don't even make a credible claim to meeting Wikitionary's criteria for inclusion. Accordingly, they can't be transwikied like most dictionary definitions are, and as I mentioned above they technically don't meet any of the current CSD criteria. However, this problem could be solved by an A7 like criteria for words, something like "An article about a word that does not credibly indicate how it might meet Wikitionary's criteria for inclusion." This would allow for the speedy deletion of articles that will obviously end up deleted anyway, while protecting valid dictionary definitions from deletion.

I suppose the main problem that jumps out at me with this is the requirement that Wikipedia editors become familiar with Wikitionary inclusion criteria. Other than that, what do people think? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of off-topic here, but you're right that categories are missing. A9 is non-notable musical recordings, but what about non-notable books? I saw two or three titles yesterday that were deleted under different CSD reasons, but they were all about books. It was exactly the same type of text as non-notable CDs/recordings, but about books... why isn't there a category for that? — Timneu22 · talk 13:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you both, there are certainly gaps in the CSD criteria. However, I would handle these as follows: For the garbage words, just G3 is good enough. things "made up in school one day" fall under the realm of vandalism and hoaxes. For NN books, I would just use a plain A7. No, I know, it doesn't perfectly fit, but neither will it readily be challenged. A7 needs to be expanded for other NN items. Let's let the flames die down from the failed A11/A12 proposal, see if anything comes out of that, and we can introduce an expansion of A7. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A7 explicitly does not mention books, software, products etc. as a result of consensus, so if you delete them anyway, you are acting outside consensus. It was the community's decision here to not allow speedy deletion of such subjects unless mentioned in A7. Expanding A7 is a WP:PEREN for CSD and so far all proposals were rejected. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, G2 would work equally well for things made up. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A possibility could be "A single word that is not found in via a Web search." But that probably wouldn't meet the frequency test. Maurreen (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
How about expanding A5 to include dicdefs which have already been deleted by Wiktionary? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thing is, many of them won't have been already deleted by Wikitionary, because they'll be created here first. What we want is a criterion that would see words that would definitely not be accepted by Wikitionary through transwiki (or deleted once they make their way there). What I'm saying is that I think an A7-like criteria (i.e. "Does not make a claim to notability") would serve this purpose. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I might draft a criterion around this theme in the next few days and see what people think. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
How would such a criterion fit with the requirements at the top of this page? WP:MADEUP is part of WP:NOT and WP:NOT is a non-criterion. Such articles are not created often enough to warrant a new criterion and as mentioned above, the "complete hoax" part of G3 can usually cover them anyway. The problem with trying to codify any part of WP:MADEUP into a speedy criterion is that a single admin is unable to determine whether something is really made up (outside G3 mentioned above) or whether they just don't know about it. A number of valid articles were at one time or another sent to AFD for being made up until someone pointed out that they are actually true. As such, the risks of creating such a criterion for non-hoax made up subjects, be it words or other things, outweigh the gains. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Add category(s) to db tags?

Can we add a category for articles tagged by CSD tags? I'm wondering if we've missed articles that are tagged. Or is it not worthwhile because we can do a 'what links here' on the tags? - UtherSRG (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

All db tags, including hangon, add articles to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and most already add them to a subcategory thereof. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 05:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah... those pesky hidden categories. thanks. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
However, I think it would be useful to have Category:CSD A1, Category:CSD A2, Category:CSD A3, etc... This would facilitate CSD review / CSD patrol IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, but I guess one could just look at a what links here page for now. Categories would be more helpful though. — Timneu22 · talk 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is already done. Go to Category:Speedy deletion and you can browse current nominations by CSD type. There is also this handy box for quick scans of the most frequent/urgent categories. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, those category names are horrible, and several criterion are missing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, those are the actual names of the categories, if you want them changed WP:CFD is thataway. If something is missing feel free to add it. Once you get used to using it it's actually pretty handy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope of A7

Orchard Towers, a significant building on Singapore's main street Orchard Road, was recently summarily (and, alas, successfully) prodded under A7. However, A7 states that "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." Surely buildings are outside this intentionally limited scope? Jpatokal (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I read A7 a building is outside the scope of the criteria. However it was deleted as a company or corporation which does fall into the category. I can't see the deleted content so I don't know how the article read but if it read describing a company rather than the building it would be eligible. If you disagree with the deletion the best next step is to ask the deleting admin on their page. In this case the deleting admin is David Fuchs so his talk page is the best place to ask this question. If you are not satisfied with his response then the next step would be deletion review ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I did "discuss" this with David, whose response could be summarized sticking his fingers into his ears and whistling, and I've requested undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Orchard Towers. I'm raising this discussion here to make sure there's agreement about what A7 means. Jpatokal (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It did describe the building only, not a business. It described the bars and nightclubs in the building by names only. It had some WP:UNDUE stuff about a murder that happened in the residences in the building. I'm not sure that A7 applied, but there was indeed no credible assertion of notability (tallest building? famed architect?). I don't know what goes into the guidelines for buildings, but as written I don't believe the article met the GNG. It had existed in the same form for at least a year (when I stopped checking revisions). Syrthiss (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it, but put it up for AFD. Also, are all buildings notable? I don't think so, perhaps we should discuss some guidelines for buildings and other places. Certainly my house isn't notable, while the Empire State Building is. Someplace inbetween is a line that isn't crossable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think the article content was any good at all (once restored I plan on improving it quite a bit), nor am I proposing a blanket exception for buildings. I just think that the fact that it was nuked in the first place shows that the process is either broken or, at the very least, misapplied. Jpatokal (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I've already restored it and listed it at AFD. You may not be asking for A7 to be expanded, but Some of us have seen a need for either expanding it or creating other criteria in a similar vein. Like I said, There are notable buildings, like the ESB, and there are non-notable buildings (like my house). No different than the fact that there are notable people (POTUS) and there are non-notable people (me). Why shouldn't there be some criteria demarcating the line between notable and nn buildings? Hrm.... we have WP:BUILDING which sets out the guidelines already. Why don't we have a CSD for it? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Because WP:BUILDING failed? And with reason: "The structure is regularly frequented or visited by at least two distinctly notable persons." (O_o) I'd suggest you get that sorted out first, and then start thinking about CSD... Jpatokal (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Working on it. Wanna help? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#F2

I've started a thread regarding the wording of WP:CSD#F2 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:CSD#F2. Any input would be welcome. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Update db-r2 to cover books

The purpose of {{db-r2}} is so users looking for content are not redirected to non-content. The template should be updated to reflect the reality that WP:Books are content, and likewise there should not be redirects from Book:Title to X or Foospace:X. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed {{db-r2}} to match the wording of the actual criterion as found here (redirects to any namespace except a very few). We'll see if it sticks - but in the meantime anyone who hates the current wording is free to revert me. Gavia immer (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone objects? If not, I'll make the changes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to add or remove? That redirects from article to Book:-space are covered by R2 or that they are not covered by R2? Regards SoWhy
That redirects from Foospace (except those from Userspace and from Wikipedia:Books/Title) to Bookspace, and redirects from Bookspace to Foospace (no exceptions) are covered by db-r2. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable expansion of the criterion, but it probably needs more eyes on it before changing things. Gavia immer (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

G5 - Block?

When did G5 get expanded to include blocks? (OK, I'm not stupid, I looked it up, it happened in February, but you get my point.) Honestly, the wording as it is right now makes little to no sense to me. How is it possible to edit in violation of a block? Is this to refer to users that are evading blocks? The reason I ask is because I'm seeing editors nominate articles for G5 where the user was blocked some time after the edit, but the article meets no other criteria. I really don't see this as being a valid speedy deletion criteria. If the editor were blocked before the edit (and thus evaded the block) then maybe, but not "Sorry, you got blocked, so now we can delete all your pages." There are way too many "good" (non-vandal) reasons to get blocked for that to be reasonable. I'd propose that this be restored to just targeting banned users, but short of that, at least a specific wording that it's targeting users evading blocks (unless I'm missing something here). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see your problem. It says currently that the creation needs to have been "in violation of their ban or block", i.e. it only applies to articles created after the user was banned or blocked. Such nominations you mention are not within G5's scope nor should they be. The point of G5 is to enforce the ban/block in question by reverting edits that violate it (which with new pages means to delete them), not to punish someone after they have been blocked. Regards SoWhy 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That's somewhat of my point; that's what I expect the meaning to be, but I'm seeing a lot of people that are mistaking it as "blocked users should have their pages deleted. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes, people evading their bans or blocks. Pages created "..in violation of their ban or block" can only refer, by plain meaning, to pages created after the block or ban and during the time they were still blocked or banned. I don't see any ambiguity. Can you point to some examples of pages where the page was tagged under G5 improperly with this particular confusion happening? Though I don't think the language is ambiguous in the slightest, if it is really causing confusion, then maybe some clarifying language can be appended, maybe just like I said above: Note: for a page to qualify it must have been created by the user after the block or ban issued, and while the user was still blocked or banned. We should only use this or another qualifier if it is shown to be a common cause of confusion though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I will try to gather some examples; the most recent one is a somewhat fragmented discussion I had with a user (you can still see the trail ending of it on my talk page) which triggered this discussion, though I'm sure I can find more examples. I would support the added note if it can be shown to be a common problem (and not just a string of bad luck I'm witnessing). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And probably only if the common confusion caused an admin to be confused as well and act on the invalid tagging.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, I put some visual emphasis on that part of G5 on WP:CSD. I doubt it helps much, but maybe a little. Shirik, I think you should simply decline those taggings and educate the users who did them. Changing the wording will probably not help anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense; I'll just drop notes with the people that tagged them. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New category needed?

While new page patrolling I stumbled upon My 2010 atlantic hurricane season predictions, which as its name implies was a little essay by some chap giving his predictions for future hurricanes. OK, obviously this is incontestably something that needs to be deleted. But which category? I put up a template for speedy deletion as "patent nonsense" but another new page patroller removed that in good faith, correctly pointing out that the category did not apply. So I put on a "hoax" template, and it was just deleted. However, technically speaking it wasn't quite a hoax, and I'm not sure "vandalism" would have applied either. Yet obviously we don't want to go through the ordinary deletion process with something so obviously inappropriate.

I've actually had something resembling this problem before. I forget the article, and of course it's now deleted. The question is, should there be a new category? Maybe "blatantly and undeniably inappropriate" or something like that? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There will, unfortunately, always be articles that should obviously be deleted but are not going to fall under a CSD category. The CSD criteria should be there to deal with classes of articles that are almost always inappropriate. A criterion like "blatantly and undeniably inappropriate" would be, unfortunately, far too broad. Consider Criticism of Judaism, which was recently nominated for deletion. A number of editors believed, in good faith, that this was blatantly and undeniably inappropriate, and yet the community consensus was that in should be kept.
There are, of course, gaps in the CSD criteria that could be filled with new criteria, but there will always be article such as the one you mentioned that may not currently fall into a valid criteria. Many editors bend the rules and delete it under a criterion it does not meet, but I see no problem in slapping a {{hoax}} template or other article issues templates on it and then prodding it. Articles clearly tagged as being spurious (provided there aren't libel issues involved, see G10) don't do a huge amount of damage if they sit there so tagged for five minutes or seven days. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
There's an entire discussion about essays and how-tos (above on this page), trying to introduce speedy reasons for these nonsense articles. No consensus. The best admins delete them as WP:IAR, but I've only seen this happen once or twice. Join the conversation above, if you want. — Timneu22 · talk 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the essays and how-to proposal are really applicable to the kind of article I'm describing. One possible solution is to expand G1 or G3 by just a tad. I'll see if I can think of some possible language.ScottyBerg (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I think that G3 should be expanded to include articles about made-up subjects, even when their creator doesn't mean to fool us (it's the case of My 2010 atlantic hurricane season predictions). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Does that include something like Becoming a Writer? In general, does that include any title that cannot be encyclopedic? — Timneu22 · talk 15:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think WP:MADEUP definitely points the way toward a new CSD category, and that definitely include an article like "becoming a writer." I disagree that a grossly, obviously unsurvivable, hopeless article should be allowed to fester for seven days during a PROD process, which if contested then requires a full blown AfD process. I think that we need to take a stronger stand against articles that are indisputably inappropriate, but which don't fall into the current categories. WP:MADEUP provides good criteria for that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
@Timneu: Uhm, that's not exactly what I was referring to. I was thinking more of articles such as Kaiocracy — unfortunately, only admins will be able to see this article —, which dealt with a new form of government the creator had just come up with. Articles such as Becoming a writer in my opinion should not qualify, unless it's blatant vandalism (but in that case, G3 is already there). Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Becoming a writer should qualify as something, no? — Timneu22 · talk 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think I would WP:PROD it per WP:NOT#OR, but if we were to get a new criterion to deal with those articles, I definitely would not oppose it. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That discussion is above, A11 and A12. — Timneu22 · talk 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see how one might raise a concern about "Becoming an XYZ", that it might not meet the speedy criteria. But if people are just making up stuff, that definitely should be speedied. I commend whichever editor conceived of WP:MADEUP, as it describes a path that I think would help tremendously in ridding Wikipedia of new-page trash not explicitly covered by the current CSD guidelines. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Timneu22! I read it, but I've chosen not to throw my two cents in, yet. ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the kind of article described in WP:MADEUP is a different species than the ones described in A11 and A12. While "made up" subjects like "my hurricane predictions" are indeed essays, and perhaps there should be a CSD criteria for essays, that describes a more narrow subset of articles, albeit one that I suggest is not uncommon. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for CSDs: essay and how-to

I would like to see two CSD reasons: {{db-essay}} and {{db-howto}}. Subsections below.

A11: How-to

See examples "webcam model" and "writing stories" on user:timneu22/test.

Recently-created articles written in a second-person style that include instructions on how to do something. Articles titled with instructional titles inherently lend themselves to WP:POV, as second-person or "imperative" tone cannot ever be written in an encyclopedic or neutral manner. How-to/instructional articles generally consist of little to no introduction, no indication of the topic's relevance to a general audience, and material that is not only unsourced, but also that cannot be sourced. Any article title beginning with "how to" should be considered for this type of deletion immediatly (except when the article discusses a title of a work, like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days). While article titles of "how to" merit immediate CSD consideration, other articles with titles encouraging an instructional style should also be considered for deletion. Verb/noun combinations are CSD'd or redirected (writing stories, feeding birds, making brownies). Articles that discuss techniques of performing scientific or other notable endeavors (Methods of detecting extrasolar planets) do not fall under this criterion.

A12: Essays

See examples "peace cop kenya" and "Digital Service Design and Innovation Processes and Methodologies" on user:timneu22/test

Articles titles that push a thesis, lend themselves to coming to a conclusion, and especially those written as to do such, should be deleted. Examples can best be described by kept and unkept articles: Civil Rights Act of 1964 describes an act, while "Civil Rights Act of 1964, summary", makes an attempt to come to a conclusion; Nuclear arms race is clearly notable, as would "Effect of nuclear arms on emerging economies" (if backed with reliable sources) but "How nuclear arms caused poverty in emerging economies" makes an attempt to push a conclusion. In many situations, editors attempt to paste an original research paper directly to wikipedia; these types of articles are often easily noticed by one or more of the following:

  • Article title
  • Introduction discussing a potential conclusion ("to prove that" or "can be suggested"
  • Wording that clearly indicates original research, such as "this paper addresses" or "my findings of"

DISCUSSION

So those are my starting points for the wording of these potential CSDs. Maybe these are close enough that some tweaking could be done to make them happen? — Timneu22 · talk 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely, not this discussion again? Have you read all the previous discussions here why this is a bad idea and if so, why is your proposal different?
Also, I think your proposals fail the requirements #1 and #3 at the top of this page and possibly also #2 and #4. Furthermore, you should explain why you think that WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not able to deal with those kind of articles in a satisfying way. Regards SoWhy 20:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
For background, there has been a discussion ongoing (linked in the above section as well) at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Additional_CSD_criteria. I asked for actual new criteria to be written up if we were going to have this conversation, and made sure the suggestions at the top of this page were in the mix. I have to say that as written these do not seem to be workable criteria, especially the "essay" one. As I said before, it's almost impossible to unambiguously state what is and is not an essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're still missing the point on the essay. If an article is titled Why Hitler was evil, it should be deleted using the essay criterion (regardless of its contents). Under what other category does it fall? Further, if an article is titled Evil Hitler and is written with text to prove a point ("This paper describes why Hitler was one of the worst people in history"), it should be deleted. These are both "essay" reasons, and I don't see another viable category. — Timneu22 · talk 10:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Another comment... in the previous discussion, someone mentioned we "can't delete based on tone", but that's nonsense... the text in {{db-advert}} states ...would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. I've been mostly trying to work these CSD reasons under the premise that the title is not worthy of inclusion, however this "fundamental rewrite" text should also be included in the thought process as for reasons allowing a CSD based on the content of the article as well. The earlier version of Writing Stories certainly did require a fundamental rewrite; there's no reason for it to be anything but speedily deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 10:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Both of these criteria indicate articles that are in need of a rewrite. It is not at all clear that articles falling under them are in need of deletion. You keep coming backt to writing stories, however that article could be rewritten into writing process if the latter did not already exist. (As such writing stories was speediable, under A10). It would almost certainly be possible to rewrite "How nuclear arms caused poverty in emerging economies" into "How nuclear arms caused poverty in emerging economies". So even the examples you show are articles that not only should not be speedied, but quite possibly should not be deleted. G11 is an exeption, we keep it because people using wikipedia as a vector for advertisment is frequent enough to be a real problem. If we get the same problem with people using wikipedia to publish essays taking another look at db-essay above might be worth it, but at the moment it's not enough of a problem that we should implement deletion as the way to clean up essays. Taemyr (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Tell me, please, under which CSD reason Why Hitler was evil should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 11:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Judging from the title Why Hitler is evil would more than likely be a G10. Nancy talk 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That covers "negative" articles, but then how about Why Hitler is great? Either way, the article title is an essay, pushing a POV; we really are missing a reason here. — Timneu22 · talk 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Please explain, as you were asked before, why there is any need to have a CSD reason for such articles when WP:PROD can handle it. Regards SoWhy 12:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why should a blatant POV article exist for seven days? We need a speedy reason for this type of stuff. Why have CSD at all, if everything could be PROD? — Timneu22 · talk 12:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is based on consensus and as such decisions should be made by consensus, not by admins alone. As such, CSD is mostly restricted to those cases where deletion can't (not "shouldn't") wait for 7 days (i.e. G10, G12, etc.) or which appear far too often in the new page log to be handled by AFD and PROD (A7, G2 etc.) Articles like those you mention neither have to be deleted on sight nor do they happen often enough that standard processes can't handle them. As such, you as the one to propose them are the one who has to prove that your criteria fulfill the requirements on top of this page. Regards SoWhy 13:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the main problem here is people who patrol new pages see the extent of these problems, and others do not. Which requirements on this page do not match either proposed CSD? Specifically address it, and I'll specifically respond. Apparently there was a discussion on CSDs and WP:NOT a while ago, and people decided that just because an article does fall into WP:NOT, it shouldn't be CSD'd. I just disagree. It's a waste of everyone's time. — Timneu22 · talk 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I, like many other admins, am active in dealing with speedy requests and those you propose surely are created but they are not created often enough to warrant a new criterion (#3). What should be considered "blatant POV", just like what should be considered "unencyclopedic", varies from user to user and as such can't be a valid reason for an objective definition (#1). Last but not least most cases you describe are usually copy+paste additions that already violate copyright and thus fall under G12 or, if they only exist to come to a negative conclusion, G10. Those few that remain can be handled by PROD and AFD - if you think they can't, you need to explain why.
You correctly noticed that WP:CSD#Non-criteria explicitly says that violating WP:NON is not a reason for deletion alone and that you disagree with that. You are free to do so. But you need to explain why all those who previously argued against such new criteria in countless previous discussions did so erroneously. Simply saying "I disagree" is not valid argument to change policy I'm afraid. Regards SoWhy 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that what a lot of users declare is "obviously" speedily deletable isn't at all. Social netvetting was declared to be speedily deletable in that thread, but with my edits and a new title it will be fine. Writing Stories was declared to be speedily deletable, but it can be a valid redirect. Swami vivekananda senior secondary school raipur was declared to be a speedily deletable essay, but I slashed it down to be a workable stub (it'll still be deleted as it can't be verified, but that's not a speedy deletion criterion). Many essayish and how-toish articles can be reworked into being valid articles. Stop rushing to deletion and start thinking how to improve what someone has offered us. Fences&Windows 13:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Tim, of course there's always the option of tagging bad pages with {{db|reason}}. I often see cases where pages don't quite fit under one of the numbered "criteria", but if it's bad enough, the deciding admin might delete it based on your reason. That way, these articles can be handled on a case-by-case basis, rather than making a blanket criterion which opens up us reviewing admins to numerous false-positive taggings. I honestly hear your frustration, btw. JamieS93 13:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
db-reason is a gray area, as it still is just one administrator determining if the article should be deleted. In the case that the admin deletes the article, aren't they still required to give a CSD code? I'm trying to define a criterion so that there is some consistency. Why won't anyone acknowledge that POV-titled articles are deletable? Criticisms of socialism is different than Socialism is bad or Socialism is good (in this case "socialism is good" refers to a song, so it's a valid blue link). — Timneu22 · talk 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, not "required". You can type anything you want into the deletion summary field, though the CSD criteria are on a list, available to choose from. JamieS93 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Just because an article has a POV title that does not mean that the article itself should be deleted. The article could be on a notable subject and the title may need to be reworked along with the article but have no reason to delete it. Deletion should not be about the title (except for a disparaging title}, it should be about the content and the notability/verifiability of the article itself. A potentially good article with a POV title can be moved to a NPOV title and the redirect deleted. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see I won't get anywhere with this discussion, so I'll just continue AFDing obvious articles, and CSDing even more obvious articles. Sorry for wasting your time; I'll just continue wasting my own time, and other AFD people. Sorry no one is willing to work toward anything. — Timneu22 · talk 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the attitude! We're all wrong; you're right (obviously). Please understand that speedy deletion is the 'nuclear option' to be reserved only for clear-cut cases, and that the classes of article you wish to speedily delete are not easily definable. You fail to mention the possibility of improving articles. Take a step back when doing new articles patrol to make sure the red mist hasn't descended and you're not biting the newbies. Fences&Windows 23:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said I was right, I never said you were wrong. All I've said is that essay and how-to articles pop up all the time and they are deleted all the time, and there should be speedy criteria for those. Now I'm going to go write Why Wikipedia is great, because that's encyclopedic. — Timneu22 · talk 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You're still being sarcastic, not the way to persuade anyone. I acknowledge the problem of this category of articles, but I believe the dangers of a speedy deletion criterion for them outweighs the time savings. You haven't acknowledged the dangers at all, and your "no one is willing to work toward anything" implies obstructionism from others and shows you're not listening to the responses you received. Fences&Windows 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm done with it. I asked for specific responses to questions like "how could Why Hitler is great be valid"; the answer is that it cannot, yet no one has said such a thing. So when I see these types (over and over), I'll just use the generic "delete" with a reason. I really am done with this discussion. I am no longer watching this page. Thank you for participating. — Timneu22 · talk 00:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're not listening any longer, you say, but I think you're missing the point, which you flag by asking "how could Why Hitler is great be valid" as if the answer to that, if "never," proves your point. The best answer, though non-direct, is to tell you to see the top of this page for what we look for in a criterion. But let me answer directly and explain why that answer is irrelevant. The answer is, indeed, it never would be valid. But that's not the issue at all. The issue is whether we can construct a speedy deletion criterion that is narrowly-tailored, recognizable, able to be applied without ambiguity to most topics that are within its ambit and arises frequently enough to bother. There are lots of essays that are not so clear cut; could be turned into a valid article, and would be deletable under another criterion. So yes, you've come up with an essay example that isn't in a gray area—that everyone can agree should be deleted, fits no other criterion, and is a waste if time to take to AfD as a foregone conclusion, but the case you would need to make is not that perfect examples exist, but that the criterion you would champion meets all the essays that are not prefect examples and meets the other bases for creation of a new criterion at the top of the page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, these are the kinds of articles you should use PROD for, and not waste other's time with AfDs of CSD proposals. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, the example that started all this, the writing stories article, was in fact prodded, and the article's creator removed it without fixing the underlying problem. It was then sent to AFD, but Timneu tried to get is speedied as nonsense, which (although a terrible article) it was not and the speedy was declined (by me). So that's basically the series of events that touched this whole thing off. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in a little late in the game. The question was asked "Why can't AFD or PROD handle Why Hitler is evil?" The answer is, of course they can. But AFD and PROD can handle *all* of the CSD categories. The question is a red herring. The question *should* be, "Why *can't* there be a CSD for inherently POV essays?" I can't find a reason there can't besides the same reasons for all of the other CSD categories. If the article would require a full rewrite, including moving to an appropriate new article title, due to the inherent POV of the title and article, then it is better off just being speedy deleted. POV title for an article will always be wrong. There should be no reason to bother having an AFD debate about it. PROD just means it will sit there being POV for a longer time before it gets quietly cleaned away. CSD *should* handle this kind of case. CSD should handle anything that can not be fixed into encyclopedic shape, PROD should handle anything that given a little time could be encyclopedic, and AFD should handle anything that needs debate (everything else). A POV essay will never be encyclopedic, so it should be a CSD category. A "how-to" manual will never be encyclopedic, so it should be a CSD category. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed several times now, not only to we need a criterion that is specific and unambiguous, and we need more than anecdotal evidence to establish that is a big enough problem that we should bother creating yet another speedy criterion. So far I haven't seen either of those things. And so far most users participating in the discussion mostly agree that this is not a widespread or urgent issue that would require a new criterion. There is some proposed wording above, but it is too vague to be useful. If you think you can define what would and would not be deleted under this criteria you are welcome to try and come up with wording that would suffice. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the proposal need better wording. I know I've seen "how-to" articles and "essay" articles. I'm not sure I agree that we should require that the problem to be "urgent" or "widespread" to create new CSD categories. CSD is a tool, as are AFD and PROD. As tool users, we should make sure that the tool box is properly stocked with all the varieties of tools we know we need (since we don't have to buy them *grins), even if we use one tool a hundred times more often than another tool. It is certainly better to have a tool and not need it, than to not have the tool and have to resort to a tool that is less appropriate (even if it is a capable tool for the job). I'll work on crafting better wording for A11 & A12. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A11 redone for review. I have to do some real work.... I'll be back later for A12. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A12 redone for review. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are missing the point imho. Wikipedia is built on consensus, so WP:AFD is the tool to delete articles. We create tools that don't require discussion only if a.) discussion is very unlikely to be required (WP:PROD) or b.) discussion is not only not required but would not be able to handle it (WP:CSD). Speedy deletion is subsidiary to regular deletion for a number of other reasons as well of course but the principle of decision by consensus is one of the most important ones. Rewriting the proposed criteria without addressing the concerns as to why we would require them at all will not solve the problem, will it? You will also need to address the concerns about subjectivity raised above, especially given examples like social netvetting which has been cited as an example for the criterion. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not missing the point. If we agree that A11 and A12 are needed, then we have consensus that these kind of articles should be removed immediately. that's what this discussion is all about. If I were pushing through A11 and A12 deletions without this discussion, then I would be acting without consensus. So, moving from that, please tell me how an A11 article would require discussion. Eg. How to change a spark plug. I think A11 has a stronger case for being a CSD than A12 does, but I think the discussion is still important to have, even with my revision of their descriptions below. An A12 does require the CSD tagger to have a very discerning eye. Does that mean that AFD might be better, perhaps. Perhaps it just means that neither the original nor my rewrite are specific enough to justify CSD. In which case, perhaps a finer, narrower wording would suffice. Or perhaps there is not such wording that would work, and all unrewritable POV essays should go through AFD. (Social netvetting? I don't see that in the original or my rewrite...) - UtherSRG (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you please put them in a new section or subsection at the bottom? To put something new near the top of a section is a little confusing. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Maurreen, please make a new section if you have significantly revised the wording. I would like to comment, but want to be sure I'm commenting on the right text. decltype (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can do. Moved my analysis , rewrite, and possible tag material to below. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A11: Assay of original text

Too much "why" these articles should be removed. Such text would go into the speedy tag and is mostly irrelevant to the description of the type of articles to be CSD'd.

A11: Rewrite

Articles directing or instructing the reader to perform some task. An answer to the question of How do I.... This criterion does not apply to articles that discuss techniques of performing scientific or other notable endeavors.

A11: Possible tag material

This article is a "how-to" manual and is written in an "imperative" or second-person tone. It may have no introduction, no indication of the topic's relevance to a general audience, or material that cannot be sourced. It does not seem to be able to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner.

A11: Comments

I'll oppose this for the same reason I did a couple months back -- these have reasonable potential to be fixed. Maurreen (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? I can't see something like How to change a spark plug being fixed into an encyclopedic article. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be redirected to Tune-up. Several examples were given at the Pump discussion about Writing stories. Maurreen (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Fair enough. So is it policy, then, to have redirects for impossible to write articles that redirect to somewhat related topics? Is this a good policy? Is there something gained, is there some value to the encyclopedia, by having how to change a spark plug redirect to tune-up? Having writing stories redirect to creative writing? I don't see it, so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The point is that such articles need to be examined on a case-by-case basis and not by a single admin alone. The argument you need to make is not why an article like this should not exist but why speedy deletion is the correct way to handle it and this means addressing the four requirements listed at the top of this page and explaining why you think your rewrite meets them. Regards SoWhy 09:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Is the rewrite not specific enough? I don't see anyone saying that the rewrite is too vague.
  2. Is there a case, given the rewrite, that should not be deleted? (I'm ignoring redirects, as that is essentially the same - the article is not seen.)
  3. This always seems vague to me. How many per day/month/year justifies passing or failing?
  4. No other CSD can currently affect this kind of article. AFD and PROD can be used for any deletion, regardless (this includes the existing CSDs).
- UtherSRG (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Redirection here is wrong. There could be millions of "how to" redirects; "how to kill 100,000+ people" → Atomic bomb; "how to plant a garden" → garden. This is completely illogical. @UtherSRG, you've made all the right arguments, but there is refusal by the dissenting side to believe CSD is right. There's just no argument that will suffice. Sorry, looks like we tried. — Timneu22 · talk 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Many articles can contain elements of advice which would be covered by this criterion despite not being candidates for deletion. It also does not take into account that such articles could be rewritten.
  2. Articles that can be rewritten? Articles that contain useful information to be merged into others per WP:ATD?
  3. Quite simple actually. Ask yourself this: If all those articles covered by the criterion were instead be handled by AFD (and PROD), would this lead to a number of discussions that is so high that they cannot be handled anymore? Since they are currently handled just fine, this means it's likely not the case.
  4. G11 can cover those created for promotional purposes and G12 those copied from another website. I think these cover most such creations anyway since people usually don't start writing How-Tos just for Wikipedia.
Regards SoWhy 10:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are these points from UtherSRG (similar to mine) not valid? If the article would require a full rewrite, including moving to an appropriate new article title, due to the inherent POV of the title and article, then it is better off just being speedy deleted. POV title for an article will always be wrong. There should be no reason to bother having an AFD debate about it. PROD just means it will sit there being POV for a longer time before it gets quietly cleaned away. CSD *should* handle this kind of case. CSD should handle anything that can not be fixed into encyclopedic shape, PROD should handle anything that given a little time could be encyclopedic, and AFD should handle anything that needs debate (everything else). A POV essay will never be encyclopedic, so it should be a CSD category. A "how-to" manual will never be encyclopedic, so it should be a CSD category.Timneu22 · talk 10:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this come up with any level of frequency (pre-criterion check #3)? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletionists need to be aware of this discussion to keep track. I'd say YES. Currently, iPod repair is under CSD. It's written as "how-to", and its title isn't worthy of redirecting. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal, because as a new page patroller, this category is probably one of the top three times that I use prod where the deletion is so uncontroversial that it can and should be speedied if the entire article has no useful content. I might suggest linking WP:NOTHOWTO in the proposed guidelines to the word "how-to." This would not apply to salvageable content or "elements of advice" that did not span the entire article --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A12: Assay of original text

Too much focus on titles. If the title is the only thing wrong with an article, it can be moved to a new title. too much reliance on comparing to previous examples.

A12: Rewrite

Articles written in an essay style that push a thesis and that can not otherwise be rewritten to be encyclopedic.

A12: Possible tag material

This article is an essay or thesis designed to prove a point or push a specific agenda. It does not seem to be possible to rewrite the article in a neutral manner, or such an article already exists.

A12: Comments

Besides having reasonable potential to be fixed, I think determining whether something is an unencyclopedic essay is too subjective. Maurreen (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The rewrite does not address that it fails the requirements, especially #1 and #3. Regards SoWhy 09:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I can accept that it fails #1. I think this may be a subjective case always. I think #3 is always going to be hard to pin down. I think, though, that I've seen more A11's and A12's than I've seen of A2's or A5's. I'm not sure #3 is entirely a valid criterion for creating a CSD. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be the best way to handle Paper on payed patiants? Someone tagged it for speedy with a non-CSD criteria. I agree the article should be removed, and does not need AFD nor PROD, but it doesn't fall under an existing category. (I can provide the text for anyone here who can't read it after deletion.) If we can just mark anything with {{db|reason}}, then why do we have CSD categories in the first place? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the exact thing I'm talking about. In this case, use reason T2: the article appears to be written in a style that was copied/pasted from original research or essay paper.. ;-) — Timneu22 · talk 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Similar, city dressing. My gosh, the article even states its author. This is an essay! — Timneu22 · talk 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about #1, but #3 again doesn't seem to be met. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's just two known examples in a few hours. What is the definition of "frequent"? — Timneu22 · talk 16:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with both of these criteria. One could argue that A11 is fairly clear-cut, but I don't see a need to create a new CSD where a PROD will do. How-to articles are not inherently damaging to the project, they are just not what the project wants in an encyclopedia, so I don't really see that a speedy deletion is called for. A12 is more problematic -- the determination of an article's "essay-like" quality is sometimes clear-cut, and sometimes not, and there's no real line to be drawn to distinguish the clear-cut from the not-so-clear-cut. I like the idea of letting such articles go through a more considered deletion process to allow more eyes on them before they are deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Two things:
      1. Why wait on PROD to kill off bad articles?
      2. What's the harm in having A12? My guess is that admins will get this right 99.99% of the time, with the rest possibly lending itself to debate. I think that is generous. The point is to have a valid reason for proposing deletions. There is some contradiction here. Earlier, it was stated that one could just use {{delete}} with a reason that doesn't necessarily have to be a CSD reason. That's wrong. I've seen admins who delete using WP:IAR as the reason, admins who refuse the CSD altogether, or those who delete after moving to G12 or some other sort of "catch-all" reason (at least that's how it is being used). If {{delete}} is to be used, why have the CSDs? If the CSDs are to be used, why have {{delete}}? I'd like to see clear-cut reasons so there is consistency. Right now there is none. — Timneu22 · talk 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling that the real problem here is that some people just don't like being told no by an admin, and don't like waiting for something when it is theoretically possible for it to happen right away. We shouldn't be looking at it as killing the bad material, the point is to improve the encyclopedia. The fact is, admins have to say no all the time. There are thousands of people going around tagging articles and making various requests for admin actions. There are over a thousand admins. So, a request that one admin might deny might not be denied by another admin, and sometimes users make requests that are not based on policy, or which stretch that policy into places it was never intended to go. Sometimes we have to remind each other that just because we policy says we could do something does not mean we must do it. There are always going to be things that are clearly not appropriate for this project but do not fit any of our specific criteria. There are always going to be things getting deleted that should have been kept. The world is an imperfect place full of imperfect people. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well when an admin has to use ignore all rules as the deletion criterion, it seems like you're missing an important criterion. The lack of a rule prevented that deletion from using one of the agreed-upon CSD reasons. And we're talking about killing articles that cannot become encyclopedic, not articles that can be improved. I still believe that Writing stories is nonsense to keep as a redirect. Was that someone's idea of "improving" the encyclopedia? Again, let's just redirect How to grow green veggies to garden. — Timneu22 · talk 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, consider it done. Redirects are navigation aids for helping users find the content they are looking for, they are not judged the same way as articles. If there is even a chance that one user one day might find the article they wanted because of a particular redirect, then it has done it's job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talkcontribs)
Actually, a redirect may hide good potential destinations in a search. A redirect is of significantly more use in creating links in an article (so more use to an editor) than it is to searching for an article (less use to a reader). wikipedia's built-in search mechanism is quite powerful. Try it yourself. Here's a search I did myself. If playing a flute were a redirect to flute or flautist, I'd miss pompoir! One never knows what idiomatic meanings a phrase might have, and making it a redirect will hide those meanings in a search. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If Playing the flute redirected to Flute, Flute could have a hatlink:
"Playing the flute" redirects here. For the sexual technique, see Pompoir.

Fences&Windows 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It could have that hatnote, but would it? What is the likelihood that someone who redirects as described would place that hotnote? I think the probability is low, and therefore the redirect is less valuable than the redlink. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is out of hand. There was no reason except smugness to create How to grow green veggies. That is a redirection to a section of an article, and that section does not describe how to grow green veggies; indeed it should not, because wikipedia is not a how-to site. Did you just do this to prove a point? I think we should delete that new redirect immediately. If you don't, this sets a precedent for anything ridiculous. How to hit a baseball, how to catch a baseball, how to win the lottery, how to edit wikipedia, how to ride a racehorse, how to build a patio. None of these are valid titles, and for you to create how to grow green veggies should just be an insult to the community. Get some perspective here, people. This is not what wikipedia was supposed to have become. It's not a how-to site. — Timneu22 · talk 12:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued

(too many discussions above with multiple sections; hard to follow)

Can someone please provide a definition for "frequency"? I've been looking at this for only a couple hours a day for the past few days, and averaging about one every 8 hours. That's three a day, or a 1000 per year. Isn't that frequent? Here's the latest: Air Pollution: Causes, Consequences and Control. — Timneu22 · talk 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And another, clear essay: PR-101: Use Trade Shows to Attract Media. Please let us work to get a reason to CSD these! — Timneu22 · talk 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
And another how-to: How to Post an Ad on Craig's List. — Timneu22 · talk 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This one was deleted as A3. Comments on this? — Timneu22 · talk 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
From previous consensus, "frequent" means "more than AFD/PROD can handle". 3 such articles a day can easily be handled by the existing processes, thus allowing for consensus-based deletion and input, possibly how to fix them to something useful instead of deletion. Regards SoWhy 08:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's just three from the little bit of work I did in it. New page patrollers (such as User:Fiftytwo thirty, above) can probably tell you that it's more. As discussed before, it's not just the frequency that matters, but the likelihood of deletion in prod/afd processes. These get deleted 100% of the time in AFD. So we're wasting time there. And we have been talking, the entire time, about articles that cannot be fixed to be something useful, where the how-to elements span the entire article (and usually, where the article title itself is incorrect). — Timneu22 · talk 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see any criteria that would objectively determine articles that aren't fixable. "How to" might be easier to make an objective CSD standard. But, as has been discussed earlier, Writing stories could become Narrative or Writing process. Maurreen (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
But any article that is "how to [do something]" cannot; those are clear-cut, non-encyclopedic titles. — Timneu22 · talk 13:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Reference: here's a list of how-to articles that currently exist. They are all proper titles of books/etc. We should make sure things stay that way. — Timneu22 · talk 13:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Help:Move can fix that sometimes. Regards SoWhy 13:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
We're talking about more than the title here. We're talking about how-to articles, where the content is completely second-person and unencyclopedic. What is the objection to recognizing this problem exists? How to post an Ad on Craig's List may indeed have some content that is worth keeping, but that content would be posted into Craigslist after being made encyclopedic. A redirect is inappropriate because the target doesn't explain how to actually post the ad. — Timneu22 · talk 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Consider this example, hypothetical as far as I know: Someone writes How to train your dog. Someone else tweaks it to Dog training or Dog trainers. How to train your dog is mostly "Do such-and-so". Dog training includes "Such-and-so is used to teach the dog whatever-it-is." Dog trainers includes "Dog trainers do such-and-so." Maurreen (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
How to train your dog, even if redirected to dog training, is not valid. The dog training article, if written to standards, will likely include methods of training but not instructions for using those methods. This is the difference. Any of these how-to articles that go to afd are deleted unanimously with numerous WP:NOT#HOWTO comments. So that seems CSD-worthy, no? — Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Compare these two: From my sandbox, How to train your dog using reinforcement and a Dog training#Rewards similar section at the dog training article. There's not much difference. Maurreen (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe some language can be used to make the proposal a little more narrow, (e.g. Articles directing or instructing the reader to perform some task. An answer to the question of How do I...., where the article does not contain any encyclopedic information that is not already included in relevant articles.) Often, for many of the cases I see and that you have mentioned, articles about "how to train your dog" and PR-101: Use Trade Shows to Attract Media, have content that is either a). Not suitable to be on WP at any time or b). Have content that is already written in an objective way elsewhere. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not one of the dissenters here. My goal with this was to provide wording for A11 and A12, and have that wording be tweaked. (The original said "instructs the user to do something".) Would anyone here actually care to help tweak the wording, or are you just going to continue to disagree? — Timneu22 · talk 10:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Formulating a narrow CSD criterion that catches all essays is impossible, imho. The only possible remedy I see is to forbid page creators to remove {{prod}} templates. This way we could prod the article and if really no-one else cares about it it will be gone after 7 days. --Pgallert (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
How to blow shit up and How to kill somebody were just created. (Really!) I hope you don't mind that I just tagged them for CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not mind, but I would not ever have encountered these contributions, so for me a prod would just have been fine. Once they come to AfD, though, an entry like this would let me sigh "Do we really have to discuss this?".
To take up a thought from further above: Deleting this stuff on sight improved the encyclopedia. So in absence of a valid criterion, IAR is the reason to speedily delete this stuff. Pity administrators are actually afraid to apply this rule. --Pgallert (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"Deleting this stuff on sight improved the encyclopedia." Exactly why we need this to be a speedy deletion category. This criteria would, though not all-encompassing, take some of these stupid discussions away from AfD and make it so that NPPers don't have to babysit prods for seven days. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
So I found an article that is about some study that some guy did. That "some guy" wrote the study, and wrote the article, and there are no google hits for this topic. This is an essay page, with links to the PDF essay. What's the speedy criteria for this? — Timneu22 · talk 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: I don't see how these particular proposals can achieve the status of needed clarity and lack of likely controversy in themselves. They also don't lend themselves to preservation of data. Some essays are researched and cite sources. Even if they are meant for persuasion rather than background information, they often contain enough information to be worth preserving on the talk pages of existing articles, or subpages of them. There's nothing I know of in policy that prevents researched essays from being moving to article talk pages or subpages. Speedy deletion would rule this out.

And for egregious examples, we already have patent nonsense as a grounds for speedy deletion. And I firmly think that bullshit is patent nonsense. Here's a particularly ripe example from "Work Management": Work Management is a strategy for planning and getting work done through people. The management of work is distributed through most people involved (not just managers).... Key components to be managed are:

* People - doing the work and affected by the work (stakeholders),
* Tasks – what needs to be achieved,
* Actions – the work to complete tasks, and
* Management processes –processes that make work flow

Work management coordinates the dynamic relationships between the key components, so work gets done. Work management uses a distributed management paradigm and technology, rather than traditional manager centric approaches....


As Truman Capote saidm "that's not writing --- that's typing." And it is also "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". Bullshit like that already qualifies for speedy deletion under existing categories, in my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Which category? It was explained to me that "patent nonsense" is only something like "hello dryer sheet piano keyboard airbrush yo momma" — Timneu22 · talk 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I interpret "patent nonsense" to be a bit broader than that; WP:NONSENSE, as noted, includes "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever", and I consider texts like the one noted from the "Work Management" article to meet that definition precisely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well in any case it was clearly WP:OR/essay also. Hence this discussion... — Timneu22 · talk 15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A new article popped up today, User:timneu22/test#Photographs in social networking sites; this is essayish and how-to, which is one reason why I created A11 and A12 at the same time. Frankly, this should be deletable under "patent nonsense", but what's the appropriate resolution? — Timneu22 · talk 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that "Photographs" text isn't patent nonsense by my lights. It actually attempts to present and convey (unreferenced) information; it isn't meaningless logorrhea, like that other article's assertion that work management involves managing people who perform actions to achieve tasks. What it is, is an advocacy piece warning you of the danger: if you put your photo on the Internet, strangers can learn what you look like. (Wait --- that is also trivial, tautological, and uninformative, and therefore patent nonsense too.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New Idea

After reading some of the above comments I am finding a few fundamental flaws with proposed criteria A12. There are just too many different things that can fall under it. Just because an article does not have a NPOV does not always mean that it is deletable, and not notable or able to be improved. I agree that many newbies don't understand that Wikipedia articles do not prove a thesis, but with some patience they can be helped make articles better. I also agree that this criteria is way too subjective. Particularly the article copied to User:Timneu22/test#Digital Service Design and Innovation Processes and Methodologies is decently referenced and could be improved with cooperation, while the other essay, in my opinion, blatantly promotes something, and is G11 eligible. On the other hand, A11 deals with articles that would be Snowball AfDs, and are usually uncontestably deletable, no matter the subject matter. While I have seen some arguments that there is content worth saving, I see no way that any of that content would pass the restrictive language that I put in above. Bottom line: We should Scrap A12, but move forward with A11. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen a criteria that meets the four standards at the top of the page. But in any case, I agree with you making a new section for any continuing discussion. Maurreen (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we start with this text and then chip away at it? Instead of creating new sections, maybe just edit the text directly (with or without strikethrus) and/or make good edit summaries? Again, this paragraph is meant to be similar to Wikipedia:Csd#Articles. — Timneu22 · talk 23:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed text:
Recently-created articles written in a second-person style that include instructions on how to do something. An answer to the question of How do I...., where the article does not contain any encyclopedic information that is not already included in relevant articles. Articles titled with instructional titles, such as "how to do X", are unencyclopedic and inherently lend themselves to WP:POV. as second-person or "imperative" tone cannot ever be written in an encyclopedic or neutral manner. How-to/instructional articles generally consist of little to no introduction, no indication of the topic's relevance to a general audience, and material that is not only unsourced, but also that cannot be sourced. Any article title beginning with "how to" should be considered for this type of deletion immediately (except when the article discusses a title of a work, like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days). While article titles of "how to" merit immediate CSD consideration, Other articles with titles content that is written in encouraging an instructional style should also be consideredare also eligible for deletion. Verb/noun combinations are CSD'd or redirected (writing stories, feeding birds, making brownies). Articles that discuss techniques of performing scientific or other notable endeavors (Methods of detecting extrasolar planets), or proper titles of works (How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days) do not fall under this criterion.
Made a few changes, reducing explanation and putted related ideas together. It should be a little clearer below without all of the strikes. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Recently-created articles written in a second-person style that include instructions on how to do something. An answer to the question of How do I...., where the article does not contain any encyclopedic information that is not already included in relevant articles. Articles titled with instructional titles, such as "how to do X", are unencyclopedic and inherently lend themselves to WP:POV. Other articles with content that is written in an instructional style are also eligible for deletion. Articles that discuss techniques of performing scientific or other notable endeavors (Methods of detecting extrasolar planets), or proper titles of works (How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days) do not fall under this criterion.
This seems reasonable to me, however I'd like at least one example in the sentence "other articles with content that is written in an instructional style..."; for example "making brownies" is essentially the same as "how to make brownies" (and the same is true for other original examples). — Timneu22 · talk 09:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
How to upload a youtube video *grumble grumble* --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's an idea for a non-problematic title but problem content: Title: Homemade brownies Content: My grandmother makes delicious brownies. Now you can make them too! Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Add one cup water, two cups flour, one cup sugar to a bowl and stir...
And another Title: New computer (This is made up, though this was deleted per AfD before) Content: When you get a new computer, you will want to see its new features. But before you do, make sure to save all pakaging before you are sure that you want your computer. Connect all perhipherals like keyboards, monitors, and mice before booting up. When you boot up, immediately install security software to protect your computer... --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for this idea, but I still think A11 and A12 are both valid. There's another new article, Ecuador buses, that doesn't have an awful title, but the content is obvious WP:ESSAY. The article includes both how-to (to get a ticket...) and it has a conclusion section (POV). So there is some blurredness involved here. I'll state that I could see how "buses in Ecuador" may be a valid topic, but not with the content that is here. — Timneu22 · talk 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say this falls under A11 because its primary content is written in second person, includes "how to" and "where to" content, and contains no content that is worth saving. I really would not be surprised if this is a copyvio. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not find it easy to judge, and these articles generally do no harm in the week it takes for prod to deal with them. How-to's in particular are often attempts by beginners to write articles, and they need at least careful guidance and a chance to improve them. Essays too are a good deal a matter of judgment; and although many of the ones at prod are pretty obvious, many of them are not, and after 3 years of it i find it difficult to distinguish between something that can and can not be fixed by rewriting.(and the worst of those I see there are often copyvios & should have been disposed of as such). this is both too risky and not really necessary. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Who can nominate under G4

(I've made a quick search for this in the archives and couldn't find a discussion, but if it's there and I've missed it please feel free to just point me to it.) Query: An new page patroller who is a non–sysop sees that a page has been restarted that was previously deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. Not being a sysop, he cannot see the deleted version of the page to see if they are or are not substantially similar. Can that editor nominate that page for speedy deletion under G4 without breaching AGF, based perhaps on the fact that the sysop who reviews the G4 nomination will have the obligation to compare the versions? If the answer is "no," is a non-sysop who nominates a page under G4 subject to warning, criticism, or censure for doing so, or do we AGF and presume that he or she had sufficient knowledge about the deleted page to make the nomination? And does the answer to the last question change if it turns out that the new page is in fact substantially different from the deleted page? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

While somewhat convoluted, a fair question. G4 should not simply be tagged because there was a previous discussion in order to have the content checked. Timing, sources, origin and the available content of the previous XfD discussion matter. There are many valid G4 tags by nonadmins, however. Some will be by participants of the XfD who know the content. In other cases the sources of the new draft have been discussed in the XfD or clearly show no sign of addressing the concerns of the discussion. Not to mention immediate reposts after XfD closure by the unhappy creator or an associate. On the other hand, I would not apply the tag immediately in case of doubt and maybe open up a talk page thread first which can link to the old discussion. In the end we want to enforce with G4 valid consensus, but have the article if it can be written according to our principles. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well said. Basically G4 serves as a way for non-admins to alert admins that someone is trying to circumvent consensus and mostly that happens shortly after an XFD has taken place. I think it's probably better to ask an admin directly though if you don't know whether it is a recreation or not. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Nearly all of the G4s I see are on the same topic, occasionaly not. Most are also are a recreation, possibly with a very small variation. I don't hold it against the nominator if it does not result in a deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is not as much the nominators, as us admins who do not check carefully ourselves -- when I think I remember it well, I admit it's tempting not to actually look . DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Modify F5?

I've never understood the point of waiting seven days for rescaled nonfree images. Would it be reasonable to change criterion F5 to specify that all old versions of all images in Category:Rescaled fairuse images are subject to deletion? Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is, iirc, that sometimes people scale them too small, thus rendering them unusable for any encyclopedic purposes and people should be able to revert this when it happens. Hence the 7 day period to allow everyone interested to review the change before it's made final. I don't think we should change F5 in this way, waiting this period does not really make it inefficient, does it? Regards SoWhy 18:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a large number of images in that category should have been deleted ages ago; earlier today I deleted one that was tagged for deletion in 2008! The majority of images that I found in that category were tagged well more than seven days ago, so I ended up deleting many images that weren't in the tagged-for-more-than-a-week category. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect few apart from the deleting admin actually check it out as this is not very exciting work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"At original posting"

We have an ongoing problem with certain New Page Patrollers, who seem to think that Wikipedia is best served by making sure that people who are creating pages feel attacked if initial draft isn't a perfect stub. For example, this editor has announced that CSD A1 applies to any page that "at original posting, contains minimal text". The actual A1, as I'm sure editors here know, contains no timing restriction. He spammed a CSD tag into an article just one minute after its creation, which is how I discovered his essay; a trip through his contributions today shows that all of his CSD nominations are within zero(!) to seven minutes of the page's initial creation.

The community has repeatedly announced and confirmed its preference for giving editors (especially new ones!) a fair chance to write the article before spamming tags into them (see, e.g., the text at the top of Special:NewPages and most of WP:NPP). The community's concerns revolve around biting newcomers, irritating experienced editors, and discouraging article creation.

A handful of patrollers have rejected the community's repeated requests. Unfortunately, these editors also seem to be the ones with the worst grasp of the CSD requirements. Not only are they trying to make decisions on the basis of drafts that are only seconds old (which is a serious handicap), most of them seem to produce more than their fair share of declined CSDs.

Could we add a section to this page that addresses this problem, and formally directs patrollers to normally avoid tagging a new page as a CSD within, say, the first 10-15 minutes of its existence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's high time. I added the language that addresses this to newpages (and I just noticed it's been toned down and made less prominent) as well as creating {{Hasty}} as a mechanical fix for the issue. If people want to review past discussions on this issue of tagging moments after creation, here's a sampling from the archives (and there's been more at the village pump): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
So, will there be a formal redirect as WAID suggested? I think that's the best course of action. My article was marked for deletion within a second. Surely, there are much more important places to invest energy here then to watch new pages like a hawk and swoop down within a second of their creation. Seems to discourage what is supposed to be encouraged around here... Jim Steele (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no amount of changes to the policy page will stop such users. If someone is determined to read the criteria wrong, they will not be swayed by it. The best way to educate them is to tell those users about WP:BITE and the effect their tagging has on new users, then ask them to reconsider their approach based on current consensus. Regards SoWhy 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but no: If this page formally instructs patrollers to give editors a chance, then more admins will feel empowered to (individually, considering all the facts and circumstances) warn and, if necessary, block the small number of patrollers who continue to disrupt the encyclopedia by routinely defying the long-standing and widespread community consensus. Also, most of the 'problem' editors have been educated about the consequences, but they seem to think that they are too special to follow the community's directions. This is, in some instances, more like deliberate defiance with a touch of "who's going to make me?!" than mere thoughtlessness.
I think that a section on this page that runs something like this might be appropriate:
Don't rush to pass judgment
The "speedy" in speedy deletion is about how soon an article can be deleted after it has been identified as a candidate for deletion, not how soon after its initial creation editors should pass judgment on it. Please don't tag articles for speedy deletion or other forms of cleanup within seconds, or even minutes, of their creation. Editors are not required to produce a perfect stub on the first draft. Tagging articles for speedy deletion within minutes of the page's initial creation is normally considered disruptive behavior, because it creates edit conflicts for pages that are being actively edited, discourages article creation, seems unfriendly to new and inexperienced editors, and seems aggressive to experienced editors. Too-hasty tagging also results in more errors by new page patrollers.
Under normal circumstances, new pages should not be tagged for speedy deletion within at least the first 10-15 minutes of their creation, especially for inadequate content. Articles on plausible topics that tagged very early in their existence can be tagged with {{Hasty}}.
New page patrollers with a pattern of defying the community consensus can be warned and, if the anti-consensus and disruptive behavior continues, blocked by any admin.
I think this covers the content (rule [with plenty of wiggle room], explanation of why we have this rule, possible sanction [also with plenty of room for admin judgment]), but perhaps someone else will have a better idea about how to phrase it. Also, I think that the creation of a {{uw-hasty}} warning might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:BITE does instruct people not to bite newbies, still some people will do so. I don't argue against adding something to the policy page to emphasize that WP:BITE applies to tagging as well.
As for the text of a new section, I think we should keep it short and precise since WP:BITE covers most of that as well. I'd suggest the following:

Avoid hasty tagging
     See also: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.
The "speedy" part in "speedy deletion" refers to the fact that this process allows administrators to delete pages without having to wait for a certain time. It does not mean that deletion has to be requested as fast as possible. In the spirit of welcoming new users, new page patrollers should not tag new pages for speedy deletion (or with maintenance templates) within the first few minutes of their existence, unless deletion is required immediately (e.g. attack pages or copyright violations). Pages tagged this way can be marked with {{hasty}} and patrollers doing such taggings can be informed using the {{uw-hasty}} template.

I don't think this policy needs to include a threat for those who exhibit a pattern of hasty tagging since we can simply say that doing so violates WP:BITE and violating WP:BITE should always be sanctioned equally and thus the sanctions should be centralized.
As for warning, I think a {{uw-hasty}} template is a good idea, you should create one but keep it short like the other templates (e.g. {{uw-bite}}). Regards SoWhy 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(@SoWhy) I agree with you that we cannot stop it (barring a technical solution; discussed, but none proposed have been found feasible) but we cannot make a dent in it keeping it hidden in archived discussions and we can do much by memorializing the consensus in policy. With the anchor of pointing to the policy which now incorporates the hidden-from-view consensus, it will become known and part of "CSD mores" and happen less frequently. Just citing to biting on taggers' talk pages has done nothing (I've tried). Actually announcing things in policy has effects that no amount of assertion that "there is consensus" can. This is especially true here where the consensus on this may go against newpage patrollers' sense that "speedy" means rapidity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(@WhatamIdoing) Initial thoughts on any proposed section is that it's critical that we include the instruction that newpages patroller coming across a possible A1/A3 moments after creation and who refrain from marking it as empty/lacking context because the time is not yet ripe, also not mark the page as patrolled. What we don't want is those patrolling from the front end of newpages allowing A1/A3s to escape later review.
I just looked at your proposed language, which seems geared to all the criteria. I don't know if this is just a drafting oversight but the issue of hasty tagging has been discussed at length in relation to A1/A3 specifically, which is what past consensus speaks to (I do not and would not support this about any of the other criteria). I would propose a much simpler version, where instead of making a separate section on the page, we simply append to the existing A1 and A3 a note stating the consensus and a bare minimum on the issue. Proposed language: Consensus has developed that articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; a minimum of fifteen minutes should be allowed before this criterion is applied. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Either of these suggested approaches work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support the above proposal (though as a New page patroller, I have certainly broken the above rule a few times). Maybe, if possible, you could change the tag so that It is a little less bitey, but could still be applied right away. For instance, when an article comes in with content such as "its a really great place to hang out with your friends" it would be useful to not have to wait 15 (I would suggest lowering to 10 to prevent things falling through the cracks) minutes to tag the article, during that time it could fall through the cracks, but instead put a very visible time stamp on the notice of the last edit, saying something like "An editor has tagged this article as lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article, and if it is not improved in the next 15 minutes, will be listed for speedy deletion per CSD A1." If we don't change the CSD tag or language, this could easily be a separate tag used to put articles into a temporary "holding pen" for reviewing in the future. It certainly should not be applied to all criteria, but certainly A1, A3, and possibly A7. I support the creation and use of uw-speedy per Ignorantia juris may excuse. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A way to tag immediately but have the tag not propagate to the category for a set length of time would be much preferable but has been discussed before and a way of implementing that has never been found.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
While I think I realized that that was probably not feasible as I wrote my comment, I think a "holding pen" could work. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleting isn't the problem that I'm trying to address. The instant tagging is, itself, the problem. Tagging a perfectly plausible article because the very first draft only contains one sentence, and the tagger is too far outside his own knowledge to recognize the subject, and apparently too dim to think that the editor might be expanding it and adding sources at this very second, is disruptive and bitey.
I hope and believe that our admins are wise enough not to delete something plausible just because it's been tagged. I am, sadly, not able to make the same claim for a small handful of very active new page patrollers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I will continue to oppose any mandatory requirements to wait a certain length of time before tagging and/or deleting articles under speedy deletion criteria. There are always some articles (like the "its a really great place to hang out with your friends" example above) which are deletable straight away, but placing a delay before these appear in the deletion category (or whatever) gives the creators the chance to remove the speedy tag, getting them in under the radar.
I am happy to support whatever "should", "recommended", "good idea", "guideline", "strongly recommended", etc. guidelines are proposed, but not hard or inflexible requirements. I maintain that the issues described above are due to editors being overzealous, not rules and guidelines being wrong. Bringing in more guidelines will just put off or distract the valuable NPP team. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I also support editors using their best judgment, and I don't really want anyone hassled over occasional instances.
I do, however, want to somewhat change the current pattern of behavior—from "Most of my CSD nominations today were tagged within three minutes of the page's creation" to "For most of my CSD nominations, there had been no activity for the last 15 minutes, so I thought that the original editor might have quit working on it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Stifle, some articles ought to be deleted as soon as possible (personal attacks and copyright violations, basically, but hoaxes too, blatant vandalism and so on). On the contrary, articles should not be tagged per A1, A3, G2 and perhaps A7 too soon. But I'd rather leave it to the single editor's common sense, with, clearly, the possibility for an admin to adjust that editor's clue level. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. We have ample evidence that relying on "the single editor's common sense" isn't working.
  2. The admins seem to want a clear, direct, unambiguous "permission" to adjust these disruptive editors' clue levels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  1. I know that; what I meant is that we already have a policy that suggests not to tag too hastily certain articles; I think we do not need a new set of rules, mandating how long to wait.
  2. Any admin can rebuke editors who habitually tag articles too hastily and if they do not learn after being warned, they can be sanctioned. I don't think admins really need an explicit permission to do this: all disruptive actions can be sanctioned... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Where is that policy reflected on this page? (Yes, it's part of the "real" policy, but surely we can write down our real policies in plain language?)
  2. I didn't say that they need explicit permission; I said that they seem to want it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This policy is not referred to on this page, but there is a strong suggestion not to do it (please consider not tagging new articles for CSD:A1 and CSD:A3 within moments of creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision) at the very beginning of Special:NewPages and [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrolling new pages (Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author.).
But I agree: it would be useful to add a mention of this policy here too. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(@ all) The text at the top of newpages has had no discernible effect. Telling people on their talk pages has done nothing I've seen. The issue needs to be recognized in the policy page to get any legs, or we need to come up with a mechanical fix (and I'm not sure why it's not possible with all the tech talent we have; prod already has a device to say an article is not yet ready for deletion, which automatically changes at a set time; can that be modified and included in new db-a1/db-a3 templates?) I am ambivalent and want to be careful about any fix because I am just as concerned with not hampering newpages patrollers, and having articles deleted that should be deleted, as I am with fixing the "hasty issue", and I do not want to sacrifice one at the expense of the other. On that note, I am alarmed by the fix offered below. There should not be a lag with respect to all pages and especially with regard to attack pages and copyright violations, which concern to me trumps by a mile anything that the fix solves. That is dangerous. Until we come up with a targeted fix that doesn't rope in what it should not, I can't see the problem in adding language to the policy page about the consensus. The concern above about it being mandatory, well the language I suggested is not, but I can see people running with it as impliedly mandatory, so let's say expressly that it's not, but get the information out there in a way that may actually have an effect. New suggested language to be appended to A1/A3: Consensus has developed that in most cases articles should not be tagged for deletion under this criterion moments after creation as the creator may be actively working on the content; though there is no set time requirement, a ten minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just created {{uw-hasty}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added some language to WP:NPP per this discussion, including uw-hasty. I also made a very minor typo fix in the template. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the proposed 'footnote' is a good approach. Shall we do that (applying only to A1/A3)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Structural fixes

Just a note to say that User:TheJosh has very kindly agreed to modify his NPP script to provide an automatic five-minute delay. I believe that this sort of structural change, which makes it easy to automatically do the right thing, is extremely valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite opposed to it, as said earlier. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Me too. Many pages need deleting (and even oversighting) ASAP. Every delay increases the chance of the page being picked up by Google and cached for a long time (not to mention being mirrored elsewhere, but that usually takes longer). While we now have a problem with too hasty tagging of some articles, an institutionalised and/or sanctionable delay before new page patrolling is creating different and potentially worse problems. Fram (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The idea that there be some sort of time delay on CSD has been suggested and rejected numerous times in the past. As has already been stated, there are types of articles that actually do need to be deleted as soon as possible, such as attack pages and copyright violations. If you want to create a template to send to over-eager taggers, that's fine, but don't technically restrict users from tagging new articles. I would add that this time delay at NPP would have no effect whatsoever on users who do it "old school" and just look at recent changes without using any "patrol" construct. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose any automatic lag application to all criteria. This should be specific to A1/A3 or not done at all. Expanded commentary on this in the section above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
While I share WhatamIdoing's concerns about tagging articles too quickly, I'm not crazy about structurally altering such a ubiquitous tool for New Page Patrollers without consensus, or even alerting them to the change. Of course, TheJosh is entitled to alter his script, but I have decided to use the older version without the delay, and anyone else who doesn't want the delay should do the same. My one can be found at User:Lear's Fool/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js. If you want to use it, remember to add a backslash before the apostrophy in my username: importScript('User:Lear\'s Fool/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js');.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The use of the scripts is optional--I do not know what percentage of NPP is done using them--I;ve always found that just checking Special:New pages works very nicely. I think that not just A1/A3 but other criteria also could benefit from a delay lag--the very first version of an article will also often not clearly indicate the possible notability (a7) or may appear purely promotional (g11)--or even be based upon a quoted definition (g12) while the page after a few minutes would not be copyvio. Possibly the best approach is edit filters--a warning will appear for an over-early application of a tag--or an admin doing a deletion. We could try this first for A1and A3. I don;t think anyone can propose a possibility where a 125 minute delay on these could harm the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that a 125 minute delay might be excessive. There is no reason to keep most of these articles around for over two hours. In that timeline things can easily get lost in the NPP backlog and onto Google's Cache. I would support having a smaller time frame, no more than 25 minutes where A1, A3, and A7 could all not be deleted. Copyvios, however, need to get eradicated immediately, and should not be subjected to restrictions (In my experience, if there is a simple definition of a sentience or two, then patrollers and admins are more lenient than if the entire article is copied from somewhere). Many editors are simply not aware of the policies, and will copy and paste thinking that they are validly starting an article, not intending to reword it later. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So would there be a warning as you press the buttons to tag/delete, or would a bot warn the tagger/admin on their talk page? I like the idea of some sort of technical solution to this problem where early tagging under certain criteria is limited or disincentivised. However, there are a couple of issues I'd like to see considered.
Firstly, when I find an article that meets A1 or A3, I don't tag it right away, I leave it open in another tab in my browser, and then go back and check in 15-20 minutes to see whether it's changed, and then tag or not accordingly. However, if I had to wait two hours (for example, since this is the number you picked, DGG), either I'd end up losing it in the hundreds of other pages I've seen, or by that time I will have stopped patrolling new pages. I think the delay has to be long enough to give article creators time to fix up their article, but not so long that the article gets lost in the mess that is the unpatrolled backlog.
Secondly, one of the (admittedly a little spurious) reasons I tag early with things like A7, is that it alerts the creator to the fact that something needs to be fixed. The A7 tags at least alert the creator that they need to include a claim to significance (although in the process they're quite intimidating). This wouldn't stop me from supporting some sort of compulsory (or very strongly encouraged) delay, but if it were implimented, new page patrollers should still have templates with which to alert the creators of articles to what needs to be changed before it can escape deletion. Ideally these would be very friendly and much less intimidating than the CSD tags.
I might also point out that another solution (or component of a solution) might be to encourage userfication of promising articles. Lets face it, most things tagged as A7 should be deleted, but where an article shows some promise initially, it may be a better idea for both admins and taggers to consider the option of userfying it for the author, and in doing so give them some pointers about what needs to be improved. This will often be better than simply giving the author two hours (or however long) to fix up the article before speedily deleting, prodding, or sending to AfD. Thoughts?  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think the shortest reply is that you're not the source of the problem.
I'm opposed to automating delivery of reminders about the community's consensus. If you occasionally send something to CSD at 9 minutes, and we normally want you to wait 10 minutes, then I don't think you should be hassled at all about it. I think that {{uw-hasty}} should be sent only to those editors who seem to take pride in how fast they can spam CSD A1 tags.
I have set up the two footnotes for A1 and A3, which everyone seems to believe are the biggest issues. Please feel free to edit them.
There might be something to DGG's other three suggested items, but I'm thinking that baby steps are the right answer for now. We could revisit an extension later, after we have some experience with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The new footnotes are fine by me! And I concur on not being overly fastidious when tagging user with {{uw-hasty}}. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency: CSD vs. "rewrite" and sometimes "new title"

I'm starting to see more of the CSD picture, and I'm still convinced that A11 and A12 from above need to be implemented. What's more troubling, however, is that there is a huge inconsistency about speedy deletes versus "rewrite" and/or "give it a new title". Some examples:

  • Above, it was stated that Social netvetting was declared to be speedily deletable in that thread, but with my edits and a new title it will be fine. This means that the article, as it was started, was indeed deletable. It was only "fine" when it wasn't the same article.
  • Quite frequently, articles are deleted as advertising. In reality, these same articles could be rewritten to be non-POV and encyclopedic. But arguments are rare when these are deleted.
    1. A sample article, MyAbcCompany, with only the text www.MyAbcComany.com, is almost always speedily deleted as advertising or no-context. But what if that company is notable? Why doesn't someone give it appropriate edits and it will be fine?
    2. That same sample MyAbcComany article, with a number of sections that read as pure advertising and promotion, is again almost always speedily deleted as advertising. But why doesn't someone just give it appropriate edits to be fine?
    3. My example for companies/advertising is MICROS Systems, which I created several years ago. MICROS is quite possibly the most notable POS system in the world, yet it was speedily deleted at least twice as I was getting it started.

Now my point to all of the above is that it seems we're willing to delete surely notable companies, or at least those who have a chance if rewritten, but you're willing to keep the pure "A11s and A12s" around to rewrite them? This makes no sense, and is highly inconsistent.

I recently mentioned the horrible Ecuador buses article, which was pure OR, written in second-person and had a conclusion section. I AFD'd it, where someone saw it and completely rewrote the now-stubbed content. Others in the AFD suggested (as I had already done on this page) that the title be changed. So what we have here is a completely different article with a new title. That doesn't mean the article was "kept"; it is completely different.

So what I'm getting at here is that all the "A" reasons (with the exception of A10, duplicates which really seems like a "G" reason anyway) seem highly subjective as to how to handle them. Why delete someone's new band page if there's a chance that there is one single review out there that gives a little bit of notability? Why delete an article for "no content" reasons if someone could do the research and information to make the title relevant?

Bottom line: all the "A" reasons are pretty subjective. Anything could be rewritten, so why is anything speedily deleted based on "A" reasons? The maintenance of these articles is incredibly inconsistent. — Timneu22 · talk 13:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is meant to be a short cut to avoid overloading the "real" deletion process in extreme cases where most editors agree that particular strict criteria apply. I think what you're seeing is that people are more likely to agree that the criteria apply to an obviously-promotional article about a company, clearly written by someone close to it, and less likely to agree that the criteria apply in the case of a labour-of-love essay about some obscure 14th century academic topic, even if there is the same lack of obvious notability for both. The "benefit of the doubt" is enough to avoid speedy deletion in many cases, and we're all less inclined to grant that when the motivations of the article creator are obviously commercial and possibly bad-faith. I don't think that's a problem, really. Thparkth (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, well that still leaves the how-to problem, labor of love by the editor or not... that's just wrong. — Timneu22 · talk 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Timneu22, most of your examples in the above thread could be fixed by editing or used as redirects, you need to think more imaginatively. You're far too keen on deletion when alternatives exist, so I would strongly oppose any new CSD along the lines you suggest. So what if an essay hangs around for seven days instead of dying within minutes? What harm does it do? Speedy deletion should be an option of last resort, not something reached for as a default response to a problematic new article. If you'd speedily deleted "Social netvetting" we'd not now have an article on Online vetting, would we? Far from Wikipedia losing out by delaying the deletion of that article, funnelling it through AfD gave me an opportunity to come across the article and improve it. That initial shoddy article provided the seed and inspiration for a workable stub. The only new CSD I think may be viable is a variant of WP:MADEUP, but my attempts and those of others to come up with acceptably tight wording have so far failed. Fences&Windows 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Your response here proves my point: all of this stuff is subjective and any article could be improved so why speedy any of them? Only the "G" reasons are always valid. People like you seem to want to improve some of them but not others. It's highly imperfect and problematic. These essays? Almost all pure rubbish, but sometimes you want to save them and sometimes you don't. To answer your PROD question: PROD fails for me about 90% of the time; the author simply removes the tag without making improvements. PROD is a horrible waste of time, in my experience. — Timneu22 · talk 15:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources and A7

Hello all, I'd like to change A7 to indicate that an article which has sources that can be credibly claimed to meet WP:N is not eligible for an A7 deletion as that is implicitly a credible claim of notability. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already the case that such an article shouldn't be deleted under A7 (or am I wrong in this interpretation?). I fear that changing the language to make this explicit would be misunderstood by some over-keen speedy taggers who would read "an article may not be deleted under A7 if it is sourced" as "an article must be deleted under A7 if it is not sourced". Mind you, many of them already hold this opinion. Thparkth (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Thparkth. Such a change, while not unwise per se, might lead to people arguing argumentum e contrario that not having sources means that it meets A7 automatically and thus worsening the situation. Also, it would have to specify that it's restricted to WP:RS-sources since an article can still meet A7 despite having sources - for example if they are only MySpace, YouTube, etc. Regards SoWhy 18:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I hold the opinion that an article that doesn't assert notability is not notable. Is it everyone else's job to go and research it? I think not. I think it is the author's job to make a reasonable attempt at asserting notability. If an article's content simply says "Joe Schmo is a singer", there is no assertion of notability. Do we keep that article or go digging for it on Google hits and whatnot? It seems to me the correct answer is to immediately delete and userfy the article; let that person do the work (as obviously they are interested in the subject). We have no such "userfy immediately" process, but I think it's the best of all worlds: an intermediate step between "your content is gone" and "it deserves to be in the main namespace now". We need a note like, hey author, if you think this article is worth posting, please work on it in your userspace. If you need help, add the {{helpme}} tag to your page. But in its current state, the article shouldn't be here.Timneu22 · talk 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I was unclear, but what I'm shooting for is that an article shouldn't be deleted by A7 if there are reasonable sources in the article that have a credible chance of being found to meet WP:N and that such sources are an assertion of notability. I'm not asking someone to go outside of the article. Hobit (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think you were unclear, but I've seen it work that way too. SoWhy is also correct about MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn... an article with only these links should just disappear, if no notability is asserted. — Timneu22 · talk 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be careful when talking about A7, Timneu. An "assertion of notability" is not required by A7. A7 instead merely requires an indication of importance or significance, a lower standard than notability. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking about notability, importance, and significance. It's just easier to not type all of those. — Timneu22 · talk 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Timneu, would you have sent Lion for speedy deletion? Does the absence of any sort of sources in the first version of that article prove that it was not a suitable, notable subject for an encyclopedia when it was created? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No, for a couple reasons:
  • That first version is a disambiguation page, so obviously the term is valid to multiple things.
  • The article's first version does assert importance, even if only that first sentence existed (a mammal in family blah.) So it's asserting that it is an animal, and animals are notable.
This is probably some sort of "gotcha" test but it isn't at all. It's completely different than "MyBand is a group from Salem, Oregon. The drummer is Bob and John is the guitarist. Myspace, Facebook, Twitter." An article like this should be tagged because there's no indication that it is important, and frankly if the username is MyBandOregon then that's a red flag. I'd even tag an article: "The Beatles are a group from Liverpool. The drummer is Ringo and Paul, John, and George play the guitars. Myspace, Facebook, Twitter". But as soon as any indication is made to importance or otherwise significant coverage and/or notability, the article is probably worth keeping. — Timneu22 · talk 09:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
And I should note that I'd probably do a google search on "MyBand", "Beatles" or "Lion" in all these cases, but just a quick look to see if the topic is real or not. (I've CSD'd my share of hoax animals.) — Timneu22 · talk 10:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
@SoWhy I want something like Having sources in the article which could credibly be considered to meet WP:N is an implicit claim of notability." I agree that could get people to take it the other way with some stretching. Perhaps as a footnote? Do we all agree that such sources _are_ a claim of notability? Hobit (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Possibly reliable sources are always a claim of importance, enough to fail A7. But I don't think any such language can be added to A7 that overcomes the concerns raised about by Thparkth. It probably has a place in a list of common claims that fail A7 (see my essay WP:A7M for example) but there is no consensus for defining this in anything else but essay-form. Regards SoWhy 20:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It depends on whether what the sources assert/indicate is conceivably notable/important/significant. (I use slashes here to indicate the approximate equivalence of the terms--I consider the difference between them wiki-quibbling; notable in our context in practice normally means important or significant enough for Wikipedia). It doesnt really matter whether there are sources for it or not as far as speedy is concerned; the mere plausible assertion or indication of possible importance or significance is enough. Not current having sources for it is not a grounds for deletion at all--there not being sources of course most certainly is, but not by speedy. I see no need to make a formal rewording. The current wording is clear enough. If there is any basis in the article for a claim to being suitable for the encyclopedia, the author has the right to a community decision at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
That would seem to be implicit, particularly given the extreme scope to which "indications" of notability has been assumed to be. Is there some example where the current A7 category meets WP:N but fails a7? Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a DrV over an article that was speedied under A7 even though it had two fairly decent sources. Unclear it if actually meets WP:N (I'm pretty liberal that way and I'd call it close). I'd think sources that a very liberal interpretation of would find enough to meet WP:N would be enough to avoid an A7. But that's not written here, thus I started the discussion). Hobit (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Extend A7 to include films?

WP:NOTFILM seems rather well defined. I tend to hit a bunch of deletable film articles all the time. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that criterion A9 would be more fitting: an article about a movie that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the director/protagonist/producer/I-don't-know-who's article does not exist.
And, I'd extend it to books too... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, books too. — Timneu22 · talk 13:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not, especially for books. Is PRODing somehow not sufficient? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support extending A7 to cover books and movies, but of course subject to the "credible claim of significance" test, not the much higher standards in WP:NOTFILM and WP:NBOOK. Thparkth (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Hobit. PROD is more than enough in such cases; other cases fall already into CSD categories. --Cyclopiatalk 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hobit is correct, I see no reason to assume that the current deletion processes are incapable of handling those articles. Regards SoWhy 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In general, I've never understood why only musical recordings are speedy deletable under A9 and not, say, movies (the answer I've always given myself is that they cannot be speedied because the criterion explicitly excludes them — and perhaps the fact that garage bands and their demos are many more than wannabe writers and their eBooks); however, I don't see the real difference between the short I shot with my roomies and the demo we recorded... If the article doesn't claim any importance or significance (clearly not notability) and I'm a a complete unknown, the article should be zapped. Especially because PROD tags have a funny habit of disappearing really fast when dealing with people talking about themselves and what they've done... ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
A9 was created solely to handle recordings by bands that were eligible for A7. It's an extension. Your argument might be correct but it's not based on why we create speedy deletion criteria. We create them based on the requirements at the top of this page, especially when other deletion processes are unable to handle those articles. While it may be "annoying" for some, books and movies that would fail A7 are simply not created often enough to warrant changing A7 to include them. Regards SoWhy 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because the number of articles documenting "the demo my friends and I recorded in my garage" far, far exceeds the number of articles about "the movie my friends and I shot in my backyard", to the point where AFD can't handle them. (Though I take every AFD relist as evidence that it can't handle the other stuff, either.) Article creators removing "obvious" prods without rationale is a recurring theme, though; maybe it's time to forbid prod removal by the article creator. —Korath (Talk) 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
But wouldn't doing that make PROD identical to speedy deletion, only longer? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
we adopted a version of this sort of "sticky-prod" for unsourced BLPs. It took months of debate even for this relatively frequent situation with the special justification of protection against improper BLP articles. I'd suggest leaving well enough alone--unjustified removal of prods by the author is not all that common, and is followed by very simple and quick afds-- and about half the time, the removal by the author does turn out to be justified. 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason for not including other media that these are relatively difficult to check because of the relatively few interested WPedians who will recognize that a really bad article might be about a notable movie or book. the week of exposure at prod seems necessary to catch them. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
An article with this content was declined A7; when are the admins going to WP:IAR when it is absolutely the right thing to do?? Text: swordflash is a book writen by me.its awesome.its 234 pages long with 17 chapters.it tells the story of zero swordflash as he fights the machine overlords of the worldTimneu22 · talk 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

{{contact info}}

I've started a discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Spam. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from user to page?

Is it acceptable to have user:whibbard redirect to Bill Hibbard? This seems quite odd. — Timneu22 · talk 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not odd, they created the page probably in userspace, and then moved it to mainspace when they thought it was ready, which leaves a redirect behind. I don't know if that is CSD-able, though. Not even sure if there are guidelines stating what to do with such redirects (blank?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never seen it. To me it is "odd" because it redirects to what is his entry in the article space. — Timneu22 · talk 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. And I think this is a case for WP:UVIO, because Whibbard seems to indicate that he is in fact Bill Hibbard (W → William → Bill). I think the redirect should be blanked, however... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I've reported him Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A7, credible claims, and weasel words

Fictitious Example: Presume that a newly–created article on the company Gudunov, Ltd., contains the following unsourced assertion: "Gudunov, Ltd., is the leading exporter of uranium in Namibia." If true, "leading exporter" would seem to be a sufficient claim of importance to get past a speedy nomination. Prior discussion on the meaning of "credible" indicates that the question is one of plausibility: if there is a reasonable possibility that it is not false, then it is credible. This claim would thus seem to be credible. On the other hand, "leading" is the kind of weasel word that generally requires high-quality sourcing. General question: Is this kind of claim, which is as likely to be puffery as it is genuine and reliably sourceable, a credible assertion of importance or significance which should cause an A7 nomination to be denied? Does the answer to that question change if the rest of the article is generally promotional–sounding? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: What if the claim had been "Gudunov, Ltd., is one of the leading exporters of uranium in Namibia."? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, "leading exporter of uranium" is definitely a credible claim of significance, in the sense that it's credible that there is a primary exporter of uranium in a particular country, and there's a credible argument to be made that such a company would be notable. "One of the leading exporters of uranium" is a much more marginal case - but aren't we meant to avoid using speedy deletion in marginal cases? Thparkth (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A7 does not, imho, care about weasel words. It's purpose is to check whether importance or significance is claimed or indicated. How this is done is irrelevant for A7 and is rather a question of editing the article in question. If the "weasel" word constitutes a claim of importance, A7 cannot be applied, just as if the claim had been NPOV. Regards SoWhy 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both Thparkth and SoWhy. Such an article, IMHO, cannot be speedied per A7. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I thought that was the answer, but wanted to be sure before I declined on that basis and someone got ticked about it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes vague assertions of significance can be credible at first, then lose all credibility when elaborated upon. I've seen it happen with {{db-band}} candidates. My rule is that when the article creator feels the need to explain the nature of a prize won by the subject, then the prize must not be that important. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
IThe key thing here to me is that Namibia is a leading exporter of Uranium. Were it not, the statement would not be a claim to importance of any sort. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Two cases for consideration

I would be interested in other editors' opinions about whether or not speedy deletion would be appropriate in the following cases.

  • A candidate for a major party in the British General Election. The subject has considerable press coverage, entirely arising from the election. Tagged as A7. WP:POLITICIAN says being an unelected candidate is not enough to prove notability, but it is a credible claim of significance for A7?
  • An article is sent to AfD. The author takes offense, and says on the AfD page, before any other discussion has occurred, "fine, delete the article, I don't care any more". An admin takes him at his word and speedy deletes the article as "author requested". So far so good. Now our original author has a change of heart and recreates the article. It is immediately tagged for speedy deletion under G4 - previously deleted by AfD. Should it be deleted under G4?

With thanks for any comments. Thparkth (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  • While I'm sure these relate to a specific set of cases, I think they are good generic questions and might actually make for good RfA questions. I'll give my 2 cents. For the first, I'd say there is no way for this to be an A7. First, major-party candidacy is clearly a credible claim of significance. Secondly the press coverage is also a sufficient claim of significance. So no A7. For the second, the G4 tag was mistaken as the article was effectively speedied and thus not eligible as a G4. I tend toward being inclusive and being FairProcess oriented but I think these are pretty clear. Nice questions though. Hobit (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My views are similar to Hobit's. The first is clearly not an A7. Being a major party candidate for office is a claim of significance. WP:POLITICIAN is not necessary to pass for A7. As for the second, "deleted via a deletion discussion" should be read to mean "deleted as a result of a consensus to delete". The deletion in this case was a speedy deletion under G7, not a genuine AfD deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
In the first case, the significant press coverage constitutes by itself a credible claim of importance, regardless of the circumstances that led to its existence.
The second case sounds like the article was created by someone somewhat familiar with our procedures. I would initiate a new AfD on the new incarnation with a caveat that G7 is explicitly mentioned in the AfD as no longer being an option, as, should it be invoked again, the circumstances would show enough evidence to overcome the assumption of good faith necessary for G7 to apply. A third recreation after this second AfD is closed could then be deleted under G4 with no ambiguity. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • First case: it's an error, in my opinion, because there's a credible claim of importance. After all, importance and notability are two different concepts. Second case: I wouldn't have deleted the article in the first place (because I think that the article's creator was only venting and wasn't expecting to be taken at his word — granted he shouldn't have said that, but I can very well understand that for an editor to see an article he created undergo an AFD can be really stressful —, so I don't really think this can qualify as a good faith request that an article be deleted); however, if the AFD was speedy closed to delete the article per G7, then the same article cannot be speedied per G4. This is all IMHO, of course. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that a major party candidate who has achieved non trivial coverage for a candidacy to a major position should not be an A7 case. However there are serious and non-serious candidates in all political parties. Someone who would have probably been elected if their party had won a 400 seat landslide is a different proposition to the paper candidate who would probably not have been elected even if their party had won their best ever result. As for the G7 - I have in the past closed AFDs as G7 and made the deletion accordingly, in that case a subsequent G4 would hopefully not apply. ϢereSpielChequers 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I would regard a major party candidate for any office as passing a7 very easily indeed, even if nothing more were shown. For that matter, I would say the same of a minor party candidate, if there were any evidence that the claim was real.
    • For the second, there would need to be a new AfD. Using g4 on this is against the intent of the speedy deletion procedure for withdrawing an article. Anyone has the right to abandon an article they have started & nobody else has worked on, and make another try at it later. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I have severe concerns about local notability guidelines being used ahead of the GNG and N. Clearly, in a case like an unsuccessful candidate, BLP1E may apply and the sources may be more about the politics then the individual but I can't see how any article with independent sources can be considered an A7. CSD is for uncontroversial deletions. By all means delete a crappy myspace band whose only source is their own page but someone who has been written about independently? That requires discussion. In the second case G4 can only apply if the article was deleted by the AFD not the user requesting G7 and the new article is substantially the same - i.e the same text or the article, still a coat-rack or was deleted for lack of sources and the sources are still inadequate. (wondering if the world will now end given that I agree with both DGG and Hobit on something related to deletion.... ) Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How to handle malware

Somebody uploaded a piece of malware or an infected file onto the Malay Wikipedia a few days ago, causing the Norton toolbar installed in my browser to change the rating of the whole of Wikipedia from "Site is Safe" to "Caution". When I investigated the rating, I found out about what caused the problem. When I visited the offending page, it was apparent that the file was deleted. (I cannot be certain, because I cannot read Malay.) The rating was changed back to "Site is Safe" a day or two ago. In case someone does something similar to the English Wikipedia, we need a way to dispose of such a file quickly. Currently, CSD F2 only can be used for empty image pages or for files that MediaWiki cannot handle. Therefore, this does nothing for files that MediaWiki can read, but are infected. Should we extend CSD F2 to handle malware or infected files, or should we create a new criterion for malware?

Also, what should we do with the person who uploaded the malware or infected file? Should we block the uploader immediately or just warn him or her? Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the CSD process is the right way to handle malware that's been posted to Wikipedia. CSD is intended primarily for activity that occurs frequently (as mentioned at the top of this page) and doesn't require immediate attention from an administrator (CSD backlog is often more than 24 hours). Malware incidents are very rare and should be handled as soon as they are discovered. If you believe malware has been uploaded to Wikipedia, I think one of the established methods of bringing an urgent issue to the attention of an administrator is the correct way to proceed (either by using WP:ANI, directly asking an administrator who is actively editing, etc.). This is particularly true since responding to a malware incident may involve the deletion of of page history entries, editing the spam black-list, blocking users spreading the malware, and other activities that may require coordination. —RP88 (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I'd report it to WP:ANI and let them handle it from there; however, I'd say a malware can already be speedied as vandalism, per G3. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 09:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Salvio is correct. Malware certainly counts as vandalism and thus is covered by G3. If the user in question is not aware of the malware in the file, one can argue that it's covered by F10 since malware has no encyclopedic use. Regards SoWhy 10:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree that G3 is not too much of a stretch, but speedy deletion isn't speedy enough for a case like that. As a non-admin, I would replace the file with a know-safe file as a placeholder to neuter the threat, and immediately look for admin assistance on IRC. Thparkth (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The approved file types for Wikipedia shouldn't permit any malware. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Wikipedia allows PDF which is commonly exploited via bugs in PDF readers. Also, image files have been successfully exploited in the past. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IPUser talkpage deletion .. again

I know we have been through this before, but it comes up over and over. I thought we had agreed in older discussions, that user talkpages of IP Users known to have been engaging in long term vandalism, or other forms of systematic vandalism (POV pushing, spam, &c.) should never be deleted. Some related discussions.

At the moment, there is not a direct CSD for that, though they can be deleted under routine housekeeping, deleting of blank pages or pages without meaningful content. So now the sequence comes up again, one user sees an 'ancient' user talkpage which does not contain a lot of useful information anymore, so blanks it, and a second one deletes it as blanked. And we are again at the point that (sometimes important!) tracks are deleted.

In fact, I now saw that a talkpage of an IP with a long track of vandalism, which is actively blocked at the moment (block of a year!), was blanked 3 months after being blocked, and some time later the talkpage was deleted.

In short, although by far the most of these deletions are indeed uncontroversial, some are not, and hence, they can not be deleted under any form of CSD .. I again argue that deletion of user talkpages (even of IPs) should be done only very, very carefully under a CSD criterium, and certainly not semi-automated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: By far the most of the deletions that triggered my comments here, were absolutely fine, it is maybe just 1% or even less of those deletions, which are a problem. But those can be quite a problem to track for those working in the field of fighting those long-term vandals. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I ended up here in a different way, to get a quick feeling of them, see deleted user talk pages which have received XLinkBot warnings. From the top 50 I found already two of editors who are actively blocked, still the pages have been deleted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, just to give an example. Without using admin tools, can we have quick consideration whether the editors who have abused:

have actually been warned enough that their blatant spamming would warrant blacklisting? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no ambiguity about this: it is agreed that user talk pages are not deleted except under exceptional circumstances. this is indicated, for example, at WP:DELTALK, and I am sure I have seen a much more strongly worded version of the same idea, though I don't remember where. It is important that we have record of what has been posted on user talk pages for future reference, and this is even more important with IP users than with registered users, as we do not indef-block IPs. If, as you say, administrators are deleting these pages "as blanked", then that is puzzling: as far as i know there is no provision for deleting a page just because it is blanked except for "author blanked" (CSD G7), and that does not apply here, as the criterion specifically says "a page other than a userspace page or category page". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have informed the editor in question that I raised this here, the criterium used was G6 for that one. Many of the XLinkBot-warned pages were deleted from CAT:TEMP (last year), even indef blocked ones (which should not have been deleted, so that is not a recent situation). I do think that we should firmly state some things that should not be deleted somewhere, even if other speedy reasons would have applied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed. U1 for example explicitly excludes user talk pages, so there is nothing in the wording that needs to be changed. I think the correct course of action is to talk to the administrator(s) who violated WP:CSD in that way and ask them to restore the pages. If they decline, take it to WP:DRV as out-of-process deletions in violation of policy (that is quite specific about such pages). You are correct that it's good to keep such pages and the admin(s) in question probably just didn't realize that policy has changed when it comes to CAT:TEMP and IPs. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I did discuss it with/notifty the editors in question, and I did check already quite some, and most deletions are 'fine' (even if out of process). The problem is, that this keeps coming back and back. There are cases where they easily fall into the criteria, but it is a recurring case that admins then apply them too widely. I still feel it should be restricted here, and maybe also more strictly on CAT:TEMP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
In my career, I've blanked at least 30,000 of these pages, the vast majority of which had no more than two or three messages on them dating back to 2005-06. I do it primarily to reduce link load, especially from disambig links. IPs are dynamic. After a few years, even a heavily warned persistent vandal/school IP may be reassigned to an innocent household. bd2412 T 11:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
BD2412, that is not the problem, and I do not disagree with the blanking (though I'd prefer replacing with a neutral template or leaving certain tracks on them, that would make it even easier). Yes, they might be reassigned, but if two years ago an IP was spamming, and got warned and spammed again, then changed IP, spammed again, and now again, then still, that spammer was warned, the editor was warned. That is what I mean with 'systematic vandals', it is in many cases of those POV pushers and spammers, physically, the same person, only now on a new IP. If the pages are deleted (and that is what I have the problem with) then those tracks of whether the (physical) editor was warned in the past are very hard to find. I can tell you which 50 IPs a spammer has used, but if the pages are all deleted I have to check the deleted revisions of all 50 to see whether the spammer was somewhere in the past warned for his actions. If the pages are not deleted, then that is reduced to only checking the blue-linked pages. And even better, non-admins (also consider cross-wiki editors who follow spam-tracks and are admin on, say, nl.wikipedia, and not here) can do that work, otherwise it only adds to the workload of the (few!) admins who actively follow spam tracks ..
When those warnings are so difficult to find, 'we' run into two problems: a) we have a heavily spammed link, but if the editors were not warned we should be careful with blacklisting, resulting in warning, waiting for re-occurence and re-considering, and b) when we blacklist a link and get a request to de-blacklist, we often get as remarks 'I don't see any attempts to warn the editor' .. well, that is because many editors are not able to see the deleted revisions, and it is again back to the few admins who do this work to 'show' what has been done.
I above gave an example of how difficult it is to find the spammers, let alone to see whether they were sufficiently warned: which of the spammers of nutmeg.ws were warned, and do we expect that they 'got the message' (yes, all the user talkpages are deleted; it does not involve IPs)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
BD2412, regarding 'even a heavily warned persistent vandal/school IP may be reassigned to an innocent household', sure. But one of the IPs in question has a long history of vandalism, and a block log. During the last block (of a year), the IP removed the tag notifying it was a school (2 months after the beginning of the block), subsequently blanked (less than a month after the last edit), and now deleted (5.5 months later; while the block is still active). The IP, however, is still registered to Griffin University (and strangely enough, if the IP is still assigned to that school after the block expires, I do expect the vandalism to start again .. after the previous 1 year block was finished, the vandalism started again 2 days later). It is fine that the pages are blanked when the IP has changed owner, or the IP is dynamic, but when that is obviously not the case, tracks get difficult to follow. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. IP and registered users' talk page should never be deleted, in my opinion, especially when we deal with problematic users. Blanking is ok, but I have strong reservations about deletion, as per User:Beetstra above. The only case I think an exception could be made is that of a user exercising his wp:right to vanish... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have based the above discussion mainly on my work in the anti-spam research, but one can envisage that a part of a discussion is on a user talk page of an IP, upon which edits to mainspace are based. Deleting the history of such a page deletes that discussion. Everyone is always basing this on 'it may be a completely different user, who cares', but one of the previous owners can have done really 'interesting' things, and I think that is what counts.

Regarding that, I have, boldly, expanded the text regarding user and user talkpages. Normal exceptions (right to vanish, request of 'owner') apply, of course. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that's completely OK. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I strongly support Beetstra's position. For still more details on just how critical spammer talk page preservation is to our spam mitigation efforts, see the earlier discussions he linked to at the beginning of this thread. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. We should be speedily deleting IP user talk pages very rarely and only under a narrow set of circumstances. — Satori Son 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that these should never be deleted. I'd like to see a wholly automated system in which IP address user pages for unblocked IP's which have not edited in, say, a year would be automatically bot-blanked and replaced with a standard template. bd2412 T 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer 'bot archived' (as this keeps some of the 'tracking' templates alive!), and when auto-blanking/archiving is implemented, then that should respect long blocks (static and notorious IPs are routinely already blocked for a year, and longer blocks are not strange; if the IP is still blocked, do not archive). It should also keep in place any standard templates (like {{sharedIP}} and friends). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

here's an odd case

Srimad Vaghbat Geeta is nommed as an empty article. My browser won't even render whatever alphabet this is written in, I just see a bunch of little boxes. How are we to determine what the article is? Is this just a limitation of my browser, can anybody else read it? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a foreign script. Its length alone warrants a CSD, for sure. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
How can you be so sure if you don't know what it says? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The script looked Hindi to me, but Google Translate returned it as Bengali. In any case, it's just one word, so I think it is safe to assume it's an A1. However, I will list it at WP:PNT for a second opinion (could be a G10 too!) -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's been deleted already. I think that it was correctly listed under A1, just on the basis of its length. We don't need a translation under such circumstances. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just for the hell of it I went to a Bengali online dictionary. As best I can make out it says something along the lines of "almighty fire of god." I could be laughably wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the article (it was zapped before I got there); however, in such a case, I would have tagged it as {{notenglish}} and let people over at WP:QTN deal with it. Worst case scenario, the article gets PRODded and deleted in seven days instead of few hours. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 07:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Two situations...

I'm not sure what I should do in these two situations. My first dilemma: what if an image is uploaded with a public domain license even though it is obviously copyrighted, but it wasn't copied from a URL, rather, another souce like a magazine. How can I use {{db-? (edit: sorry, I forgot to replace "?" here with "F9}}." as I was writing it. ) My other dilemma, something that is actually happening is that I'm noticing that some images are uploaded with a public domain license again even though it isn't in the public domain, and while the image can be found online, I don't know if pointing to any one URL is ok. For example, File:4tomorrow 2010.jpg. It's a single cover, but the uploaded claimed creation of it. I can't find it on the band's official site, but it's found in various different blogs, where it is recognized as the cover to the song. But some of the blogs with the image also let others download the song, therefore making the page itself a copyright violation. Eventually, I can't find any good URL to use. Sorafune +1 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement) specifically address such situations? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict):For the first one, F9 would work, for it states "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case;" it says to "include a rationale below this tag if it was copied from a source other than website", which could even be put in the url section and display as plain text. As for the file (Which was deleted per F10, but you say that it was an image, so I'm not sure how that applies), I would look for the correct version either from a RS or the Band itself, and remove the non-free media designation and remove it, deleting it per orphaned fair use. If there was no way that we could reliably say that that was indeed the cover, I would see no reason to have it (and often times the album might not be notable, and be redirectable/A9 able). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd have though F9 would apply to the second situation too, if I understand it correctly. He said there was a PD claim while it was obviously not PD. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, but an album cover is also a valid application of fair use. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
If the image description page doesn't claim fair use (and in the given case it doesn't) then F9 applies. The F10 deletion may be because the deleting admin wanted to use F9 but hit the wrong option by accident. Hut 8.5 20:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Modifying G6

G6 begins with a statement that it is for uncontroversial deletions. Would it be appropriate to say that anyone, even the creator, may remove a G6 deletion tag? This criterion strikes me as being rather similar to a prod in that it's only for matters that aren't disputed, so the disagreement of a creator (even if no other editor disagrees) proves that it's not uncontroversial and thus not an appropriate case for G6. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to me to have the G6 templates worded like the G7 ones, for there should be no reason that the author should reject. The only problem I could see is the {{db-disambig}} template, which is lumped under G6 even though it is very different from the other reasons for deletion, particularly if there is a page where the author intends to fill in red links. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Another G6 template which should not lead to a contest that aborts the whole process like a PROD would be {{db-copypaste}}. Sometimes new editors need to know that a copy-paste to a new title is not the same thing as a page move, and that's why this is the only G6 template that contains a user notification shortcut. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems like spending a few minutes talking to the user on his/her talkpage could alleviate new users fears, and after they fully understand, the template could be restored (Unlike a PROD, there should not be any rule about reapplying the template). Perhaps also that template could be designed to be more self-explanatory by being designed to have more emphasis on the merge instead of the deletion, designing it like {{db-histmerge}}. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that some G6 scenarios would preclude the creator, or anybody else from removing the tag. {{db-afd}} (AFD is closed "delete" but the closer doesn't delete the article) comes to mind. If we want to make it so a G6 can be removed by anyone then perhaps the "db-afd" scenario could be merged into G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that G6 has become a catch-all of little used deletion reasons. How often is db-disambig or db-xfd actually used? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, quite often (no I don't have any statistics), especially the second. I have deleted articles tagged with db-disambig though. Peter 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the best move is to modify some of the templates, but keep the anomalies of G6 with hangon messages. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Still, I wonder if it would make more sense for db-xfd to be covered under G4 instead of G6. A page exists despite a consensus that it should not, whether that reason be that it was recreated or never deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That's quite a good point; I'd support adding a corollary to G4 saying something like "this also applies to pages for which a deletion consensus has been achieved at the appropriate deletion discussion; see {{db-xfd}}". Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So my proposed solution would be as follows:

  • The |self = yes parameter would be added to {{db-g6}}, which would make it look like {{db-unpatrolled}}
  • {{db-move}}, {{db-movedab}} and {{db-copypaste}} would be redesigned to be like {{db-histmerge}}
  • The {{db-xfd}} template would be incorporated under G4
  • The {{db-disambig}} template could be either a) Kept as an anomaly, b) Merged under A3, c) Merged under G8, or d) Something else
  • Unlike a PROD, all of these templates can be reapplied to the article if removed

Comments? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if author contests the deletion it should be considered by the deleting admin, and if it was supposed to be uncontroversial, then it proves that it was not. Quite often I see that the reason is not explained why it should be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I mostly agree with 52-30's suggestions; all look good except for the final one, since I still don't think we should speedy anything under G6 if it's contested unless the contestant changes his/her mind. One other idea, however — since we can't quite be sure what to do with the db-disambig, could we simply make it a separate criterion? I'm going to propose that in a new thread; please offer comments below. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess the reasoning behind the final idea was so that if a new user saw the words "speedy deletion" and removed the tag, but then another user talks to the new one to explain that the deletion is occurring for histmerge/moving purposes, then the user will consent to have the deletion performed. I think, however, redesigning the templates as I said above will help ease newcomers' fears. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah; I guess that nobody would really object to this once they understood what was meant. Perhaps we could replace "perform other non-controversial technical tasks" on the template with "perform other routine technical tasks"? Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Arbitration principles and CSD:G4

I have spotted a discrepancy between the wording of one of the Arbitration principles and the wording on G4.

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Deleted content (My bold)

Statement of principle
If content is recreated in the main Wikipedia namespaces after having been deleted (via articles for deletion or speedy deletion), it may be speedily deleted

From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General (My bold)

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.
A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

I note that although G4 states that there may be other criterion that makes it a candidate for speedy deletion, it does explicitly state that G4 does not apply to previously speedily deleted articles, whereas the Arbitration principles says that it does apply.

What are your thoughts? I shall be putting a note at WP:AN and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration about this. Stephen! Coming... 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Arbitration principles" page is a historical one and lists principles that have been adopted in past arbitration cases, some of which are years old by now. (I do wish the page were more up-to-date; as an arbitrator who drafts some of the decisions, I could use it.) In particular, if you click on the link, you will see that the "Deleted content" principle you quote is from a case that was decided in March 2005. Our deletion policies and procedures have become more nuanced (and frankly more complicated) since then, and you should rely on the current policy rather than an old arbitration case as the best source for what the current guidelines and procedures are. Hope this helps, as I do wish that sometimes the principles adopted in arbitration cases got a little more attention outside the context of the case (compare User talk:Newyorkbrad#see also for an example). Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Gotta love instruction creep... Would it be possible to add a note at the top of the Principles page to state that it isn't updated as frequently as other areas? Or something like that? Its just that I was under the impression that Arbitration sets precedent which is adopted across the project, and so G4 here was not reflecting what had been decided by Arbitration (rather than evolving which is what appears to have happened). Stephen! Coming... 10:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The only ArbCom case where this principle was cited was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2, which goes back to 2005. Only the part of the criterion statement that was relevant to that particular case has been cited at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Deleted content. The exceptions for articles that have been recreated with substantially different material, or where a previously unnotable subject finally became notable, did not apply in this particular case. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
And, after all, if an article was speedied and then recreated identical, it could still be speedied under the original criterion... ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not the least theoretical--people re-create them this way dozens of times a day, and of course they do get deleted again, and , if it keeps happening, protected against re-creation. It also starts the series of warnings that can lead to getting blocked from WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading a principle as if it were a forever fixed part of wikipedia policy is a mistake. The principles have more context than that and that needs to be considered i.e. some of the case detail. Additionally the expression of principles is the arbitrators understanding of the community interpretation of a given policy (etc) at that point in time, it isn't the arbitrators dictating policy, the community can subsequently change policy either explicitly or by long running interpretation/application in a differing way. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

G4 used to explicitly say that a speedy deleted page could be re-deleted under G4. This was changed in July 2006. [8] The principle was a correct statement of the policy in 2005. --B (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not much of a discrepancy. G4 states that an article cannot be speedied just because it was speedied before, but it CAN be speedied if the original reason for speedying it still applies (ie it forces the admin to check why the article was deleted the last time, and use that reason rather than G4). Since there must have been a reason for the first deletion (ya think), it follows that the article can still be speedied - it just requires the admin to carry forward the original reason.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

New proposal - templates consisting entirely of red links

I just saw this template on TFD: Template:Soviet Secondary Division seasons. It seems to me there should be a speedy criterion for templates like that one. There's absolutely no use of having a navigational template where none of the articles it links to exist. This would be an easy one to deal with: simply create some of the articles. But generally, I think we should be encouraging users to create articles first and then create the navigational templates to link them, not the other way around, and adding such a CSD criterion would help that. Robofish (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How frequently does this occur? If it's rare then there probably isn't a need for a dedicated criterion. Possibly we could include it as an application of G8. Hut 8.5 12:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It comes up every now and then. If extended to cover templates containing only one link - which might be a good idea, as they're not useful either - it would come up considerably more often: there are lots of them, like Template:Tahiti Championnat Enterprise, on TFD at the moment. Robofish (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I could see having this as an extension to G8 or T3, but only if the template has been around for long enough that it can be assumed that the articles are not in progress. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I would make sense to extend T3, because then the creator and others have seven days where links could be added. We definitely do not want to delete templates if articles linking to them are in the process of being created. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Hut 8.5 here: While such templates may be created once in a while, TFD can handle them perfectly well and TFD also allows further community input whether a template is really worth deleting or whether it could rather be turned into something useful instead. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy and oppose such a criterion. You can PROD it, if you wish to encourage the creator of the template to create the articles it links to, or you can take it to TFD. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 07:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created such templates in the past, if I already knew I was going to create these articles just now. The advantage is that you can reach the next article to be created in one click. Also, you do not need to reconcile the template with the articles afterwards, and third, you see whether some of the articles exist. CSD is not good here: I create the template, start the first article, get interrupted. An hour later the template is gone... PROD is a good idea. --Pgallert (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Future past

What's the policy on keeping a list of episodes for a show that hasn't been aired yet? — Timneu22 · talk 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The same as with any other list of episodes: If it can be sourced, there is no problem with having it, provided the show is notable (which this one seems to be). This is not a question of speedy deletion though, so you might want to use the relevant talk pages and noticeboards instead (e.g. WT:TV). Regards SoWhy 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Red links

I'm seeing cases where, following a speedy deletion, the removal of redlinks for articles that represent likely notable topics. I'm wondering if we are being overzealous in removing these. When I did this in the past, I generally limited my removal of the newly created redlinks to only recent additions. This is more noticeable in lists with redlinks. Not sure how widespread this may be, but I've had at least 2 cases in a few days with none that I can recall in a long time before this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

People are overzealous with the removal of redlinks in general. Redlinks should rarely be removed. The only reasons they should be removed, IMO, is when redirects would be pointless, or that the link has no chance of getting a legitimate article, or that the article did not survive deletion on grounds of notability (rather than for other reasons such as BLP). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If a redlink might legitimately be created in the future, it should not be deleted. It encourages creation of those articles. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A11 revisited: How-to criteria

Here's one

What is the CSD reason here? — Timneu22 · talk 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A7 website. (And, indeed, that's what it was speedied as.) Why do you ask? —Korath (Talk) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it's obvious nonsense, but it didn't necessarily appear to be a "website." The intro states it is a "competition." — Timneu22 · talk 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be about a competition on a website. A7 covers this as "web content". Regards SoWhy 21:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. — Timneu22 · talk 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm compiling a list of articles not falling in any specific category. This one seems to clearly fall within A7. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Common combos

I find that there are a few common "db-multiple" combinations, including:

  • A7 G11 G12
  • A7 G11

Any thoughts on creating a quick template that would create db-multiple with these pre-defined combos? (Name like "db-a7promo" or "db-a7promocopyvio") Just a thought. — Timneu22 · talk 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, similar to {{prod-nn}}. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'm thinking, for these two, they could be {{db-a7p}} and {{db-a7pc}}. It's a little cryptic, but my goal is to keep it short. Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know how useful this would be as a tag, but I often find that I will look to tag pages in this order G12, G11, then finally A7 (and usually only put one tag on the page). I think, though, that the G12 G11 combo is the most frequently used. The best thing would be if db-multiple functionality could be integrated into Twinkle. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I hear ya on twinkle! Apparently that is difficult, as I've read. — Timneu22 · talk 16:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This might interest you... ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That's where I read it was difficult. ;) Really, if TW could handle multiples, this "common combos" request wouldn't be needed. I don't think I'll create those yet. — Timneu22 · talk

Disambiguation criterion

As part of the "Modifying G6" discussion that I started above, some of us seem to have become unsure of what to do with {{db-disambig}} — should it really be part of G6 or part of some other criterion? I'd like to see something different: could we simply create a new criterion for disambiguation pages, using simply the current criteria that are stated on the db-disambig template? If we adopt my proposal, we won't be permitting any deletions that are currently prohibited or prohibiting any deletions that are currently permitted; I'm simply asking to clarify G6 by making one of its sub-criteria a separate criterion. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this - when we have a clearly-worded and unambiguous criterion as we do here, there's no reason it needs to be hanging around making G6 more complicated. Yes, it's "uncontroversial housekeeping", but it's somewhat outside the technical, you-shouldn't-even-notice-this-page-was-deleted style that G6 is really intended for. Far better to give it its own criterion, really.~ mazca talk 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of "you-shouldn't-even-notice-this-page-was-deleted style" then I think {{Db-move}} fits that more often than db-disambig. I've never had any protests about speedy deletes relating to cleaning up disambiguation pages, but moves can be presented (usually by the single editor who tagged the article) as uncontroversial, but when they happen a right fuss can be created. So they require a high degree of thought when deleting pages tagged with this, unlike the other aspects of G6. Not that I think db-move should go either, as there are clear cases that fall under this, and my problem with it is more people tagging potentially controversial moves without any discussion, than the wording of the criteria itself. Peter 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I highly support a new disambiguation criteria (eg. CSD D1). It will make G6 a lot less cluttered and is well worded, uncontroversial, and established by the community. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't. It's obvious what part of G6 is being referred to when something is tagged using it. I'm against creating a separate CSD for every eventuality. Peter 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We already have the criteria for deletion of disambiguation pages; it's just that it's currently merged into another one. It's hardly instruction creep to rearrange existing criteria. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer to see this merged into A3 if possible, especially in preference to creating a new set of letters. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone has actually given a reason for this change. We have "I'd like to see something different", but no indication why; we have "there's no reason it needs to be hanging around making G6 more complicated", but no explanation what problem it causes, or how it makes G6 "more complicated"; we have "It's hardly instruction creep to rearrange existing criteria", but that does not explain why we should want to rearrange them; we have "I would prefer to see this merged into A3 if possible" but no explanation why. All in all this amounts to various editors saying "I would like this change". As for the A3 merge, that would not be simply rearranging without changing meaning, as the current version of {{Db-disambig}} includes cases where there is some content. Unless someone can explain what problem would be solved by the change I see no reason to make it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, db-disambig situations are often controversial; it appears that many editors disagree with the tag, or these pages wouldn't appear so often. Therefore, it doesn't fit under G6. Have you read the G6 discussion above? The reasons are largely there. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite see even the need for this speedy deletion criteria, as it does not harm the project to have these around and they are often contested because people are still creating the pages, ect. What I would suggest would be a version of {{prod-nn}} for disambigs. I agree that having as separate section may be too bureaucratic. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't books or software with no indication of importance be nominated for speedy deletion?

Criterion A7 "...applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." Criterion A9 covers albums, but there's nothing to allow for speedy deletion of articles about books or software, regardless of how insignificant. This strikes me as a serious problem. Such articles are often created by the authors of said books and software, and thus don't stand a chance of being deleted by Copyright Violation, Proposed Deletion, or Deletion Discussion; the author would never agree to having his free advertising space taken down. Without a criterion for speedy deletion, articles on books and software have complete deletion immunity.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely possible - indeed, very common - for an article to be deleted at AfD even if the creator wants it kept. The reason it's limited to people, web content, organisations and musical groups is that these types of articles are frequently created, an average editor can recognise a claim of significance, and there are well-established notability guidelines for those topics - WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:ORG, WP:WEB. Hut 8.5 13:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
"Software" is one of the most frequent proposals for new additions to CSD, and consequently one of the most frequently shot down. If you look in the archives, you can find several old discussions, such as 1, 2, 3. As pointed out by Hut, it's a misconception that these articles have any kind of "deletion immunity" just because the author of the work created the article. In fact, most go uncontested at PROD, and while the author may participate in the deletion discussion, she does not decide the outcome of it. decltype (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I did add a common requests subpage to this page, and transcluded in the WP:NOTCSD section. Maybe this is too bold, and maybe it's wrong, but I definitely see value in this, as it would have saved me time too. Newer CSD patrollers don't know what's frequently requested, as I didn't... at least this way they'll know what is frequently declined, even if they don't know why. — Timneu22 · talk 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. This is what I hate about Wikipedia policy pages; the procedural guides never cover what I'm looking for, or even redirect to it. The information I need is always some policy that isn't even mentioned. For another example, all of the pages on dispute resolution assume every editor involved is perfectly civil, rational, and possesses basic intelligence. If you want to know how to deal with problematic editors, you have to go straight to WP: Blocking policy. Which you would only do if you already knew that WP policy for handling such situations is to block editors. If we didn't have talk pages to ask more experienced editors what to do, I'd be constantly clawing in the dark with WP policy.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Historically, a significant proportion of the articles I've nominated at AfD that were saved with a keep decision were about software. That alone tells me adding software to either A7 or A9 is a non-starter. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 02:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Software is worth adding as there are a lot of keeps on that on the basis of vote counting and often such articles are created with little to no basis, especially around this time of year based on little more than rumors or snippets that someone in-the-know says. It can sometimes overwhelm projects like WP:VG with the prods/AfDs when its clear what the end result will be if an admin takes note, but unfortunatly that doesn't always happen and its kept.Jinnai 03:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
CSD is not an end run around AfD closures you don't like. Dcoetzee 03:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No, but the criteria listed here for bands and the like getting speedy criteria fits software, especially those related to video games. This is even taking the past discussions in mind.Jinnai 04:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add a "recently created" criterion to A7

More and more frequently, I'm noticing articles that have been around for a while being deleted under A7. Something strikes me a bit odd about speedying an article with substantial age and edit history under a claim of A7. I don't think that we should decline to delete an article about somebody's kid brother just because it was lucky enough to not get noticed for month, but I do think that we should have language that specifically excludes articles which "were not recently created and have substantive edits by multiple users". Such deletions are not likely to be non-controversial and chances are, if you're deleting an article with substantial history, you are misapplying A7. These articles should be taken to AFD. --B (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is that this will be very, very easy to game. "You can't delete this article about my kid brother! Nobody noticed it for a month, and I edited it with fourteen different one-edit usernames!" —Korath (Talk) 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Anything is easy to game. People could just as well say "You can't delete this article about my kid brother! It claims that he was national champion in pie eating!". B's point is a good one though and simply would emphasize something that is already policy anyway: That admins should not speedy delete articles per A7 if it's likely to be controversial, i.e. if more community input would be a good idea. I, too, am concerned when admins delete articles under A7 after a substantial time of existence and multiple edits by a number of editors; if those were experienced editors who know full well that they could tag it for speedy deletion and chose not to, that's certainly an indication that a speedy deletion may not be uncontroversial and AFD should be used instead. Regards SoWhy 23:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
How about writing it as a "strong admonishment" rather than an absolute rule. Really, I think when an administrator deletes one of these now, it's already against the rule, but the problem is nobody knows what "indication of importance" means and too many admins assume it's one in the same with "no links to web-based reliable sources external to the subject" or "things I don't care about". The rule at one point was deletion of "vanity articles", but (from what I read, before my day) people took offense to their articles being called "vanity articles". But despite the offense of it, at least people understand what that means. How about something like this: "Administrators are strongly advised against deleting articles under this criterion that were not recently created and have substantive edits by multiple users and should instead nominate these articles at Articles for deletion."? --B (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'm inclined to agree with this proposal. Some pages slip through new page patrol, but very few genuine A7 candidates have "substantial contributions by experienced editors". As is a trite statement, the safest course is to prod or AfD. While I'm inclined to agree, the question is (a) should we include this in A7 directly, or (b) adopt it as less formal guidance about how A7 should be applied?--Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It needs to be in there directly (and on the {{db-a7}} tag and other similar tags), otherwise, it is unlikely to be noticed and acted upon. Also, if it is not in the criterion directly, it might be misinterpreted as applying to something other than A7. For instance, we will still delete copyvios even if they aren't recent (if there is no uninfringing history, etc). --B (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This is why administrators have to be elected; we trust their judgment and hold them responsible for what they delete. I'm not sure additional rule-bloat is necessary to deal with this because I think a competent administrator checks the article history before they feel comfortable with pressing the "delete" button.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Your reason for suggesting this is based on supposition—"chances are..." That might be correct but I'd be much more inclined to support this with evidence showing that a substantial percentage of article that meet these conditions were not good A7 candidates. I can think of a number of scenarios where older articles with substantial edits make it that far along and are good candidates, and maybe out of those that do make it this far along without being tagged, those that are tagged are mostly done properly out of a larger pool of articles.

The reason you may be seeing this more and more is because we now have all these userspace drafts being moved to the mainspace long after creation (a relatively new phenomenon resulting from the advent of the article wizard). Userspace drafts are not A7 candidates until they are moved, and often the user requests feedback at the help desk, WP:NCHD, WP:FEED, and other places, and multiple users who would have tagged the article as an A7, were it in the mainspace, make all manner of MOS tweaks, style edits and other corrections and often even explain to the user why it isn't ready for the mainspace and would likely be deleted if moved there, but it's moved there later and only then becomes a valid A7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no way I can show you statistics. In Touch Ministries was the straw that broke the camel's back and led me to suggest this rule. --B (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct here of course, being founded by one of the most influential pastors in the US is certainly enough to take the article past A7. I have asked this very admin multiple times not to make such mistakes (for example I have declined at least 6 of his taggings) but they keep on doing it. So S Marshall's reasoning that admins should know better anyway is faulty because B does not suggest this rule for them - the rule is for admins who are incompetent and have to be instructed to act according to policy instead of their own interpretations. As for Fuhghettaboutit's comment, any admin can see when it was moved from userspace to mainspace and simply only judge those edits afterwards for these purposes. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • SoWhy... why update the rules if the problem's between the keyboard and the chair? Wouldn't updating the difficult admin's talk page be more effective?—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Making this about a particular admin is a mistake. Admins who work CSD regularly are going to make some mistakes - it's a fact of life. I think the problem is more that anyone can tell that an article about someone's kid brother needs to be deleted. But for other things, for example, "Bob Smith is the head pastor of Redlinked United Methodist Church" or "Bob Smith is a researcher at Some University and has published Redlinked Book Title about some theory." From those sentences, you don't know whether that church is a 100-person church (not an assertion of importance) or somewhere like Frazer Memorial UMC (which is surprisingly still a redlink, a good assertion of importance). You don't know if that book is self-published (not an assertion of importance) or on the non-fiction best seller's list (an assertion of imporance). Now, for a new article, personally if I see something like one of these at CSD, I'm going to google it rather than just deleting it, but for an article that has been around for a long time and been substantially edited by multiple users, it shouldn't be a judgment call at all - it should be a don't do it. --B (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
      • If I ever have a bad brain day and decide to stand in front of the big painful bus and somehow survive, I'll put a notice on my talk page giving any other admin permission to undo any of my admin actions once. (if they have a good reason) Therefore, if I ever make any of these goober deletions then anybody is free to undo it without asking. That being said, In Touch Ministries probably shouldn't have been deleted. However, the other 2 examples, the researcher and the pastor, would be BLPs. If the assertion of notability is not clear and the article is poorly sourced, it's probably best to err on the side of caution and delete them until sources are found. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say the crux of the matter is that there is no need for these older articles to be speedily removed from the encyclopaedia. Swiftly removing 'Adrian is the DJ at the Dog and Duck' sends a message to the creator and restores confidence in the project, but articles that are marginal for A7 and that have had more than one non-sock editor, should probably go through some other process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, but the trouble is it introduces one more level of complexity, one more detail to argue about, to be criticised for taking it a different way than another editor would have done, to wikilawyer about. Yes of course people can and do wikilawyer about the existing version, but I am reluctant to introduce one more detail to be disagreed about unless it introduces a substantial benefit. I think there would be a small benefit, but not enough to justify the change. I agree with S Marshall about rule bloat, and about expecting admins to exercise discretion. Any competent admin will see that the article has been around for some time and has been edited quite a bit, and should (in my opinion) other things being equal let that shift the balance against deletion. That is a better way to deal with this than by adding another rule. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm unsure on the wording, but I favor this proposal. Heck, I'd favor it as a rule wrt speedies on the whole. I've seen a number of speedies on articles that have been around for quite a while and seen a fair bit of editing by a number of users. One was as an attack page even though it had made it past an AfD. Bah I say. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • For the more objective CSD criteria, I think time is irrelevant - if an article saying "LOL my friend Peter is so gay" slips under the radar for 3 years, it still shouldn't have to go to AfD. However, I would favor the following proposal:
      • D1: No article listed at Articles for Deletion with a keep or no consensus outcome should ever be eligible for speedy deletion (unless new information comes to light, such as with a copyright violation).
      • D2: No article that is more than 6 months old and has been edited by at least 3 distinct users (sock puppets don't count) should be eligible for speedy deletion.
      • D3: No article that is more than 1 year old should be eligible for deletion under criteria G11, A7, or A9.
    • We can tweak the numbers of course but that's a first stab. What do you think? Dcoetzee 03:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope Dcoetzee doesn't mind, but I've numbered his proposals for ease of reference. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Weak Agree on D1 - Oppose on D2 & D3 — Re D2 & D3 (I have no comments on D1), I'm leery of counting edits. An otherwise-speedyable article could have edits by bots, edits marked minor, and edits by WikiGnomes which are purely stylistic, properly mark links or refs, and the like without adding anything substantial to the article. Since folks aren't always very good at edit summaries, if D2 was changed to exclude such edits it would mean that before an article that 6 months old can be speedy nom'ed the nominator has to pull up and look at every prior edit. That's such a disincentive that you might as well just say that articles 6 months (or whatever) old can't be speedied at all, period, just like articles more than a year old. As for D3, and the concept of age–invulnerability to speedy in general, it seems to me that since a speedy can be declined by any editor other than the creating editor that the speedy of any article which has a substantial editor following is likely to be declined by one of the involved editors. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm against this rule-bloat. As pointed out above it just increases the potential for wiki-lawyering, and I'm sure you could find valid exceptions to just about anything that could be proposed here. I do see the general point being made here, but I think this is something where admins should use their common sense (which they should have, if some are showing failure in this area go and have a word or two with them) and become increasingly cautious (like taking more time to consider it, maybe doing some research) in speedy deleting (to the point where they won't) as the number of editors, time around, and any 'keeps' at afd increase, but without any specific arbitrary numbers attached to those. Peter 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
D1 is already in WP:CSD, in the middle of the third paragraph: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." That it was proposed anew suggests to me that there's already so much rule bloat that administrators' eyes glaze over. —Korath (Talk) 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice catch!TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it G2 or G6?

Some pages appear to be "test pages" to me, in the sense that the page was an accident, possibly the result of a test. Using WP:TW, the warning on test page notices is harsh (I recently requested additional wording but then removed the request). My question is, should these types of pages be listed as G2 or G6? I'm referring to an obvious error that's likely not vandalism, like UserJeffro77/statusChanger2.js, which brought me here. I think the options are:

  • G2, but then twinkle needs to provide lighter and/or possibly an alternate wording, OR
  • G6, and WP:CSD needs to be edited to describe these types of pages.

I think it's G6, and in general, it seems G2's wording is a little vague right now. — Timneu22 · talk 13:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of pages you're referring to. Can you give an example? I disagree about the low-level warning for test pages being harsh. It's really quite gentle, as are all lowest-level warnings. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You see the page name above. The page itself just had lots of javascript stuff on it. The content in this case isn't really relevant, it was obvious (based on page name) that this was just a little error and the page shouldn't have been there. My discussion here is really about including "accident" pages in the WP:CSD descriptions, either under G2 or G6. I think G6... my problem with G2 is that it doesn't imply accident, which this page certainly was. Consider that you are User:Jeffro77, with thousands of edits, and then you get this message on your talk page: Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.. That's harsh. Frankly, that's harsh for any user who made an obvious mistake, with 3 edits or 30,000. — Timneu22 · talk 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you just move it and place {{db-r3}} on the mistake? And how about just writing a two line personal message? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, Timneu, sorry for being dense. I see what you mean. I think that either criteria is OK, though G6 seems better. I agree that a personal note to the article creator is appropriate, to point out that it's recognized that he made an inadvertent mistake. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@52, yes, I could do a personal message. That's taken care of (mentally for next time). I'm not too keen on moving it and deleting the redirect always... in this case I could, but in other situations I didn't understand the intended target page (or it was just a accident, but not a blatant wrong-page location accident). To clarify this section: I'd like to update WP:CSD to talk about accidental pages; are these G6 or G2? This is unclear. I'd like to update WP:CSD to clarify this for other users. — Timneu22 · talk 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Howabout in that case you dropped a note on the editor's talk page asking him if he'd mind blanking the page and user requesting for speedy. Why use a templated warning at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion in the beginning... I'm just trying to figure out where to list these on WP:CSD. It is not clearly explained in G2 or G6. — Timneu22 · talk 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
One of thsoe two criteria could be amended to include "pages plainly created by accident." ScottyBerg (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, that's my discussion... which? I think G6, as they are non-controversial. — Timneu22 · talk 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
As currently written, {{db-maintenance}} comes closest. Perhaps it can be tweaked to include "pages obviously created in error"? However, I don't know if we need to add language to deal with extremely uncommon situations. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's common enough. I mean, like 2-3 times per week that I see, so likely more than that. — Timneu22 · talk 19:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the wording. It's definitely G6, especially in times related to page moves, which is discussed there. — Timneu22 · talk 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional category F12: news agency photographs

I'd like to propose an additional category F12 to deal with an apparent gap in speedy deletion policy. Photographs pirated from news agencies are a major liability for us. They have a high commercial value and the agencies are aggressive about issuing takedown notices and suing for infringement (the Associated Press is currently suing Sheperd Fairey for his famous Obama poster, which is only based on an AP image, and agencies have issued bloggers and individual website owners with hefty demands for payment for images used without authorisation).

The non-free content criteria recognise the undesirability of using agency photos. They are excluded from fair use on Wikipedia except in certain very limited circumstances: "Unacceptable use ... A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." (WP:NFC#UUI). There are a few cases where that criterion is likely to be met - for example, the famous Tank Man photo - but the overwhelming majority of agency photos will come nowhere near this standard and will fail to meet the non-free content criteria.

Unfortunately, speedy deletion nominations of agency photos currently fall between two existing file deletion categories while exposing us to unnecessary legal risk. Such photos are clearly copyright infringements, but if they are nominated under F9 ("Unambiguous copyright infringement") then the provision of a claim of fair use - whether or not it's valid - provides a get-out clause. In such cases we thus have to fall back on F7 ("Invalid fair-use claim"). An image tagged as such can stay around for up to seven days before being deleted. The problem is that Wikipedia is at continuous risk for as long as the image stays up.

We need to take a shoot-on-sight approach with agency photos:

  • assume as a default that they cannot be used under fair use, since that will be the case for upwards of 99.9% of them;
  • delete on sight; and
  • only allow an uploader to re-upload if he can provide firm evidence of fair use that can be verified prior to re-uploading.

Ideally, such claims need to be given very stringent scrutiny by a range of experienced editors, perhaps through obtaining a consensus for inclusion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. That is the only way we can minimise the legal risk here. Therefore I suggest a new category F12:

F12. Agency photograph used under an unverified claim of fair use.
An image sourced to a photo agency (e.g. Associated Press, Reuters) requires a verified claim of fair use before it can be uploaded to Wikipedia. If an image has been uploaded without a verified claim of fair use, it may be deleted immediately. If the uploader wishes to re-upload an image deleted under this criterion, verification of the claim of fair use must be obtained before re-uploading the image. Verification is to be obtained by requesting a review from [?Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files].

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Press photos from agencies such as the Associated Press and Getty Images are in fact not prohibited on Wikipedia, their use is simply strongly discouraged - WP:NFC#UUI, point 6. And sometimes we have to use press images because they are the subject(s) of articles. Additionally, please bear in mind that a copyright violation does not exist until an uploader claims work which is not theirs as their own. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fastily is right. Also, it's not our job as editors here to change policy based on a potential legal risk. So far nothing like this has happened afaik. The foundation has a lawyer to deal with those things and unless he says that there is a reason to do so, we shouldn't (not to mention that no major agency would be crazy enough to sue Wikimedia - the bad press this would generate would offset any benefit they could get from doing so). Also, if fair use is claimed, it's not an infringement anymore. It's only an infringement if the uploader claims that the image is their own work and we can handle those with F9 just fine. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I note first that I disagree with the above about the meaning of WP:NFC#UUI, that policy does not "strongly discourage" such use, it says that such use is "not acceptable." I also do not support the statement "a copyright violation does not exist until an uploader claims work which is not theirs as their own". However, neither quibble gets around the fact that I don't think the cases where a news image qualifies as fair use are infrequent enough that we should ignore the cost of putting news sourced image edits on the CSD "express train." Unless the overhead of slower deletion mechanisms is grinding progress to a halt, I lean towards opposing this proposal. --Joe Decker (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. ChrisO, I agree with your basic calculus; images from press agencies and image clearinghouses are nearly always used gratuitously, and will fail NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) in almost every case, since the whole point of their distribution of images is to maximize the commercial leverage of that distribution. However, there's no need for a separate criterion here. The seven-day delay built into various file deletion criteria is an artifact of a former software limitation that prevented undeleting those files, but that limitation no longer exists. If allowing speedier deletion of bad fair use images is believed to be warranted, we could simply amend CSD F7 to remove the requirement for a long delay, provided the uploader has had an opportunity to amend the fair use rationale. This would require a little extra work from administrators, but mostly it would just change the timing of inevitable deletions. I'd suggest this approach rather than one that allows splitting hairs over what constitutes an "agency photograph". Gavia immer (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not know whether a new speedy category is the best way of dealing with this situation, but I do know that there appears to be a gap in how we deal with it at least some of the time. Please see my comment on today's ANI thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose fair use is fair use and the source of the photo is generally irrelevant for a fair use claim being made.--Crossmr (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That might be true, were it not for the fact that "fair use" is a catch-all invoked by many to mean "I feel like using it and I don't agree with how Copyright works". In practice, a photograph is almost impossible to justify as fair use unless it's an absolutely unique photograph of an historically significant event, or when the photograph itself is the subject of the article. Unlike an extract of text, or a still frame from a moving video, we're not just making fair use of an extract of a protected work, we are copying the entire work in the case of a photograph — the barrier for justification is all the higher. — Coren (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
      • It is basically irrelevant in the context of this proposal to count the volume of inappropriate fair use claims because they are transgressions of our non-free use criteria. They do not reflect an inadequacy of the criteria themselves. Also, your interpretation of what are the actual limits to the Fair Use doctrine is much narrower than what is the present consensus interpretation of it at Wikipedia, as is obvious in the case of images of dead people and album covers for instance. __meco (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The fair use criterion should be provided at the time of uploading, and in the case of a commercial photograph, there is no valid reason to go through a lengthy discussion. Some things need to be done right upfront. We wouldn't be allowing people to upload other publications without an upfront valid fair use rationale, and we'd be deleting them on sight as copyvios. Risker (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (cross posted from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_of_File:NorwaySpiral.jpg_DRV) Clause 6 [of Wikipedia:NFC#UUI] against press agency photographs is really weird. Instead of accessing whether the image is usable, based on the merits of the image, we look at who took it. So if it's a freelance photographer who has caught the image, then low resolution, low quality fair use is allowed. If Associated Press took the images, then we can't? So non-free images are only allowed if the potential financial losses (which are mitigated by the low quality reproduction) are directed towards independent photographers? That's not particularly fair. - hahnchen 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - there is no legitimate fair use reason for using any non-iconic press photo. Were press agencies so inclined, they could sue us for royalties and would win. Unfortunately, many/most Wikipedians have no understanding of the law and just want to slap a tag on it and use it. --B (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty sweeping, and I would say unfair, assertion. We have adequate criteria for Fair Use and users who upload or want to use e.g. a non-free image must provide a rationale that satisfies those criteria. This is enforced continuously, and users who violate the criteria, either by being too liberal in their assessment of the justification for fair use in any particular case, or who blatantly misrepresent the case, will be reigned in. __meco (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the only reason for treating these images differently from other fair use images is that their presence constitutes unacceptable legal risk then a policy to treat them differently should be introduced on the advice of the Foundation or their lawyers. Hut 8.5 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The Foundation does not get involved with such decisions regardless of the legal necessity. If they do, then they are not a content host, but rather a content provider and legally cannot hide behind the various protections they enjoy (eg not being sued for libel). You're not going to find a direct statement about this or most other specific content issues. If you use a copyrighted image in an inappropriate, then you, personally, could get sued, but the Foundation (since it is only hosting content that we create) would be immune. (In reality, I would not think that the media organizations would want the bad press of suing a Wikipedia editor, but that doesn't mean we should do something we know to not be a legitimate exercise of fair use.) --B (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, but you can't have it both ways. If you're going to insist the Foundation can't advise on this, then we should be perfectly willing to let individual users upload these photos, get sued, and have their lives very publically ruined. The end result would be much fewer such obviously-infringing uploads our admin corps would have to squander their time policing and deleting. The whole idea of maintaining common carrier status is to immunize the Foundation from liability, in which case the whole argument of "we have to remove these immediately or the Foundation might get sued!" falls apart. —Korath (Talk) 07:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
      • But you are wrong. The foundation's lawyer directly intervened and "laid down the law" prohibiting the fair use inclusion of an image after having been put under pressure by the copyright owner in early/mid June 2006. See discussion at Talk:Carlson Twins and related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (archived). __meco (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The Foundation - or at least people from the foundation - have intervened to stop the community adopting practices that could be legally harmful. For instance a proposal to give selected non-admins the right to view deleted pages was dropped after Mike Godwin advised against it. Our fair use policy itself is based on a WMF resolution. Hut 8.5 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the existing criteria are fine, it is either a copyright violation, an invalid fair use, or perhaps a valid fair use, but just because it comes from a news agency does not meant that it automatically has to be deleted. It means that one of the fair use criteria is unlikely to be met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem with not having this as a criterion is that it makes it virtually impossible to get these clearly infringing images deleted for certain topics when they have to be taken to IFD. Discussions are overwhelmed by the editors of an article and the actual legal correctness of the image is secondary. There was a 2005 court case Video-Cinema Films, Inc. v. Lloyd E. Rigler-Lawrence E. Deutsch Foundation in which the non-profit defendant used an 85-second clip of a 5-minute performance from a work by Video-Cinema Films. Video-Cinema Films had as their primary purpose licensing use of this film to others. (This seems to be directly on point to our use of press photos.) The court ruled for Video-Cinema Films because allowing its use under a claim of fair use would negate the plaintiff's ability to market its product. (Why buy it if you can just claim fair use?) This is exactly on point to what we are doing when we use press photos. --B (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion shouldn't be used as a way to trump or overrule the normal long-form process. If the problem is that IfD routinely keeps images that fail NFCC#2, that's properly addressed by reforming IfD, not by trying to get around it. Gavia immer (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Classes of content that are never appropriate (regardless of how popular they may be) get turned into speedy deletion criteria. All speedy deletions trump the processes. That's the whole point. --B (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not. the purpose of speedy deletion is only to reduce the burden on more thoughtful deletion discussion processes, and if an image is speedied that would have been kept at IfD, that indicates a problem with the speedy deletion criteria. Dcoetzee 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find it inappropriate to attempt to place an extraordinary ban on news agency media. I also find unlikely the assumption put forward by a couple of editors that our use of such images under Fair Use provisions places the project (or individual editors) at some extraordinarily high risk of litigation. Others have convincingly argued against this assumption citing the very bad publicity agencies would fare if they sued Wikipedia. I have mentioned above one area which I believe to be ripe with violations if we should hold the very high threshold for Fair Use which is asserted in this proposal to all non-free content on Wikipedia, viz. album covers. Even by a much lower threshold these photographs would be in violation, but consensus remains that such use is acceptable fair use. We are supposed to hold all non-free media to the same standard. I therefore see no appropriate rationale for special treatment for agency media. __meco (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)