Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 45

Contents

How to take care of a little mouse

Argh. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Trade schools redux

There was a prior discussion here regarding the school exception to A7. I recently declined the an A7 speedy of Nationwide Diesel Technologies on the basis that it was a school, albeit a trade school, but a school nonetheless. The first, and most relevant, paragraph of the article read:

Nationwide Diesel Technologies Inc. is a business owned and operated by Peter Sawyer Sr. Nationwide has been operating since 1968 and has always been a family owned and operated school.

Nothing in the remainder of the article suggested that it was anything other than a school. The nominator (discussion here) and a sysop (discussion here) both objected to my declination on the basis, as I interpret it, that since the entity was described both as a business and as a school that A7 would still apply. They both decided that it would be better to move on to an AfD, which is pending, so the issue isn't acute, but I'd like to be sure of who was right. The prior discussion, noted above, clearly says that trade schools are included within the scope of the school exception. Trade schools are virtually always businesses. The nominator also characterized that prior discussion as "stale". Was an A7 nomination proper for that article? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Damned if I know who's right (I apparently missed Trade Schools v.1), but AfD is the place to go in case of doubtful speedy qualifications. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: The first discussion was started by me, so I might not be as neutral as I should be.) Imho, the very nature of A7 is that it's restricted to clear-cut cases and this one isn't. The prior discussion might be "stale" but it reflects current consensus re. this question. Trade schools may be businesses but they are also schools and A7 does not restrict the exception to non-business schools only.
In general, if an article contains both elements that fall under A7 and parts that don't, then the whole article cannot be deleted as A7 (because if you removed the former parts, you'd end up with an article that wouldn't be eligible); i.e. any article which has parts that are eligible for speedy deletion and parts that don't should not be treated as a speedy candidate. Regards SoWhy 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The truth is that there is no clear bright line between profit-making schools and traditional colleges and universities. There are private and trade schools run as businesses which are nevertheless primarily philanthropic in their goals, and there are centuries-established public universities with significance commercial and revenue-generating operations. Luckily it doesn't matter for A7 in the slightest. The exemption for schools in A7 is not based on their business model, but on the strong likelihood that they will be found to meet the basic requirements of WP:ORG. In my opinion, if there is ever any credible doubt about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies in a particular situation - it probably doesn't. Thparkth (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
What about nursery schools? I just came across one. These seem like pure businesses; only "schools" in name only. Thoughts? — Timneu22 · talk 12:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Primary schools should not have their own article but be covered in any article on their town or area (from WP:SCHOOL. Nursery schools/kindergarten etc I would have thought were even less likely to be notable (unless for some awful tragedy).

A9 and compilation albums?

With articles like A Very Merry Christmas Vol. VII (now facing an AfD) where there is essentially no content beyond a track listing, no sources and no assertion of notability (beyond I suppose the notability of some of the performers), couldn't that be better handled by SD rather than having to bother with AfD? Or would that create problems?Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The point of A9's restrictions is that it should serve almost only for musical recordings of bands who themselves have been eligible of A7 or were deleted for notability reasons. Any album that features any notable artist fails these restrictions, yes. And imho it does so correctly: The fact that a notable musician allowed his work to be included on an album hints at least some possibility that this album is more noteworthy than others. And of course (last but not least), I think PROD and AFD can handle those cases just fine. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Bit for bit" copies under F8

Is there any way that F8 could be broadened from only covering bit-for-bit identical copies to also covering cropped or lower resolution copies of the same image (similar to F1)? If someone uploads the small version of Flickr image here, I will upload the original size to Commons. Many users upload several version of the same image, and the best one gets moved to Commons. People will crop images from Spanis or German WP, and then the original gets moved to Commons. Tagged images like this just sit there because some admins aren't sure what to do in that scenario. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

F8 already specifically allows for "The Commons version is in the same file format and is of the same or higher quality/resolution". So if people are interpreting it as only being bit-for-bit then they're missing that part of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. It's been changed already, it's just Twinkle that needs updating. Nevermind, thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, please keep in mind that cropped versions of pictures may be more appropriate, under some circumstances, than the original. One example is when you build a list that includes pictures that have vastly different aspect ratios, making the whole list look weird, or giving an impression of more importance to entries with a taller picture. In such a case, you want to crop the pictures that don't fit the article's "standard ratio" and use the cropped version in that article. However, I'd say if the original picture comes from Commons, the cropped version should stay in Commons. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 19:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

CSD for userpages used for gaming pools

I've started a thread at VPP about creating a new criterion for speedy deletion involving the use of userspace for keeping track of game pools. These are currently deleted through MFD, but I feel there is no need to go through voting for such a non-controversial deletion. Your views would be welcome. Matt Deres (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes a "gaming pool"? I looked at the example given at VPP, but to be honest I couldn't discern it from the tables that are frequently used in reality series pages. Can you give a definition that is specific enough for an objective criterion (thus meeting "Criteria for new Criteria for Speedy Deletion" #1 above)? decltype (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"I couldn't discern it from the tables that are frequently used in reality series pages"... these pages are that, except to track fantasy reality TV shows. Thus one possible wording is "pages that solely exist to track fantasy reality TV shows". MER-C 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Such pages are created nowhere as often enough to warrant a new criterion imho. MFD can handle them well enough. Also, decltype is correct that objectivity might not be possible for such a criterion since not every admin knows whether the subject is real or fictional. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So "A userspace page consisting only of tables or lists of contestants for a fictional reality show." In that case I agree that it's way too narrow and infrequent to warrant a separate criterion, even if a few has been up for MfD recently. decltype (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Greatest in the world

Let's say there's an article that talks about "Jim Jones" and it says something like "is the greatest guy in the world" or "is the King of the United States" or some other nonsense. Maybe Jim Jones exists. Is there a preference nominating these under G3 (hoax) or A7 (person)? I usually try to do db-multiple, but I'm curious what others think. — Timneu22 · talk 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd do "greatest guy in the world" under A7 (non-credible claim) and "King of the US" under G3 (blatant hoax). But I don't think there's anything wrong with covering your bases by using db-multiple. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Except it's an extra step as TW doesn't handle it. ;) — Timneu22 · talk 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Mkativerata's assessment although I'd use A7 for both. G3's definition says "vandalism" and vandalism usually means bad-faith editing. I would consider the creator's likely intentions when creating the article: Did they create an article about someone knowing full well that their claims will not be believed? Then it should be A7. Does the article attempt to convince people that the claims are true and did the creator attempt to trick people into believing it? Then it's G3. It's often a difficult distinction to make but in those examples the claims are completely noncredible and most likely the creator was well aware of this, so it'd be incorrect to accuse them of bad-faith editing (which G3 implies). Regards SoWhy 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In the process of determining the closest matching criterion, I tend to consider namespace-specific criteria first. If it's in user space, U1 is a better match than G7. If it's a file, F9 > G12. For articles, A3 or A1 > G1 (which is seldom applied correctly anyway). However, there are cases where there are good reasons to select a general criterion. As SoWhy observes, these are often based on intent. Most importantly, G10 should take precedence over A7 if it meets both. Also, G11 > A7 if the page only serves to promote its subject, and G3 for the reasons given above. In the examples given, I would go with the namespace-specific criterion. But if it meets more than one criterion and you select one of them, it's not at all a problem, I think (except that G10 > A7). decltype (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
While I generally agree with this order of priority, I beg to differ on one point. I say A7 > G11. The reason is that if an article is deleted under G11 alone when it also meets A7, the creator might rewrite a stub without the promotional stuff, but still meeting the A7 criterion. At least an A7 deletion is telling the creator not to bother if the subject misses our inclusion guidelines by a mile. For the same reason, I'd say while articles tagged G12 should be looked at first by administrators, when any other criterion is invoked, it is that other criterion that should take precedence in the deletion log. This I believe would decrease the work load of OTRS volunteers by taking out moot requests. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, that is something you may want to take into consideration. However, the subject may meet inclusion guidelines even if the article as written meets A7 and G11, in which case a proper article on the subject would be most welcome. decltype (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Occasionally these turn out to be legitimate articles, or at least redirects - e.g. "Artie is the strongest man in the world" actually gives the fictional description of a character from The Adventures of Pete and Pete, which would not be obvious from the initial context. Dcoetzee 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • as between G11 and A7, I generally use both if both are applicable, because doing so answers the most common question about the deletion. With respect to G12, i use other reasons when relevant, but I prefer to do the primary deletion reason as G12, because it is undebatable.I had not thought about the OTRS part of it though--is the number of these an actual problem? I typically leave a note for the contributor saying something like "You need to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases You also need to write like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise yourself, say what you do. And, do not copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. " DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A1 and legitimate stubs

Perhaps he should say in A1, as we do in A3, that there is a difference between a legitimate stub and an article with no context. Tisane talk/stalk 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But A1 articles shouldn't be stubbable because one shouldn't know what type of stub to be added. That's why there's no context: you don't know what it is! — Timneu22 · talk 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I mean. People are using A1 to nom articles that have enough info to identify the topic, but simply happen to be very short articles. A one-sentence article, e.g. "Barack Obama is the current President of the United States," may be a stub but it identifies the topic well enough that it shouldn't be A1'ed. Tisane talk/stalk 02:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A1 does not need such an addition. It won't hurt but the current wording already excludes any article where the context is can be identified. The problem lies with overzealous taggers misapplying it but in order to rectify this we need to educate them. I'm pretty certain that changing A1 won't stop such mistaggings. Regards SoWhy 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't foreign language articles deleteable?

I see lots of foreign articles that cannot immediately be translated into common languages. Why do we let these sit around for 7 days PRODed (on an English Wikipedia) instead of just deleting them (or better, userfying) right away? — Timneu22 · talk 00:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because there are a lot of editors willing to make the effort of translating or stubifying the material in question, which is better than either option you've suggested. Why should we throw away material that can be put to use? Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I submit that it's hardly a drain on our resources to leave them PROD'd instead of CSDing them. Yes, the odds are no one will come along and adopt the article, but if they do - and it's notable, as some of the longer ones may well be - we gain something. If not, we lose nothing but a few days of a page sitting around, orphaned. The 5KB of text is hardly a drain on our resources, and the same admin that would process the Speedy will process the PROD seven days later. A notice somewhere about using the templates for users posting content in content other than English would probably also be useful. That said, I can see where Tim is coming from - a great deal of the articles added in foreign languages are just untranslated corporate fawning (spam) and the like. That said, I still support the continued use of PRODs. Zelse81 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The proper means to deal with such articles is to tag them with {{Not English}} and list them at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. This allows for Wikipedians able to read the article an opportunity to determine if the foreign language article is useful content needing translation, a copy of material already present on the English Wikipedia (Many new users have difficulty understanding how different languages are separated), or completely lacking in usefulness to this project (Apparently vanity is also present in the non-English speaking world). A secondary benefit is the translation process is usually faster the the PROD process in separating the wheat from the chaff. --Allen3 talk 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess my thought is that keeping them around seven days may give someone else (or even the article creator) the idea that it's okay to create non-English articles. It isn't. And yes, they are almost always spam or duplicates of existing topics. I find the duplicates when translate.google.com knows the language; when its Tamil, like some recent articles, it's just nonsense that sits out here for a while. Argh. — Timneu22 · talk 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
My own concern is always that they may be some variety of spam, attack page, nonsense, deliberate obscenity or other vandalism; and nobody will notice except other speakers of that language that happen to be reading here, and people who stumble on the vandalism due to search engines or even links on blogs, etc. of the "ha-ha, those stupid English-speakers, look at what I put in their Wikipedia!" --Orange Mike | Talk 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a great point. Also, I'm curious behind the reasoning of these two articles in question being speedily userfied (a decision with which I agree). Shouldn't OrangeMike's statement here be taken into consideration? Is it worth risking attack/spam pages just because the majority of readers cannot read that language? — Timneu22 · talk 21:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I CSD'd the articles (A1), and then one of the articles was declined. I then prodded both, and I think RHaworth deleted both. The articles can be found here: User talk:Ilakkuvanar Thiruvalluvan. So since they were speedied afterall, this is a worthwhile discussion. What to do? — Timneu22 · talk 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, they were moved, not speedied. Either way they are gone. — Timneu22 · talk 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting dilemma. My knee-jerk reaction is to speedy delete them, but am increasingly concerned 'bout the ethnocentricity of Wikipedia and the lost potential for useful content from non-English speakers. Given the amount of spam/vandal/non-notable contributions we come across on an everyday basis, a couple of extra texts to be shunted off into a corner for some kind-hearted editor to have a butcher's at don't really make that much of a difference. So some of the stuff is a waste of time? Sigh! BTW, by the time I'd managed to Google-identify the first Tamil referred to above, I found that Timneu22 had already been there and gone back for more! So we're talking a few extra seconds. On the other hand, couldn't someone come up with a bot that reacted to the Not English tag? That would shave a bit of time off having to list 'em at Pages needing... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I've argued on here before that there should be a "CSU" type thing: speedy userfications. It might be appropriate for these articles to immediately userfy them (like these articles in question) with a note that says, "sorry, but this is the English wikipedia... if this is translated maybe we can use it". (You know, better wording than that.) I would ask: what's the rush in keeping the article? I mean, why would a foreign-language article need to exist right away? It's probably okay to wait for it. — Timneu22 · talk 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Pages needing translation is a good procedure and I've seen unlikely articles get fixed by that process. I don't see a good case for accelerated deletion for these articles: they can and frequently are translated.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As a regular at WP:PNT, I'll add my 2¢. Normally, a foreign-language article remains listed at PNT for two weeks before it can be prodded as an orphaned article which no one is willing to translate, but a substantial number of them (probably more than 50%) don't make it the full two weeks. The regulars at PNT know how to make good use of a machine translation, but we also know the limitations. This said, while it is unacceptable to copy-paste a machine translation, it is often clear from that translation whether an article meets any speedy criterion (other than A2), and many foreign-language articles end up being speedied as G11's only minutes after being listed at PNT. But then there are those not-so-clear-cut cases, many of which become stable articles after being reviewed and translated by someone who's actually familiar with the language.
For those who might be interested to know, the number of articles listed at PNT at any given moment is anywhere between 5 and 15, well within what we can manage. The last time I saw PNT reporting a backlog, the backlog had more to do with delisting requests that had been taken care of. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Like so many other things, these should be handled on a case-by-case basis. They should not be speedied just because they are not in English. There are some handy tools that can help you determine if the article does meet one of the other speedy criteria What language is this? can usually tell you what language the article is in if you can't tell, and Google translate can produce rough translations that are usually good enough that you can determine if the article is vandalism or otherwise obviously unacceptable. There is a table of warning templates at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages of notices in various languages asking them not to keep adding material not in English and pointing them toward the Wikipedia of the language they have written in. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I favor articles in the main namespace being legitimate articles. When I hear there's no reason to speedy delete, I wonder what's the reason to speedy keep? I mean, what's the rush to keep an article? If the article doesn't exist until tomorrow or next week or three weeks, why does that matter? — Timneu22 · talk 09:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I can ask the symmetrical question to you: what's the rush to delete an article? If an article exists for 7 or 14 days instead of 1, why does that matter? I could answer this question, personally: it matters because, as many explained you before, it gives a chance to actually use these articles to improve the encyclopedia, by translation. --Cyclopiatalk 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason to keep them in the main namespace is, obviously, so that other editors can work on them - like say, editors engaged in translating them. Userification would be sending the message, "the original author can translate this, but if they're not able or interested, just forget about that article." Dcoetzee 14:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I can also add, in specific relation to Timneu22's supposition (and actions) that as a new contributor on Wikipedia, being faced with an immediate "Speedy Deletion" serves as a stark deterrent to contribute, especially if you've only been involved with the site for an hour and seem to get several of them immediately. I totally appreciate the desire for accuracy, but taking an attitude of "It's best to delete" seems to be in complete contrast with the basic ethos of this endeavor. But then again, I'm new here. Znarky (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
As Blanchardb says, quite a few of the foreign-language articles posted to WP:PNT meets some criterion for speedy deletion and are swiftly deleted. The rest are either translated or PRODded, and it does little or no harm to have them around for a few days. decltype (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of seeming to blow me own trumpet, a pretty good example of what can be achieved, both in terms of end result and in collaboration among Wikipedians, was Forests of the Iberian Peninsula, a copy-paste job from the Spanish Wikipedia. Not only was it lengthy, but it was also quite "technical" and took almost 3 and a half years to get the last of the tags off. I'm sure there are other, and even better, examples of how the multilingual aspect of Wikipedia does add value, but the knowledge of what can be achieved around here helps me keep going in the face of adversity :) Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Although I have done it myself, foreign language articles should not be userfied because they may be copyvios, attack pages, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Restarting thread; as it got sort of jumbled up there. I'd really like to address the issue that articles in other languages could be blatant copyvios, spam, or attack pages. Sometimes the copyvios can be found, but attack pages and spam cannot be found until we find an editor who can turn the page into English. Is it really worth keeping these pages? Doesn't it seem risky? I have suggested userfying, RHaworth thinks deletion is the way to go, and OrangeMike (without specifying deletion/userfying) also mentioned that these types of articles are risky to keep around. I'd like to start with this idea to see if the current policy (keeping them around) is incorrect. — Timneu22 · talk 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles are deleted because they ARE copyvios, spam, or attack pages and not because they MIGHT BE problematic. An article being written in a language other than English does not by itself qualify as a valid speedy deletion criteria. For those situations were language presents an problem in determining the contents of an article there is an existing process, WP:PNT, that does a good job of locating individuals capable of determining the nature of an article's contents and following up this determination with appropriate actions. While there are undoubtedly risks with this process, deleting useful encyclopedic content just because the first person to find it at Special:NewPages could not understand the contents does not help in Wikipedia's goal of creating an encyclopedia. --Allen3 talk 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
...Nor does creating content that isn't in a language of the general audience. At least one could make this (certainly valid) argument. Isn't there at least a bot (or edit filter) that could mark new articles that don't appear to be in english? — Timneu22 · talk 23:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not "useful encyclopedic content" for the English-language Wikipedia, if it is not in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It might be useful encyclopedic content, assuming we can get it translated. A well-sourced foreign-language article could ultimately be far more "useful" to Wikipedia than one that is written with execrable grammar and zero cited sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like Timneu's suggestion of an edit filter. I think that if someone is about to save a new article on the wrong language pedia it would be good if a message came up in the language they are writing in and gave them an opportunity to translate it or a simple route to post their article on the appropriate language pedia.
However I think much of this discussion is under a misapprehension. Current policy is not "simply to keep them around", I've handled quite a few of these and my experience is that those that merit speedy deletion really don't last long, in other words the current system works well. ϢereSpielChequers 06:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hyper only

Pages that include nothing but a hyperlink are generally G11'd, I think. There's no clear instructions on this; shouldn't it be added to WP:CSD? (And if G11 is wrong, where should it be added?) — Timneu22 · talk 14:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They fall under A3, it is already in the description. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Duh. Yes. I searched the page for "hyperlink", not "external link". Well, admins delete under G11 anyway. I'll stick with A3. — Timneu22 · talk 15:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Template to request deletion of specific versions

Is there a template to request the specific deletion of one or more versions of a file, instead of the entire file? Something like the F1 or the F10 tag? (see #Files) We could use that to have inappropriate entries purged from upload histories. Also note that when a user reverts a file to a previous version, this creates a new entry in the file's history. I've never seen it happen, but suppose two users constantly revert to a version of a file (that would be a 'version war' I guess?), and that this lasts 8 reverts. Then there are 9 useless versions, with the 10th version ending up being used. Not really a problem to have such a long history table, but it does look ugly.

Another reason why you may want to delete specific entries, is when a version can't be considered fair use. For example: I could upload a high resolution picture of an album cover, then upload a newer version in 300x300. This version is used in the article, but the first version is still hosted.

I came upon this after checking File:StoogesStooges.jpg. Someone uploaded a new picture of this album cover of clearly inferior quality. I reverted the image back to the first version. The history also contains an inappropriate upload by a vandal. Am I in the right to request the (speedy) deletion of all those useless versions? Cheers, theFace 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Lifebaka just made the vandalism entry invisible. Contacted him. - theFace 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GARAGE and A7

The essay WP:GARAGE provides a fake article called "Bringers of Darkness" that is suppose to demonstrate what a "typical" garage band article might look like. Assuming that you haven't already been told that the claims in this article are exaggerated puffery, would this article, if real, be eligible for deletion under CSD A7?

A few of the claims that might sound credible if one didn't already know otherwise are lead singer has sang onstage with Freddie Mircury and played everyware (even opened for Metallica!!. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a fun question. I think a band that opened for Metallica would be notable; it is likely they have third-party coverage. The question in the GARAGE article, to me, is what are the sources? Are they reliable third-party links? Obviously that GARAGE example could be G11'd, but if the sources are MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and ReverbNation, I'd call it A7 for sure. — Timneu22 · talk 00:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Be aware that sourcing and notability are issues for AFD. An article is only deletable under A7 if there are no "credible" claim of importance or significance. (and even the "credible" part is sometimes disputed) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is, that plus a google search. If the google search has no results (except MyFaceYouReverb) with not a hint of third-party, then yes, A7 on grounds of notability. — Timneu22 · talk 00:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That being said, most band albums (bands are what I delete the most) don't have this type of semi-notable definition. Most say something like "lead guitars Jimmy, bass guitar Todd, Drummer Jeff, Lead Singer Tom. They were formed in May 2010 and plan to have their first album released in 2011. They aren't famous yet, but keep an eye on these guys!" In this case, there is no claim of notability and A7 easily applies. Maybe the GARAGE page could have another (or a different) example? — Timneu22 · talk 00:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
One thing is for sure, this fake article is a clear G11. As for A7, the claims of importance are present, yet if they can only be supported by Facebook or Twitter or some other primary source, I'd send such an article to AfD hoping for a snow delete, perhaps even a G3-hoax. In practice, I always regard the qualifier "up and coming" as a red flag when it comes to articles about band and/or performers, and even in articles about athletes, and I often tell the article creators to wait until the qualifier no longer applies before an article can be created. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A claim being "credible" means that it is substantiated. If no substantiation is provided for a claim, or may be found with a simple search, the claim is not a credible one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But credibility is not black on white, and, while in this case the lack thereof is unquestionable, there will always be borderline cases. Additionally, the poor writing will inevitably affect the judgment of an admin trying to determine whether a claim is credible.
Sometimes, creators of articles about nn bands shoot themselves in the foot by adding references or by elaborating on a claim of importance, by showing that the best reference they can come up with is from Facebook. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 08:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that most A7-bands title the article My Rock Group (band) or My Rock Group (Band) instead of just My Rock Group. Usually disambiguation isn't even needed, but they add "band" or "Band" anyway. This might be worth mentally flagging (or adding a filter) or adding to the GARAGE page. — Timneu22 · talk 20:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well, but it's easy to understand why. Very few bands manage to become more notorious than the concept they were named after, and even chart-topping Grammy-winning bands are often disambiguated, in Wikipedia, this way. Newcomers to Wikipedia see this, and well... monkey sees, monkey does, and there you go. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I updated GARAGE with this info. It's really frequent, and good for people to have this bit of knowledge. — Timneu22 · talk 00:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

F10: DON T delete .DIA files, which are the sources of svg or png or smth else

There was a deletion of File:Cache,associative-read.dia as F10. But this file is a easy-editable, vector source for File:Cache,associative-read.png file. And it can be used to regenerate .png, make .svg, fix typos and even allow to easy translate image to other language. After F10 deletion I had to spend 2 hours with DIA, redrawing this image from png. I want to translate it late to russian. There was "{{ShouldBeSVG|diagram}}" on the png mentioned, and it will take 60 secunds to convert dia to svg. but some "file-hater" deleted the original vector file in the format, unknown to him, and stole 2 hours of my sleepng time to redrawing it from png.

Please, forbid to delete original source files for images as F10! They are usefull! `a5b (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a grand total of three .dia files on Wikipedia, and the upload form doesn't currently accept it as a format. Hut 8.5 18:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you clarify if there are any advantages to the DIA format over SVG? The image has been uploaded as an SVG at File:Cache,associative-read.svg. Given that SVG is one of our "supported" formats, and we don't even show a thumbnail for DIA, I am wondering if there is some benefit of DIA over SVG. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the native file format of Dia, the equivalent of Photoshop's .psd or the source code provided on the image page of File:Snells law wavefronts.gif. An svg can easily be produced from the .dia file, but not vice-versa. —Korath (Talk) 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to accept any kind of source format, as long as they also upload a supported format, because it's a good idea to archive the original format which preserves all the original information and isn't damaged by the exporting process. However, since the upload form doesn't accept them anymore (to my frustration), this seems to be a small issue. However, it's clear that these are not F10 (there's nothing "useless" about them). Dcoetzee 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A7, schools are not organizations?

Bringing up here, as requested. By what standard are schools not organizations (or, in some cases, also businesses)? This seems to make no sense. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

They are organizations / businesses, but the School exemption is entrenched in policy, and a quick search shows that it has been controversial in the past. I feel that this would need serious discussion in order to advance, and would be significantly controversial. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's been somewhat, though not really. I've deleted them since then, and never had an actual problem with it. A7 is meant to apply to any business or organization whatsoever, so I guess I don't see what makes schools so special, other than people yowling more loudly about them in the past. You assert notability or it goes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Schools are excepted not only because it was always a controversial subject and consensus always favored to exclude them from A7 but also because all schools are potentially notable. Also, it has been long standing consensus that schools that are not notable on their own should be merged to the article of the town they are in instead of deleted, so it would be a mistake to include them in A7. And remember, just because you violated written and long-standing policy, it does not mean that policy is incorrect. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Most elementary/middle schools are usually redirected to the page on the school districts (Like SoWhy stated, not deleted) but the removal of the exception could mean the deletion of those pages too. Another from my watchlist today: Hayden-Winkelman Unified School District would most likely be deleted, meaning any non-high schools may become broken redirects. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you've got an organization article asserting no significance. The reason we've got A7 is so that garbage doesn't hang around (and to discourage people from writing it), and so it either gets removed or a proper article gets done. If you want to redirect it to something, you can do that before or after deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, if you want to change policy, suggest the change. If you don't like policy, you shouldn't be just doing whatever you want. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've generally no trouble with that, but in this case I had no idea anyone had even stuck that bit in here. It'd been discussed before, came rather to a draw, so I've got no idea where anyone got the idea there's anything behind it to start with. How often do you check the wording here? First I noticed was when I saw the template had been tweaked. Regardless, rules aren't set in stone or without exception, so if no one objected, it must not've been too big a deal. We don't do letter of the law here. You'll notice, when asked if things should be deleted here, I didn't delete them, even though I think they should be. There's a big difference between deleting over someone's known objection to it, and deleting when something's been flagged and no one objects.
As to your comment below (most high schools having the coverage), I haven't seen that happen, just be asserted frequently. Schoolwatch and its ilk (remember them?) started up that meme, but in my experience, a good number of schools (including high schools) have anything beyond routine, local coverage. And yes, I've looked. Since no one challenges that assertion, this supposed "sourcing" is very rarely brought forward to actually be analyzed. Even with that, a lot of it's in passing—"Jack Crack Elementary will begin enrollment on July 23rd", "Cracker Jack High won the football game last night 21-14." Most school articles remain three-liner stubs and never expand, and really can't. I don't see schools as more or less likely than middling-successful local businesses or organizations to have significant, real coverage that extends out of their locality.
I'd love to be wrong. If there really is enough sourcing to write a great article on every high school (or for that matter, primary school) in the world, let's get to it. But if there's not, we have to exercise editorial control. Part of that is that every article must answer the basic question "Why would this thing be in any way significant?" If we have very little material, and what we have is trivial and routine, we just can't write a decent article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the difference is that I find "routine coverage" to be worthly of notability. No high school today is built without major discussion in the local media. Sports coverage is also quite large. In my town the local newspaper pretty much shut down and we are running off of about 5 local writers for the new paper. One of them does nothing other than cover local sports (and does it well if that matters). So yes, there is plenty of material that meets the requirements of WP:N about the school, its clubs, sports teams and (in my experience) its administration. Including sports the local high schools are probably 20% of the coverage in our paper, and excluding sports they are still probably 5%. That's a lot of material. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess one question I would have is how could a short stub article about a high school could clearly exert importance or significance? I would think that it would be hard to distinguish such assertions for a school as easily as for a company or organization. You could say that the school has won various athletic titles, but most schools can claim that too. Some people also reference Jimbo's Quote to state that school articles often bring in new editors. Would it result in the deletion of many more articles also? for example would this, this‎, this, or this (four stub school articles that had a change on my watchlist just today) get deleted? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of those should. I won't do so, to avoid causing a problem, but none of those assert a bit of significance. They are not a bit beyond "Joe's Bait Shop is a bait shop in Somewhere, Somestate", and we would speedy that in a moment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The answer is simple: schools get special treatment. It's nearly impossible to delete an article about the most nonnotable school, even with the worst quality writing, because somewhere along the line consensus has decreed that we must have an article about every single high school and most junior high and primary schools should get due mention in their towns' articles. Until this runaround of our notability guidelines changes and we become more exacting in our standards, we will have to take the bad with the good. ThemFromSpace 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, high schools almost always have coverage that meets WP:N. Remember, we speedy things that are highly unlikely to be notable. If it wouldn't get deleted in an AfD, it shouldn't be deleted via a speedy. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As a point of context, when editors assert that "schools are inherently notable" (which they aren't, but that's another debate), they mean "normal, government-run or larger private schools that teach academic subjects, like reading and mathematics", not "Joe's Driving School" or "Angelina Ballerina's School of Dance". If we're going to have this exception, then we should be clear about its limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I think the most recent archive of this page talked about a driving school and a nursery school. — Timneu22 · talk 00:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, while we don't have a formal policy or guideline with regard to the notability of schools, we have unwritten rules that are being followed even though they are not exposed anywhere. We have a failed proposal that still gets followed in practice, yet the closest we have to an actual guideline is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, an essay that merely reflects what we're already doing. Perhaps it is that page that needs to be refined. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 05:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
"An essay that merely reflects what we're already doing" should be given great weight as it is pretty darn close to what our policies and guidelines are supposed to be. Per WP:POLICY: "policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community." The essay section you cite seems well thought out and is a strong argument for not changing CSD until actual practice at AfD changes. --agr (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A7 reflects this in not allowing speedy deletion and is as such consistent with the consensus at AFD. It seems to be a common misconception that not being able to speedy delete something means it has to be kept - when it can also be edited, merged or redirected instead. Consensus for schools is to merge them if they are non-notable, so it would be counterproductive to delete the information first. Regards SoWhy 06:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, it becomes evident that articles about some schools may be speedied, and articles about driving schools, martial arts schools, arts and crafts schools, etc. are routinely speedied in practice, yet some admins still invoke the school exemption. Additionally, I'll ignore WP:BEANS and state a potential situation where a small company would argue that the article about it could not be speedied because it has an internal training program which it calls a "school," and the article was more about the training program than about the company itself. So I propose the following clarification to A7 (Corp):

Articles about specialized schools may be speedied if it is obvious that the school does not issue diplomas that are recognized outside its walls, its clients, or the organizations that sponsor it.

This would include driving schools since the "diploma" is a driver's license which is issued by the State. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 08:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you want to keep driving schools? — Timneu22 · talk 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Driving schools do not issue diplomas that are recognized outside their walls, the State issues "them." Therefore driving schools may be speedied under my proposal. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 14:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, okay. Your wording "this will include driving schools" had me confused. — Timneu22 · talk 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Time limit for speedy deletion?

Hi!

I've declined several speedy deletions lately as the articles have been around for several years. Whilst they don't have much in the way of claim (or even assertion) for notability, the fact that they have been around for so long leads me to think that they should at least be deleted by review (i.e. AFD). I've had a look on the CSD page to see if there is anything to back up my stance, or even show that I am working against current policy (in which case I would change my approach to these articles), but I can't see anything.

Is there anything to state how long after an article is created that it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion? (Does that sentence even make sense?)

I should add that I appreciate that BLP violations, libel, copyright violations etc are the special cases that have no time limits and require immediate action (be it deletion, revertion or oversight). I'm more interested in knowing the stance on articles that are nominated because of lack of notability.

Cheers, Stephen! Coming... 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be an explicit limit on how long an article has been around when considering it for speedy. If it's not worth keeping, and if there's nothing in the history that makes it worth keeping, there's no reason to send it through process for the sake of process. If, of course, you feel that a particular article deserves a deeper review, there's nothing keeping you from declining on those grounds. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Time limits aren't there on purpose. I feel this was mentioned (and archived) on this page recently. Just because an article with the content "my brother is the best in the world" slipped through the cracks two years ago, this doesn't mean we should keep it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for your thoughts. Stephen! Coming... 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Usually though an article that exists for such a long time has received edits and/or was reviewed by multiple experienced users and if they did not nominate it for speedy deletion, I would say that this is a sign that any deletion might be controversial and thus should be taken to AFD instead. Timneu22 is correct that a strict time limit would be counter-productive because it might save pages that are clearly deletable but admins are allowed to make an individual decision about any request and imho should treat all cases that are not crystal clear like you did. If a page was around for years, we should keep it for another 7 days to determine whether it was possibly kept for a good reason. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Any article that fell through the cracks at one point and is discovered only a long time after creation should be speedied if it meets the criteria, even if it is five years old. The real indicator of whether such a deletion is controversial is the number and spread of third-party edits to the article since its inception. But to adopt a wording as to how many edits are enough for a deletion to qualify as controversial is nnot what we want. For one thing, such cases are rare enough that they can simply be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 18:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Websites and TV

A7 is often used to delete articles about someone's YouTube video and such, under {{db-web}}. There's going to be a time in the near future (is it already here?) when the line between TV and Web shows are blurred, meaning that new shows will be posted directly to sites and not on broadcast TV. Will these types of pages still fall under A7? Maybe this is a poor example, but I'm trying to get at this: right now, TV shows aren't A7-able, and eventually "TV shows" will be posted directly to the web. So I'm wondering if wording and/or policies are ready for this. I'm just thinking out loud at this point, hence the unclarity. — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As you says, it's irrelevant at this point. And of course {{db-web}} is still an A7 template. Most, if not all, TV shows are broadcast on a notable network and as such would fail A7 as potentially important or significant anyway. Even if those shows are one day distributed on the internet, their potential importance/significance would not change and thus they would also fail A7. Regards SoWhy 08:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. –xenotalk 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to WP:ESSAY. Admins not ignoring rules

Formerly Back to WP:ESSAY. Admins without guts

If we're not going to have a CSD for essays, and we're not going to have admins with the guts to use WP:IAR for shit articles like THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION, then the whole encyclopedia is a joke. You're really going to let that shit sit out there for more than 20 minutes? I'm sorry, but this article is a fucking joke and there's no reason for it to exist. Period. — Timneu22 · talk 10:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Chill! Abusing admins (however much they may deserve it in your eyes) is seldom a good way to get them to do something for you. And anyway JHunterJ A10'd it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, there is extreme inconsistency around deleting utter trash. By keeping this article around, Wikipedia loses credibility. Maybe A10 should be the rule for essays, then. I'll try that. Something has to stick, doesn't it? — Timneu22 · talk 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is inconsistency. The underlying issue is that there are several different opinions on which articles should be summarily deleted, and different admins have different practices.
I looked at the deleted text of the article in question, and any admin could have deleted it perfectly well under the "patent nonsense" criterion (G1) or just deleted it will a message like "not an article". That happens all the time.
On the other hand, whenever you add a CSD tag, there is always a possibility that the tag will be removed. There is no way to force someone else to summarily delete an article.
In this case, the article is deleted now, anyway. In practice, this sort of article does get deleted, it's just a matter of luck which process is used to do the deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
But I didn't use CSD, I used {{delete}} with a reason that any admin should realized meant "not an article", which it wasn't. So why the inconsistency here? Can't any admin see that it wasn't an article? — Timneu22 · talk 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone could see the article was bad. People disagree over the best way to deal with those: some people favor deleting on sight, some people favor PROD. That disagreement has been discussed to death and is unlikely to be solved. But in the end everyone agrees that the articles need to be deleted (or fixed, but that was not relevant to this article). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain why some people favor using PROD every time (which doesn't include me). They argue that an article that happens to be poorly written on a topic that is not well known might just need improvement, but if it's deleted too soon then the few people who recognize what the article is about won't have a chance to see it. There's clearly some validity in that argument, the disagreement is over how broadly it applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I haven't seen the article, but from the title I'd say I would probably have prodded it with the rationale, Opinion piece, and left it on my watchlist. (I am thinking about making a prod template specifically devoted to such cases.) From my experience, such articles are often deleted as prods long before the prod template expires. If it was worse than that, it could have been deleted under either G1 or G3. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is is administered by humans, and each administrator has their own lens through which they view the guidelines and policies. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is doomed, however. The crowd is moving in the right direction (betterment of the encyclopedia) even as individual members sometimes move in seemingly random directions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The default deletion process is AFD not CSD. If you consider that an article merits deletion but it doesn't fit into one of the speedy deletion criteria then I suggest you prod or afd it. If we can identify a type of article that merits speedy deletion then by all means lets discuss that here. But isolated examples rarely make good rule changes, for example I supported the extension of A7 to non-notable pets even though it was yet another slight complication. But I have only deleted two such bios, a hamster and a rabbit, since we made that change. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Well essays and how-tos pop up all the time. Right now there's the lovely Requirements to get a learner permit that was prod'd. This will never be a valid article. Why is it still here? — Timneu22 · talk 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
For those types of articles, I would nominate under A10. It does not add any more encyclopedic content to Wikipedia that is not already covered at Learner's permit. I think that the vast majority fall under this criterion, and most admins are happy to delete them. Certainly venting about admins isn't going to help, and I agree that for essays (not how-tos) there is no way to word things tightly enough to capture these but keep other things that just have slight problems. One way or another, consensus has rejected this multiple times. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That article has already been speedied, under G11. I don't remember its advert tone. A10 it is... it seems this should apply to how-tos also. — Timneu22 · talk 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The reason that essays and how-tos are not deleted out of hand is that they sometimes contain encyclopedic content and can be rewritten for tone and style appropriately, e.g. "how to determine if a number is prime" could be merged into primality test, and a well-cited essay on anarchist values could be rewritten as an objective description of anarchist values and merged into anarchism. One could reasonably ask whether anyone's willing to do the clean-up work, but that call is up to PROD/AfD. Dcoetzee 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Timneu22, also realise that most of those essays and trash articles that get created in the main article space are rarely if ever linked to by their creators on other articles. So the odds of anyone actually ever seeing them (beyond the new page patrollers and the like) is slim to none. Thus, there's no impact to the credibility of the site. Remember the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it actually fall" game, well, the same applies with articles that the public will probably never see. Don't worry, they will be take care of quickly. Huntster (t @ c) 01:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"image pages without a corresponding image"

Following an issue brought up at ANI, I suggest that this phrase be clarified/expanded to read "image pages without a corresponding image, including those for images hosted at commons".

Note that I have no strong opinion either way, but merely see how the current version can lead to misunderstandings. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I think you need to reword all of G8 to take in the exemptions. In this case, I think it's nonsensical to be adding image description pages locally for Commons images, for the purpose of categorization. If categorization is needed, do it on Commons and use {{Commons category}}. This also helps other projects wishing to categorize the images. Rather than duplicating the effort across multiple language encyclopedias, it's far more efficient to do so on Commons. That's one of the reasons we HAVE Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Too broad. For example, nobody disputes that description pages for Wikipedia featured pictures and current featured picture candidates should be retained. Content-specific categories (eg photos from a particular country) are disputed, though existing practice has always been to allow them prior to today. If your purpose here is to propose a rule stating that we're going to delete "Commons images where the description page consists of nothing but a category and/or other content that duplicates what Commons has (in other words, if there's a useful description that someone has added, copy it there before deleting) and categories that wholly consist of such images", then you should say that.--B (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe I am saying that. An example; File:Turk22.jpg was tagged by Sfan for deletion under F2. The category the local description page place the image in is Category:Images of Kazakhstan. There's already categories on Commons that cover this. See Commons:Category:Kazakhstan. What's the point of duplicating the effort??? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In fact, I'm inclined to place these image categories for deletion. Of 12 images in Category:Images of Kazakhstan, 11 are already on Commons and categorized there. Help is needed to further categorize them (as seems always the case with Commons images). The 12th image is PD and should be moved to Commons. Why have a category for something here that already exists on Commons and can be pointed to there? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • As long as the category is wholly duplicated, I don't really see any reason to duplicate the effort. As long as the wording is sufficiently specific that it only covers categories that wholly duplicate what Commons has, I don't see a reason not to approve this. I don't know without looking, but there may be categories of Wikipedia-specific images (photos from meetups or some such thing) where Commons categorizations wouldn't make sense. My wording would exclude those as well. --B (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I gather that one of the ways this situation can arise is when an image is moved to Commons but its old description page (and categories) remain behind. In other words, it's not just a matter of new description pages being inexplicably uploaded at WP for images hosted on Commons. I think Sfan00 is probably doing the right thing by tagging these legacy description pages for speedy deletion, but G8 does not quite cover the situation and should be worded to explicitly include it. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My concern was mass deletion tagging with no prior discussion. Any time something like that is done, it's rather obnoxious if it has to be undone and, in particular, since we have obviously allowed these images in the past for a long time, it needed discussion, not just for them to wind up in CSD with admins randomly and inconsistently deciding what to do with them. --B (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree that the wording of G8 should specifically include any kind of description page for images on Commons. Honestly, I've always interpreted G8 to already mean this. If for some reason the categorisation at Commons is lacking for a specific image, then bring the issue up there. No need for a duplication of effort. Huntster (t @ c) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current rule was added after a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_31#Does_the_deletion_of_a_documentation_page_for_a_deleted_template_fall_under_G6.3F. Prior to that discussion, G8 only applied to talk pages of deleted articles, so it hasn't "always" meant anything - it has only been around since September 2008. In that discussion, the concern was specifically raised that there could be a valid reason to have an en description page and the author of the rule said it was his intention to exclude those and only include description pages that were identical to the Commons page. I think we need to say specifically what we mean - we're going to delete image description pages that have no meaningful content (including categories) other than what is contained on the Commons description page. That means we're not going to delete pages that categorize our featured pictures, and we're not going to delete categories that do not exist at Commons (though if they have relevance outside of the English Wikipedia, they should be moved to Commons). But categories of images are (mostly) going away or turned into NOGALLERY galleries (because they will be fair use only). --B (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If it becomes standard practise to only categorize at commons (when the image exists over there), then something should be done to make the commons categories show up at the wikipedia side of things automatically. That would discourage editors from needing to add a category on wikipedia (Though ideally doing so would add the category at commons if this were implemented) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the corresponding levels of support are already in place. We don't need to modify the wiki code to support this change. If there's a category that makes sense and does not exist at Commons, create it at Commons and add images on Commons as appropriate. The lack of the category at Commons is not a reason to put one in place here. It's a reason for more work to be done at Commons. I think in the vast majority of cases (if not all cases), categorizing images locally for images on Commons lacks purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the greater issue is for images that have been migrated to Commons and still have a legacy "description" page behind. I think that deleting such pages should be uncontroversial, and if CSD G8 needs to be reworded to make that clear, then that's what we should do. How about:
G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page.
such as ... image pages without a corresponding image or for images that have been moved to Commons... Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's fine, but fails to address the concern of image description pages created after a move to Commons, or even when no move to Commons ever occurred. That is the case for many of these pages; local project members have been creating categories here and adding Commons images to them. So, that 'loophole' would still exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "Image description pages for images hosted at Commons where the content substantially duplicates content on the Commons description page, including categorization." This would mean that if there is something like an en-specific tag or category (meetups, FPC, etc) we don't delete it, and if there is a useful category that doesn't exist at Commons, we don't delete it until the Commons category has been created. But if the en category is just a shadow copy of the Commons one, we blow it away. --B (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not a big fan of retaining something waiting for work to happen elsewhere. It serves as a disincentive to doing the work. So, if someone wanted to group photos for an en.wiki, fine, whatever. But, if they're creating local categories waiting for someone to make Commons categories, that's just silly. The same amount of work on Commons results in not having to do it locally, and the work allows lots of other projects to then use it. So, no, the wording is closer but no cigar :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest that the wording be "or for images hosted on Commons, including images which have been moved to Commons." Tim Pierce (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious marketing"

Thought you may enjoy this article's text:

Founder of Ad.com.hr
A direct response copywriter and author of Obvious Marketing.
Born in Croatia, considered as one of the most reputable b2b copywriters in direct-response industry.
Retired.

Obvious marketing indeed. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

? .. {{db-spam}}? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and/or unremarkable person. But I just found it amusing. :) — Timneu22 · talk 14:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
For more of this amusing stuff .. follow the links in {{Spamsearch}}, piles of rubbish (in userspace, though, still most is spam). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Images for speedy deletion templates?

Icon delete.svg Icon delete.svg Icon delete.svg

Svgalbertian suggested at Template talk:Db-meta that we might want to use one of these images (or another) in the speedy templates (like other projects do). I wanted to advertise the discussion about it here where more people will notice it. MSGJ (talk · contribs) created some /testcases for it. Regards SoWhy 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the first. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have phrased the request uncles. I just wanted to advertise the discussion, not bring it to this page (and split it). Please place further comments at Template talk:Db-meta#Images available. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

db-web and memes?

Do internet memes qualify under A7, db-web? — Timneu22 · talk 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if they don't assert significance. An article that simply acclaims something as an internet meme is probably a routine db-web A7 - if it makes more specific claims to significance and notability, then it probably isn't. ~ mazca talk 02:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a tough call as to what is "web content"; usually this is a website or a webblog (still a site) or a youtube video (still a site). That's why I ask. — Timneu22 · talk 03:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

R2 - Redirects from namespace

Redirects to WP:Articles for creation resulting from a misplaced article for creation are not eligible for this criteria because it is a redirect to wp: namespace. Could we add a clause that allows this? Marcus Qwertyus 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding (an example would help), but it sounds like a "G6. Technical deletions" case. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree - no need to change R2 which does not list those redirects for good reasons. In this special case, G6 applies. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know g6 applied to that. Thanks. Marcus Qwertyus 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced articles, it seems, means "accident" in this case, which is certainly G6. — Timneu22 · talk 17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

R3 is not clear

R3. Implausible typos.
Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages. This does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.

It's not really clear why other language redirects are acceptable, and the link is to the category of redirects from other languages. My experience is that all foreign redirects are in fact deleted, despite this claim in the R3 description. I think some foreign redirects are allowed, but usually only when they are proper titles:

  • Les trois mousquetaires -> The Three Musketeers. redirect okay
  • Voiture -> car. redirect not okay.

Wikipedia is not a translation site; I don't think the R3 wording is correct, because it sounds as if any foreign redirect is valid. Am I missing something here? — Timneu22 · talk 10:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are not treated like articles but rather with a liberal amount of "it's useful" and "redirects are cheap". Since their purpose is to aid readers in finding the right page, they should be treated with more leniency, especially when it comes to speedy deletion. As such R3 seems pretty clear: if the foreign language redirect makes sense, it should stay. And it does make sense in any case where any reader might have any reason to look for the subject at the foreign language title. Even if it doesn't make sense to other people. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 12:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes but you didn't really address my concerns. The description in R3, cited above, is not clear. Are all foreign language redirects kept? Absolutely not. "Voiture" is not kept and redirected to "car", nor should it be. However, the original French title of "The Three Musketeers" makes sense as a redirect. So, shouldn't R3 be worded differently? We don't need redirects from every possible language for every possible article. Right now, R3 suggests otherwise. You state "if the foreign language redirect makes sense, it should stay", but where does R3 say that, and further, where does it say what "makes sense"? — Timneu22 · talk 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Are they deleted under R3? Because they are not an implausable typo or misnomer .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they are deleted as "implausible", just about all time. A common example: بیمارستان is created and discusses a hospital. The proper thing to do here is A10 deletion (duplicate), but sometimes a user will redirect to hospital. There's no need for that redirect, so it becomes an implausible title. Something like this is the common scenario. I have just checked a random smattering of foreign language redirects from the category, and it appears all of them are redirects to proper titles. I really think the R3 description should state this, if that's indeed the case. (And if it's not the case, let's discuss that too.) — Timneu22 · talk 12:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In theory, the exemption for foreign-language redirects is there because neither our editors nor our administrators are required to speak any language other than English, and as a consequence they may not be qualified to determine whether some foreign-language redirect is "plausible" or not. Really, though, there are only three categories of foreign-language redirects that are really "plausible" in an English-language encyclopedia: proper names in the original or dominant language related to some subject with a proper name; foreign-language terms that serve as the origin of the English-language word; and terms that are widely believed by an English-speaking audience to be one of these, even if that belief is wrong. Most others are not plausible, and could in theory be made subject to speedy deletion. Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely; would like to see R3 worded as such. Note that there's a risk in keeping redirects that common web translators cannot accurately translate. Like "biggest loser in the world" existing in some language and redirecting to a biographical page. Yikes. — Timneu22 · talk 18:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
R3. Implausible typos. (possible wording?)
Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful. Redirects in other languages are valid only when related to a subject with a proper name or have significance in the English language (i.e., redirect translations for the sake of translating can be deleted using this criterion). This criterion does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.

CSD is not the only deletion mechanism. Simply because CSD says they shouldn't be deleted via CSD doesn't mean they should not be handled by another deletion method. WP:RFD is the appropriate place for handling these cases, not CSD. They do not happen often enough to require speedy deletion. In addition, while foreign language redirects to general topics typically are deleted, the definition of a general topic is not as concrete as 'not a proper name'. The suggested wording to too restrictive based on WP:RFD precedent. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is that R3 is not clear. The wording is vague, and needs to be tidied; what is a foreign language redirect? What's the purpose of the link? The link to the categories is highly confusing. And sorry but RFD is a total waste of time on these.Timneu22 · talk 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
None of your suggested wording changes address the vagueness you claim. Instead, it seeks to expand the scope of R3 beyond what it currently is. Your statement about what the discussion is and what you have actually proposed do not match.
RFD is hardly a waste of time. It is pretty low weight and it is much better to get knowledgeable input on the many boundary cases that your proposal would automatically have deleted. Black Falcon provided an excellent summary of precedent here. The problem is that "no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect" is not unambiguous and sometimes needs debate. Simply because the target is not a proper name does not mean that there is not a connection or that because it is a proper name that there is (ex. redirecting München to Munich is different than redirecting ミュンヘン to it). -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
First, no one here even seems sure of what the policy is. I'm taking a guess, based on the review of existing foreign redirects, which all seem to point to proper titles. Second, I think removing the foreign language text altogether is worthwhile. Third, I'll give it another shot:
R3. Implausible typos. (possible wording?) two
Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful. This criterion does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.
This criterion also applies to any redirect that is not in English, with the following exception: redirects to a proper name or title, where the redirect is in a foreign language of the title's origin, can be kept. For example, Les Trois Mousquetaires, the original title of The Three Musketeers, is a valid redirect. See also, redirects in redirects from alternative languages
The criterion was made essentially vague as to not become a victim of instruction creep. I rarely invoke it, but I would say that wherever no one can tell how a redirect can be plausible, it can safely be assumed implausible. Some things to check for that could save an R3 candidate are whether the redirect contains an {{R from alternate language}} (or other R from...) template, whether and how the term of the redirect was covered in the target article at the time the redirect was made, etc. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
But what's plausible? The $64k quesitno. بیمارستان apparently means "hospital", but a redirect with that name seems implausible, on the English wikipedia. — Timneu22 · talk 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects are quite plausible; they happen all the time. There is a difference between plausible and desirable. The foreign language clause is exclusionary, not an inclusion. If you want to see a clause for common word foreign language redirects, than a better approach would be to remove it totally from R3 and create a new criteria. Typos and foreign language are not the same thing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the foreign language clause should be removed from R3, and yes, a new criterion created. Right now it's like that sentence is tacked on to the definition for no reason, except to confuse people. I think we'd be best to just remove that sentence altogether. — Timneu22 · talk 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reengaging this thread. Any thoughts on what to do with the foreign language part of this criterion? I really think it is confusing, and/or the policy is not clear. — Timneu22 · talk 11:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy is perfectly clear. Foreign language redirects aren't R3's. What you're trying to do, whether you realize it or not, is introduce a new criterion. —Korath (Talk) 12:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Not clear at all. I have written gobs of documentation in my life, and I would never let something as vague as this pass for "clear". If it were clear, I wouldn't be here. The fact that this says "redirects in other languages" where "other languages" is linked to a category is not clear. It should link to something that explains when a foreign redirect is useful, because most redirects from other languages are implausible. As stated and observed, the only foreign redirects that are generally kept are those to proper titles. If that's the rule (in practice) then this text is wrong. — Timneu22 · talk 13:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
R3. Implausible typos.
Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages. This does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.
Maybe it is clear, but some are deleted because the admin thinks that it is a 'misnomer' and not a foreign language. I have yet to see examples of such deletions, though. I did find some which do exist (Benzol (actually a disambig), Toluol; though you actually find that name around outside of Germany), others which give me 'unexpected results' (Huis does not redirect to House, Boom is a disambig which does not mention Tree), but have not found in a quick survey any that were deleted. The category however does give quite a couple of examples which do still exist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand that reply at all. Let's go with my standard example: voiture -> car. Why or why not? — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that one is never speedy deleted (or deleted at all). You seem to say that these redirects are deleted because of R3, but I haven't seen or found any examples of such pages which were actually deleted. And then, if they were deleted, were they deleted because the admin was misinterpreting R3, or was the admin deleting because they did not know/expect the created redirect to be a translation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
More examples of not deleted other language redirects: 北京 (one that I would not have recognised and easily would have deleted as implausible), Sverige. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This example is exactly my point: it's a proper noun. These seem like the only plausible foreign redirects. — Timneu22 · talk 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
But the category is full of them .. ?? Maybe no-one took the effort of actually making Voiture a redirect to Car. I would not delete it, to me it seems a proper redirect. Where does it read that this would not be a good redirect? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The intent of the wording is that criterion R3 does not apply to common misspelling or misnomers, nor redirects in other languages. It seems like you are trying to change it to allow speedy deletion of foreign-language redirects. Then what you seek is to radically alter the criterion, not "tidying the wording". decltype (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I do want a new category, but it's necessary. We should remove the link to the irrelevant category, and replace it with a link to a policy explaining which foreign redirects are valid. It seems there is agreement that foreign redirects for random words aren't valid, and no one has found a valid foreign redirect that wasn't to a proper title. My problem is that the wording is vague, and it essentially states, "go ahead and redirect any foreign word to another title, because that's okay." — Timneu22 · talk 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm .. that is again different than what I read in Timneu22's comments .. I read that Timneu22 says that admins interpret R3 in such a way that they, commonly, delete redirects in foreign languages using that criterium. I think that R3 states that such redirects should not be deleted (and I agree with that, why would we). If it indeed happens on a regular scale, then those admins really think it is just an implausible misnomer (which might be reason to discuss with that admins), and they did not recognise it as a foreign language translation (or they have misread R3, which is again reason to discuss with that admin). Could you please clarify, Timneu22? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My main problem with R3 is twofold:
  1. The link to the foreign redirects category isn't helpful at all. That's minor
  2. The wording appears to say "foreign redirects are okay", which they are not. Examples appear quite obvious that only redirects to proper titles are okay and/or needed. Redirects to random nouns aren't valid (or plausible), but the wording here makes it seem like they are exempt from being deleted. By stating "don't delete them", we are essentially saying "keep them". — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't delete via CSD should not be confused with "keep". Just because something doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria does not mean it is necessarily "OK" to include it on wikipedia. Remember speedy deletion is only for uncontentious deletions, there are plenty of articles that are fine at CSD but get deleted after discussion at AFD. As for redirects we really ought to consider utility here, If we don't have an article for a common Google search term we should where relevant have a redirect, though perhaps with a category such as category:redirects from to 10,000 Google search terms to prevent someone deleting it without realising why we need it. I also think we should use prod for redirects where we've moved a good faith submission, otherwise how is the author going to find out where their article is? Not all newbies will think to look through their contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    Still no one seems to know the actual policy on foreign redirects. Why are some kept and others not? I have answered this numerous times, and all examples point to the same thing, but where's the policy on that? I don't care if they are speedied or not, but it seems they would indeed be deleted... if we only had a policy that explained it. — Timneu22 · talk 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
'Why are some kept and others not?' .. I have asked early on 'Are they deleted under R3? Because they are not an implausable typo or misnomer ..', to which you answered 'Yes, they are deleted as "implausible", just about all time.' (and see also your opening statement), but I can't find any examples of such redirects being deleted under R3 (see also my bottom post) .. can you please provide me with a good handful of example redirects which were, in fact, deleted? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
But:
  1. it links to the category of foreign redirects which contains the examples of the redirects which schould not be deleted.
  2. the redirects in foreign language are OK. We have nearly 10.000 of them (and those are only the ones which are marked as such). They should not be deleted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
To your point one: this is a horrible example of linking. Why not link A7 to Grammy Award winners to show what band articles to not delete? To your second point, again you're showing them a list of redirects that already exist. Who cares!? It would be more beneficial to link to a policy that explains why some redirects exist, not that they exist... and as mentioned many times: aren't all of those to proper titles?Timneu22 · talk 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, that is a point taken (point 1), though I don't see anything wrong with it, I don't object removing the link to the category (examples do clarify IMHO). And I don't get the point of linking to why redirects exists .. redirects exist because they are cheap and handy. This is a rule stating what can be deleted under R3, but I still have to see something for your statement 'My experience is that all foreign redirects are in fact deleted, despite this claim in the R3 description. I think some foreign redirects are allowed, but usually only when they are proper titles', if you go through the category, you will indeed find mainly proper titles (but also others, Catur, Chlor, Dressuur, Flöte), but I have not seen any examples of the other foreign redirects which were deleted. I could not find any until now (and I have been typing quite a number of words into the search box .. and a couple of days ago I did a search through the recent deletion log and did not find any examples either) .. but that Voiture is not a redirect to Car seems to me to be a case that no-one made it .. as goes for the majority out there (and I think that we also should not go and make all of them, but that is a different story). We say here that foreign language redirects should not be deleted, and I don't see a policy saying that we should delete foreign language redirects .. so that seems in line. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly it's unnecessary to have voiture or kartoffel or dërrasë e zezë or other random nouns redirecting to English. I don't see how this is debatable. Perhaps this is more of a discussion for WP:REDIRECT, which has absolutely nothing on the subject. If that is finalized, then maybe the wording here can be updated accordingly. If foreign=implausible (as in these given examples), then the "foreign redirects" clause of R3 needs to be removed. — Timneu22 · talk 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually if any of them are commonly used search terms then in my view they would be worth having as redirects. Though as you say that debate belongs elsewhere. But for them to be worth making a speedy deletion type then you have several issues to consider: Do we want to delete them? Are they created often enough to justify inclusion in the speedy deletion policy? Are these deletions sufficiently clear and uncontentious that the speedy deletion process is appropriate? Currently I supect the answers to all three are No, and you need to shift all three to yes to get the speedy deletion policy changed. ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. Do we want to delete them? Yes.
  2. Are they created often enough? I think no, but when they are created (especially in the case of moving a page that was created in a foreign language and then moved, which does happen with some frequency), there's no clear-cut way to get rid of them.
  3. Sufficiently clear? Absolutely. A random foreign translation to "blackboard" (as shown above) has no reason to be kept. A foreign translation to a proper title in the title's origin language is keepable. This is uncontentious.
Timneu22 · talk 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So it seems we are in agreement that it doesn't happen often enough to need a speedy deletion process, especially as in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion we already have a clearcut way to delete unneeded redirects. As for whether we want to delete them and whether the criteria are sufficiently clear that CSD can be used, at present we have two almost diametrically opposed views. If in the future the frequency of these increases to the point where a speedy deletion criteria would be appropriate then we would need to resolve those two areas of difference. Though I would be interested in knowing, if someone produced a list of the thousand most common search terms that we don't currently have articles or redirects for, would you think it worthwhile seeing if we had obvious redirects we could create for them? ϢereSpielChequers 16:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I created a discussion at WP:REDIRECT so the foreign redirect policy can be clarified. I must disagree, as I usually do on this page, with saying something must occur with some arbitrary frequency. Especially in the case of redirects which are non-content pages.... if the policy is as I have stated (random translations gone but proper titles kept), why would RfD or something other than CSD be needed? We don't need an RfD for dërrasë e zezë just so a bunch of users can say, "yep, that's the policy so we should delete it." Just delete it. — Timneu22 · talk 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Books under A7

Why aren't books listed under A7 when they don't signify importance? Battleaxe9872 Talk 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A common question; personally I don't have the answer. I think it's because it is difficult to tell if a book is important or not. But if it doesn't signify importance, well I'm not sure. — Timneu22 · talk 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That; and mostly because they simply don't appear often enough as new articles to warrant speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the archives have lots of requests for both books and software. I'd say that software is definitely creeping up on the "happens enough" argument, especially with all the new Android and iPhone apps wanting attention. Maybe the new review process could provide a means for software-knowledgeable people to get a look at those articles first. — Timneu22 · talk 17:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Related to that - after closing this AFD, I was thinking, if books could be including in the A9 criteria. If the author is not notable then the book normally should not be notable whatsoever. Therefore A9 could in addition to musical recording that criteria should apply to published works from authors without articles, etc - or we could simply add another A (number) criteria. JForget 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think many notable books are written by authors without Wikipedia articles. WP:AUTHOR prevents most articles from being created unless they are significantly notable, so I don't think that an A9 would work for books. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Books cannot properly be judged by one or two people. A low quality article about a book will very often not indicate the importance of it, nor even link to the author, and the importance not be recognized until the book is listed at wp:prod and someone has a chance to recognize it and check. I've found such entries for books having won major awards, & of course removed them and provided the information. Others have done similarly for books they recognize. This is a special problem with articles on children's book written in the form of primitive book reviews by--usually--children; I've rescued a number, most notable Brown Girl, Brownstones.
Additionally, as fifty-two thirty points out, it has been the practice that when an author has written a single notable book, the article has been often deliberately been moved to the title of the book--we will therefore find no articles on such authors. I think the practice is a mistake, because it is only the author entry that has much opportunity for improvement, but there are thousands of such articles and thus this makes the criterion of whether there is an author entry unusable. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

G8 -> Useless navigation templates

Can G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) be extended onto navigation templates (or is there a different template)? I know of a template that links pages that are currently on PROD and can't find a speedy-deletion template to put on it. Any help? FMasic (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about orphaned templates, you may take it to TFD, as it is always better to discuss it; I see the rationale "orphaned template" often there. I wouldn't go ahead and do that, even, until you are sure that nothing links to the template. My first impression is that you want to zap the template that is currently being used :'(; in other words, you look a bit delete-happy. Not good. About the specific case you mentioned above - no, do not send it to TFD (and don't G8 it, as it doesn't apply!) Does this help? Airplaneman 22:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. If/when the template is no longer being used, feel free to send it to TfD as unused. There's no reason to keep such a navigation template around if it is orphaned (and at this point in time, I don't see that it won't be orphaned in the near future...those episode simply aren't notable enough to warrant their own article). Huntster (t @ c) 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, sure. I was going to wait until it expires in something like three days, but was just looking over speedy deletion (honest). My outlook is that I really detest people who delete any kind of content, especially per notability (even if uncited), but this is just useless. Seriously, nothing will ever link there... It's efficiency, really. Thanks a plenty. FMasic (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's good to know that you detest all the wonderful users who keep this place from being a myspace blog, a corporate mouthpiece, a place filled with promotion of every kind, a dumping ground where every junior high garage band can advertise when they will be playing at the rec room, every nazi soapboxer has a voice, and chaos rules. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More humor

Sorry, had to post this: As STFU and GTFO are new they have no songs but have been writing there [sic] first song for one week now, they have 2 lines done. We also need fans. — Timneu22 · talk 17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Did they request that the article on The Beatles be speedy deleted? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Salt (again)

I made a first draft for a template to alert admins that they're dealing with a recreation, under a different title, of a page that has already been salted. The draft can be seen here. It is my belief that such a template will avoid AfD's such as this one, or at least draw them to an early close, and that without any change to our existing policies. Of course the template is not ready to go live yet, but I'm awaiting comments. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the template and then tried to think of a page that it could go on where {{db-g4|DeletionDiscussionLink}} wouldn't be appropriate and a more direct response. Can you provide a distinguishing example? Is it because this tells us the other title is salted, thus prodding us to delete and salt the recreated title?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
When I first proposed a template asking the reviewing admin to salt the title, I was told it was unnecessary because deletion logs are readily available and easy to find. However, in the case of a recreation under a different title (e.g. different capitalization) the existence of a deletion log for the original title is not always obvious, and this template would alert the admin of the existence of such a log, with a protection log to match. In many situations, this template would accompany a G4 deletion template, but it would also be used in situations where a title is speedied multiple times under one title (since there's no AfD, G4 is not the correct CSD to invoke), then recreated a day or two later, where the tagger is aware of the original title but feels the reviewing admin on duty might not be.
Notice the different-coloured background to mark the fact this goes a step further than simply speedy deleting. So yes, this template is for use in situations where salting is the course of action recommended by the tagger. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 03:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've created the actual template now. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

G11 being improperly used for beneficial purpose

I have the sneaking suspicion that I may be re-raising something that's been discussed before, so if I am just tell me and I'll go away. I'm a hangon patroller. I'm seeing G11 being frequently used to speedily delete articles which are clearly promotional in intent, but which as written are not unambiguously promotional, that is they're either just a neutral description or one which is slightly spammy but which could be easily cleaned up. They're typically about companies, products, websites, etc., which are startups, which cite no reliable sources, and which appear to have no chance of being shown to be notable in the reasonable future. I, IMHO, think that speedying those articles is a good thing and, though the point of my hangon patrolling is to decline speedy noms which don't meet the CSD criteria, I frankly tend to leave the speedy noms intact on such articles knowing that they'll probably be deleted by an admin willing to stretch or misapply the G11 criteria to include them. I realize that the totally right thing to do is to decline the speedy and then nominate the article at AfD, but that's too much trouble, disruption, and bureaucracy for something that will be WP:SNOW-resolved or speedied in the AfD process. Still, wikilawyer that I am, it bothers me that we're engaging in a silent acceptance of policy violation (have we started a cabal?) in order to accomplish what is in the end a good thing. To fix this could we have a SPAM-PROD, a specialized prod like the recent one for unsourced BLP's, that says that an article about a commercial (i.e for–profit) company, product, or website can be deleted 10 days after being prodded unless it has at least "n" (insert 1 - 3) fully–reliable sources, and that the prod nom cannot be removed by the page creator? What do you think? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You say: that is they're either just a neutral description or one which is slightly spammy but which could be easily cleaned up. They're typically about companies, products, websites, etc., which are startups, which cite no reliable sources, and which appear to have no chance of being shown to be notable in the reasonable future.. I say: isn't that a clear A7, then? — Timneu22 · talk 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
True, though many of them do make credible claims of importance, e.g. the current NukeViet, and I frequently convert G11 noms to a G11/A7 nom using {{db-multiple}}, but when I do, they still usually get deleted for G11. Maybe I'm just suggesting instruction creep...? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I usually do the same, a7/g11 combos, and I guess I never pay attention to the final reason used for deletion. As long as it's gone. ;) — Timneu22 · talk 17:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I generally only do this when they are created by a spamusername, which in my opinion pushes them automatically into G11 territory, since the intention is clearly promotional and we don't want to encourage the spammers and self-promoters. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit - A7 (products) and F5 (nonfree imagery in deleted articles)

I've made a minor and hopefully non-controversial edit to A7 and F5 as follows:

  • A7 - covers organizations but not their products. A7 currently says that an article on non-notable company X can be CSD'ed but an article on non-notable company X's non-notable product Y can't be. Added "products" to A7.
  • F5 covers unused nonfree media, but requires 7 days to discuss. Non-free images only applicable to CSD'ed articles with no reasonable prospect of other valid use don't really need a 7 day discussion - if the article is invalid the image will be too (eg logo of a promotional non notable product whose article is now deleted). Added "... or immediately if the image is unlikely to have any use on any valid article (non-free images of deleted non-notable subjects)".

Hopefully not contentious. Please revert and discuss if there is a concern. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect "products" will be controversial. If I recall correctly (and I'll fish for the diffs) it has been proposed before. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Here we go: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 37#Proposal: Let products fit into A7. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, (edit conflict) just spotted that. "Books" could be regarded as a "product" of an author. But do we really need to AFD an article on a particular non-notable brand of milk? There's an issue there. But for now self reverted pending input and better wordings, as various things excluded by A7 could be seen as "products". What about ordinary commercial products, or commercial products (other than creative works)? FT2 (Talk | email) 20:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Products should really be A9 (The company is not notable and importance is not asserted = deletion) not A7. More later. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any new arguments except the old "we don't need an AFD for that!"-non-argument? Remember, CSD is not a replacement for when we don't need an AFD, it's for when AFD can't handle it. So far AFD can handle such articles just fine, so I see no reason to revisit the argument. Generally speaking I am wary of any change that transfers decision-making from the community to individual admins because it means less people to check and maybe fix it (and as such should not be done except in very strict cases). On a side note, I can also remember that edit to F5 having been discussed here before. Since you are an experienced admin, please try to avoid editing policy in a way that changes its content without discussion - especially if the proposed change has been discussed before and consensus was against it. Regards SoWhy 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the way that we treat products around here is very similar to the way that we handle songs. If the individual song/album is not notable, the article is redirected to the band/artist. If there is no band/artist to redirect to (and the band/artist can be deleted per A7), the article can be deleted per A9. Similarly, products are often redirected to the company article, and the company can be deleted per A7 if it is not individually notable. Bringing these similar processes in line would be helpful. Personally, I find that I have more potential candidates for a product A9 while new page patrolling than the current music A9. Just today I found and prodded Luster dust, which would probobly be eligible for a product A9. And an A9 would help to reduce the amount of admin decision making that SoWhy does not wish to increase, and by structuring it as an A9 would construct the criteria much more narrowly and objectively than an A7, and if an article asserts importance, there would not be concerns such as those of BlanchardB below (Saying that a product is the almost complete totality of sales of a company seems like a viable assertion of importance). While I agree that products are not flooding AfD, the amount of NN product articles seem to be significant. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks Mkativerata. After reading the past discussion I would withdraw this unless a narrowly defined type of "product" can be given where the issues given would not be not a concern. And thanks SoWhy - notice that I reverted the edit to A7 myself on spotting the issue. But on something as narrow as CSD especially, I accept the comment and agree you're right. Thanks. I'll go look up that F5 one now, but if the article is a clear case for non-existence then it's hard to see a possible rationale for its non-free logos and illustrations being capable of surviving, so I'm curious. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we inviting non-notable companies to refactor their deleted articles as product articles? Say we have Joe's Pizza, an article about a ten-year-old pizza restaurant in Muskogee. It gets speedied on the grounds that it has zero notability. Then a similar article is posted, perhaps at the same title, on the product, the unique pizza produced at the restaurant using horsemeat and a vodka-based sauce. No one has ever written anything about this product, no reviewer has touched it, and yet it now requires an AfD? bd2412 T 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Can't find any discussion of that aspect of F5. (All mentions of F5 on WT:CSD). But I think the point is a hard one to argue. If a nonfree image was uploaded purely to illustrate an article that's been validly deleted, and the image doesn't have value in any other article, then there isn't likely to be much to discuss for 7 days - nonfree images for which no article usage exists aren't kept (NFCC#7) and if its basis for keeping was itself deleted, that would probably end the question (subject to deletion review).
BD2412 - that's exactly the situation I'm thinking of. We have WP:PROD but so many of those products are no-brainers. The point that counts for me from past debates, is that in many cases, admins may not have the knowledge to judge what is a non-notable product, and may inadvertently remove stubs and articles on niche products that would be decided as notable if discussed in depth. That's the problem. Any ideas how to word it to address the one issue without problems on that one?
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
To illustrate that an article on the product should not be handled the same way as one on the company, let me give you an example from where I live. Aliments Bégin makes frozen pizzas which it sells to individual supermarkets, bypassing the usual sales pitch to the chain owners entirely. In those supermarkets where the pizzas are sold, they are at least as popular as the big brands such as McCain. But very few people notice that the company name is Bégin, and what they notice instead is the brand name, Resto Pizz. Given that the name "Resto Pizz" has a lot more notoriety than "Aliments Bégin" does (and indeed Resto Pizz alone accounts for the vast majority near totality of the company's sales), we're gonna have an article on Resto Pizz long before we have one on the company that makes the product. IMO, neither name will get a Wikipedia article any time soon, but I just wanted to illustrate that an article on the product should not be handled the same way as one on the company.
For obvious cases of editors writing articles on products just to bypass the wording of A7 (such as a minor rewrite of a recently speedied article), I say a combination of A7 and IAR applies. AfD can handle the not-so-obvious cases. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Except sometimes, people don't seem to have much common sense when it comes to this. My issues have been primarily with people being unwilling to delete how-to guides (I swear I found one that was titled something like "How to survive if different animals escape from the zoo"), but I can see that happening here. For some reason, CSD is interpreted too narrowly by some, and if it doesn't exactly fit the criteria, it will be declined- even if it's obviously unencyclopedic and doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving AfD. The Luster dust example is what I'm thinking of- there are some products that are completely non-notable, yet people aren't willing to invoke WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR even if it's obviously not going to survive AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A perfect example, didn't even bother with CSD tagging even though it obviously falls under WP:SNOW. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
A shame that how-to articles aren't CSD-able, huh? ;) — Timneu22 · talk 21:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this looks like obvious promotion (come see the site!) and mentions SiteModel.com in the first paragraph. So as such, I tagged under G11 and A7. It's pretty certainly G11, I think. — Timneu22 · talk 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully; I'd love not to have to watch it for 7 days while the PROD expires, even though it's obviously unencyclopedic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanchardb - one point to check on the pizza example. The conclusion in the example was that the product would get an article sooner than the (behind the scenes) actual manufacturer who sells them to be rebranded, if either got an article. But in a way that just confirms the addition to A7 - the manufacturer would appropriately bypass A7 if there was a claim of importance ("Bégin is a bigger seller than most of the well known brands and supplies many outlets with their own brand pizzas") and the product would appropriately bypass an amended A7 (Resto Pizz will either have a way to show from WP:RS it's notable, or a reason to suggest why it might even be important, if it lacks both then it's as least as safe a bet to delete it, as a normal A7 organization or person would be). Do we want to encourage wider invoking of IAR delete? IAR is intended to be for exceptions rather than a regular event. It suggests to me that there is a type of article we all seem to agree should be speedy deleted with CSD touching it on both sides without covering it. Maybe it's worth looking at how we might word a CSD for the job? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But your argument forgets that CSD should also be an exception rather than the regular way to delete articles and as such should be restricted as much as possible. You have argued that it's desirable to change A7 in this way but you have not demonstrated that we need to make this change. The problem seems to be that those arguing if favor of such changes see speedy deletion as a way to delete what they think should be deleted on sight rather than a way to delete articles that AFD and PROD wouldn't be able to handle. On a side note, based on the fact that such changes were not supported multiple times before, an RFC should be started if you want to pursue proposing this change. Having only a normal discussion here might not alert everybody interested. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that my statement above justifies the extension of A9, and not A7. I realize that CSD is not "default deletion," but there was valid reason for the current categories in A7 and A9 to be created, and as Wikipedia grows into a more respected medium it is normal for policy to change to adapt to the changes in content. I do realize the WP:PEREN potential here, and an RfC may be useful to bring in community input on the matter. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving talk pages to non-existent articles a chance

I'm really having doubts about the rule in G8, that talk pages with no corresponding subject page should be deleted. It is, in my opinion, the best place to note why certain articles should remain unwritten, as it is the most visible one to those who want to start the articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand this concern, but can't the text of the page just be moved to the creator's talk page? That's usually the person having the argument about deletion anyway. — Timneu22 · talk 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
They can be deleted, at the admin's discretion (like every other page). The case you have in mind is a valid one imho but rare. If there really is a need to have an explanation because the page has been created multiple times by many people and is likely to be created again, then we can still have such a talk page (or better yet a locked placeholder article). But G8 does not say that such a talk page has to be deleted. It's just as Timneu says that in 99.9% of all cases, the target audience for such a comment on the talk page is only the previous creator. Regards SoWhy 21:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, as it is not an obligation to have such talk pages deleted. With that in mind, I don't think we need to specify all the possible exceptions here either, as we can assume that every administrator has got at least some common sense. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Note that for the exceptions, there is {{G8-exempt}}. MLauba (Talk) 13:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, back to essays

Best tourist destinations of pakistan should be deleted immediately, period. This is an obvious snowfall with a title that is obviously supporting certain points of view; it is a how-to guide, with zero sources, and filled original research. For some reason, we have decided that Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not do not make an article CSDable, but at some point when an article violates so many of these, we have to delete it, right? You'll say the same arguments, I'm sure: PROD or AfD can handle it. Well AfD is an obvious snowball here and PROD is a seven-day process, do we really want to leave an article with nonfactual information (no one can prove what the best places are) around for seven days because of some policies?

Further, I will ask this question: why do we have the {{delete}} template if some admins think a CSD reason is required? Force people to use the specific CSD template then, and don't allow free-text delete templates with reasons. Again, the lack of consistency here is infuriating. I know if I found this during the week with Admin X or Admin Y, it would be deleted on sight. — Timneu22 · talk 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And note that the declining admin even declined G11. This is clearly wrong as well, since the article mentioned about three places in Packistan, thus promoting those above all other places. Horrible. Horrible. — Timneu22 · talk 22:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Really, you have somehow made it your personal crusade to change CSD because of things you think should be deleted even after people disagreed with you multiple times. There comes the time when one must accept that consensus is not in their favor. Regards SoWhy 07:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem, WhySoArrogant, is that people like you prefer to stick to policy and allow completely nonfactual articles like this, while I prefer to maintain a high-quality encyclopedia. What is gained by keeping this article on wikipedia? Your policies are upheld. Congrats. What is lost? Wikipedia looks moronic, (and in this case instructional, promotional), and amateurish. Are your policies really that important to you? Oh and another thing, this was deleted about 18 minutes after the other admin didn't delete it. So here we are with inconsistency again. It's an obvious SNOW delete that anyone can see. But who cares, let's stick to some policies! — Timneu22 · talk 10:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not quality or even deletionism here, it is about speed. Wikipedia has been criticised on many occasions for deleting stuff without due consideration. Chivvying for greater haste and describing good faith contributions as horrible is not helpful, and if your concern is not to have us perceived as amateurish then you might consider striking your WhySoArrogant comment. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the only one on this side of the argument, as I get messages on my talk pages about it frequently. The issue about speed? Well the article has no chance to be on Wikipedia for a second, much less a week. Ridiculous that it's allowed to exist because an admin says "well it doesn't meet any of the specified criteria." I ask this more general question, again: why do we have {{delete}} with a reason if some admins won't honor it?Timneu22 · talk 11:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If one looks at what the {{Delete}} template says:
"This template may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion, but no reason has been given for why it qualifies. Please ensure that your reason is based on one of the speedy deletion criteria. Replace this tag with {{db|1=some reason}}."
So it doesn't look like it has a reason at all, since it has to meet one of the criteria anyway and should be replaced with the correct tag. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 11:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well then shouldn't it be removed? — Timneu22 · talk 11:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No just make sure you use it in accordance with the instructions. As the template says {{Db|reason}} "Please ensure that your reason is based on one of the speedy deletion criteria". Remember speedy deletion is not the default process, AFD is. There are articles that should be deleted on sight and without discussion, I've done about 5,000 deletions, many of them for vandalism or attacks and quite a few within a minute of my seeing them, but if we start deleting good faith articles the second they are created there will be mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) But I'll say that {{delete}} is used lots of times with non-CSD reasons, and the admin deletes anyway. Usually in the type of case like this article, which is a clear 100% favored delete. — Timneu22 · talk 11:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Diffs please, and remember this is not about whether these articles should be deleted, its about whether they should be deleted without proper discussion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't get diffs on articles that are deleted. Further, I'll mention that in NPP I see a new page that got deleted with "pure WP:OR" as the reason. So again we have some admins willing to remove trash right away, while others aren't. — Timneu22 · talk 11:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well "pure OR" implies to me that the admin involved knew enough about the subject or the editor to make a judgement call on that article, for all we know he may already have closed AFDs on other articles by the same author. I've done similar things with hoaxes - sometimes I know an article is a blatant hoax and delete it. Sometimes I just tag it {{hoax}} so it can be properly discussed, when that happens it might last a few days or another admin might look at it and know enough about the subject to speedy delete it as a blatant hoax. The important thing to remember is that if an editor is editing in good faith we need to err on the side of caution before deleting their article - especially if they are a newbie. That's why WP:DONTBITE is such essential reading for new page patrollers. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim, I tend to agree that there are many things that we don't need to have around for seven days. Often with some essays, most admins I see working in CSD will delete G11/A10 deletions of the worst. In AfD, most are quickly pushed under the rug by admins invoking IAR or SNOW. But SoWhy does have a point that the community has not found a way to tightly word a dedicated criterion, and has rejected it citing the probability of a rewrite, and thus your constant banter on this page is not helping. Even How-tos, which I tend to agree with you about has been sufficiently rejected to make any further discussion pointless and WP:POINTy. In a nutshell: Drop it; most of this gets taken care of. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point and has nothing to do with any arrogance. Far from it. But you should really read WP:STICK because it describes the current situation perfectly. If I counted correctly, this is the fourth (or fifth) time in 3 months that you proposed such a change and complained about the current situation. But constant repetition will not change the fact that people simply don't agree with you on this and you could use your time and energy in a more productive way. Regards SoWhy 08:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise this article was being discussed here. I'm the admin that snowball-closed the AfD, and personally I think quick snow-ing of these articles via AfD is the best way to deal with them. While it's often not a great idea for admins to delete things clearly outside the speedy criteria on their own authority, I do think it's in everyone's interest to promptly trash them once several uninvolved editors have agreed at AfD. When you have an article like this one that is unsalvageably a bad POV-fork of Tourism in Pakistan all the AfD is doing is confirming that nothing obvious has been missed. I'll certainly confess to making the occasional IAR delete myself (generally under WP:NFT but in the case of any ambiguity taking it to AfD, however briefly, just lets others check that your opinion is correct.

Gogo Dodo's behaviour was quite reasonable, as far as I can see - I agree that re-adding speedy tags to an article at AfD can often be seen as crude forum-shopping. Every admin has different attitudes as to how much they're willing to "ignore rules" when it comes to speedy deletion: this is not really a weakness of Wikipedia, the very fact that admins are human and have different opinions is part of what makes the project flexible. The simple fact is that it's impossible to write a criterion that matches every bad article, and unfortunately these "crappy essay" type articles are very difficult to draw a bright line around that works as an unambiguous CSD. ~ mazca talk 09:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Any situation where "we wait for quick snow" means that "there will be quick snow" which to me means that these things should be deleted. That article should have been A10'd, but nonethelss the problems I have here are less with "how-to" and more with consistency.
  • The article was pure trash, everyone knows it, and an admin said "let's wait for snow". WTF is that? If snow is coming, just stop wasting time and kill it off.
  • What's the point of the {{delete}} template? If users are not allowed to use this template with a reason, why does it exist?
Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I for one will delete articles under IAR if the deletion is sparkingly clear, i.e., a neologism that the creator states in the text of the article was actually made up yesterday at their grammar school. {{db|Invoking WP:IAR-this is a neologism patently made up one day, as stated in the creator's deletion summary}} is a perfect use in my opinion. However, the template is also useful for explaining special circumstances where a criterion does fit. For example, I have used the db template to invoke one of the criteria but also explain that the title probably should be salted since this it is a fourth recreation. I have also seen it used by others to explain how they know that a G3 is vandalism, which may not always be clear from the text of an article but may be made so with an explanation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well in that example I'd actually just use {{db-hoax}}, which I believe is supposed to be for things made up one day. At least that's how admins treat it. Maybe that wording should reflect it? — Timneu22 · talk 13:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, db-hoax is for actual hoaxes, which the article in my example is not. You probably got that impression from the many admins who use IAR implicity but hide what they are doing behind a criterion that by its plain text is inapplicable (which I think is always the wrong thing to do). When we speedy delete page that fit none of the criteria, if ever, we should invoke IAR explicitly (always coupling that with an explanation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
But shouldn't db-hoax apply to something that is unambiguously made up? Or should there be a CSD for such a thing? — Timneu22 · talk 13:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to leave for work so I cannot give this question the analysis it calls for. Short answer: no, "hoax" has a specific meaning that does not and cannot apply to something that is not a hoax. Something made up and stated to be made up one day, is plainly not a hoax by virtue of plain definition. There should only be a CSD for it if it comes up often enough that we need a separate criterion and can draft language that is specific enough that the criterion can be objectively applied and in almost all cases will only apply to articles to which it should be applied. I have drafted proposed language for these and other NFT matters that I think works, but the issue remains of whether they come up often enough.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)
Comment - The problem is that on the one hand, a range of articles obviously will be deleted, are an embarrassment (or misinformative) while around, there isn't much doubt, and they need to be euthenized quickly. However if you don't put extremely tight limits on that, then articles that could have value will be deleted by admins who missed the point. Both kinds of error matter (keeping of bad content vs deletion of possibly good content). We do have admins who will over-delete without thought, and on a project this size it can be better to err on the side of caution, which is why CSD is tightly drawn. WP:PROD was intended to fill the gap, but does so by reducing bureaucracy and process, not by reducing time. So uncontroversial poor content is still reflected as Wikipedia output for several days, well beyond the point it would otherwise be removed. Perhaps the answer is to amend existing deletion processes as follows:

  • WP:PROD was intended to be a lightweight delete for uncontroversial pages not meeting CSD. Such pages shouldn't need 5 - 7 days. Maybe amend PROD that a quick consensus will be taken on the talk page in some manner that allows a quick communal check over a reasonable time period of (say) 24 hours, not 7 days, with recourse to DRV and notice to the creator. It's worth remembering anyone can reject the PROD in favor of AFD if needed and this is intended to be a quick route for non-contentious deletes needing a bit more (but probably not very much) scrutiny than just one admin.
  • WP:AFD is intended to ensure in depth community review. If the nominator believes it should be completely uncontroversial, maybe there should be a way to request a speedy close after no less than 48 hours (with communal eyeballs via Category:Fast AFD requests. Should we encourage rapid closes in certain cases when the result does not appear controversial?

Two quick thoughts. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If an article is being considered for deletion because of notability concerns then I see no harm and much benefit in this being a consensual 7 or 10 day process. I've seen press reports that articles are "already being considered" for deletion, and I've seen press complaints that articles are deleted too quickly. But unless something is established to be a hoax or otherwise bad faith then I'm not aware of Wikipedia being criticised for tardiness of deletion once an article has been tagged as a hoax or attack. If during a prod or an AFD it becomes clear that the article actually merits speedy deletion then in my experience it can be speedy deleted; I rarely close AFDs, but every time I've done so it has been by speedy deletion in under 7 days, and no-one has yet complained to me about one of my AFD closes. ϢereSpielChequers 11:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting images along with articles

Many times, a vandal will upload some nonsense picture and put it on his nonsense article. The nonsense article will get speedy/afd deleted, but the image often remains. My questions:

  • Is there a process by which those images are automatically deleted?
  • Should the article's deleter tag such images?
  • Are there changes in answers to those first two questions, based on if the image is here or on commons?

I've come across this a few times, and I'm curious because I'd certainly like those images to be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 12:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bots patrol nfc images that are orphaned and they get deleted in time. A deleter can manually add the orphan image tags, but its not required. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping there's a bot. Cool. — Timneu22 · talk 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking

The "clerking" proposal is going incredibly well; see the threads at WT:UAA if you're interested. As far as CSD is concerned, there are three points that stand out I think:

  • People are sometimes informally "clerking" CSD by removing CSD tags, and as long as they're doing it anyway, there should probably be at least a little bit of quality control and vetting.
  • There are only 30 active admins on en.wikipedia who registered in 2008 and only 11 (!) who registered in 2009, compared to hundreds for the previous years. This would be a good time to delegate some of the work.
  • Skim the current contents of WT:RFA (but careful, don't go blind), and imagine floating a proposal that involved a new role with a new voting procedure and new responsibilities and possibly a new userright ("see deleted contribs"), and getting enthusiastic support from a hundred different people, with no clear opposition. That's how it's going so far; I think we're on to something.

Some people have suggested a role of "CSD clerk" ... maybe that could work, but I'm concerned that it's too big a job. Even if a clerk were perfect, I could see them drawing flak if they ever tried RFA; making so many calls in so many different areas would just raise the chances of getting a bad response from a variety of voters. It might be better for clerks to target specific CSD areas where they really know what they're doing. It's been suggested that the new UAA clerking job could include CSD clerking for G3 and/or G11; copyright clerks could cover G12; G10 pages are probably a natural fit for people who work with BLP issues; etc. Thoughts? Would you guys rather have all the CSD clerking work under one "roof" so to speak, or would you rather distribute and crowd-source the process of training and vetting clerks? - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'll be discussing this at the NYC Wikiconference this month if anyone wants to join me in a presentation. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
On second thoughts, splitting it up does seem to makes a good amount of sense. sonia 22:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think there are some unanswered questions about how clerking would work in the context of CSD and frankly about what the point would be. At present regular editors can perform all activities relating to CSD other than the actual deletion. Would you propose restricting the right to remove CSD tags to admins and clerks? I think that would be a major change to the speedy deletion policy, and it would break the fundamental concept that speedy deletion is only for non-controversial deletions. Also, frankly, it would solve a problem that doesn't exist. We have a problem with too many people adding inappropriate CSD tags, not with too many people removing them. There is no "speedy deletion noticeboard" where people take CSD issues, and there never can be because of the "speedy" part. So what would be the point of clerkship in the context of CSD?I see your comment about "see deleted contribs" but I don't find that's often an issue. I am very supportive of the general idea, and I'd be personally interested in it, but I just can't see it fitting into the CSD workflow. Thparkth (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It may never happen that we get support for "seeing deleted contribs" for clerks, and I'm not aware that anyone feels strongly about it. Maybe when we've had these clerks for 6 months and we're very happy with their performance and looking for some new way to reward and empower them, we could put it on the table, but I'm just musing. Otherwise, all anyone is proposing is that clerks get to add  Clerk note: in front of a comment they make on a noticeboard; they have no powers or responsibilities. But the community vetting and approval for the job might make it easier for them to be accepted in the role by editors, admins and RFA voters.
The UAA clerking looks like a go, and G11 (and maybe G3) work of some kind has been mentioned by several people as being a natural part of the job, since we also discuss deletion at UAA as part of the general solution. They can save admins' time by competently tagging, by changing bad tags in the contribs of users reported to UAA, and by communicating what they know to taggers and users in cases where admins would otherwise have to do it. The reason I'm bringing up "CSD clerking" is, if these guys have already got the training, oversight, motivation and support to do this stuff, and if they've got time to do more than just what comes up at UAA, why not throw the CAT:SPAM queue into the job description? I'm happy to leave this decision to CSD people, but it makes sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Thparkth on this... simply no need. +Dank, I think we can work on this (RfA). I'll message you on your talk. Netalarmtalk 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to bureaucratize CSD any more than it's already been done. It's by far one of the most vocal and dogmatic contingents at RfA, and other policy related areas, largely by people that also dominate discussions at the CSD pages. While restricting CSD nom removals appears on face to be a pro-deletion standpoint, I seriously doubt it would have that effect given this proposal. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, nothing would be restricted to clerks; no one has suggested that. All clerks get to do is add {{clerknote}} to their posts on noticeboards. I hear that you're concerned about the "politics"; and yeah, if clerks are helpers, I guess that means whoever they're helping will have greater ability to get work done, which probably translates into more influence at RFA, if that's what they're interested in. And sure, that could be a good thing or a bad thing, we'll see. But that kind of thinking has been absent so far in discussions at WT:UAA; people are thinking about how to get the work done, not about the politics. - Dank (push to talk) 12:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction to the clerking idea was that this could lead to creep. But on further thought I think there is a real need for this. We do get a lot of speedy deletion errors, and often by the time an admin looks at an overhasty or incorrect tag the bitten newbie is long gone. We also get a string of RFA candidates whose speedy deletion errors don't surface until they run at RFA - I suspect part of this is that people don't necessarily watchlist articles they've tagged, part that they can't see what has been deleted (though I think they can see the deletion reason), so unless an admin drops them a note they probably won't know that an A7 they tagged was deleted as G10 etc. So I think a clerking system would be helpful - but remember that communicating with taggers when their tags were incorrect is as important as correcting incorrect tags. We also need a bit of tolerance where things are fuzzy - so some A7 / BLPprod marginals could go one way or the other depending on who tags them. As for focussing on particular types of speedy deletion, I've no objection to clerks who choose to do this, but I wouldn't straightjacket the system that way. ϢereSpielChequers 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As Dank has stated "they (clerks) have no powers or responsibilities", and all they can do is use the clerk template. If they are just the same as regular users, then there's no need to let them use a special template that will most likely give other users the impression that they are in a position of power. Sure we get CSD errors, but they can be fixed by anyone that comes alone or patrols CSD taggings. There is no need to create a special group of people just to clerk CSD. As Wikipedia should be open to anyone to edit, there is no need to create special groups of unneeded users. Netalarmtalk 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Applicability of F4 to fair-use files

Is F4 applicable to fair-use files (assuming that the fair-use is correct, rationale provided, etc.)? That is, if a copyright owner is unknown and the copyright status is unknown but possibly still under copyright, and an image is used with a fair-use claim, can the image be speedy-deleted for lack of licensing information or similar reason? Please take a look specifically at File:KaestnerErich.jpg, which I argue is not replaceable because the subject has been dead since 1974, and is used only on the article about Mr. Kaestner and there under a fair-use claim. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think F4 applies here. It has the necessary licensing information: That it's copyrighted. To whom it's copyrighted is not relevant if fair use is correctly claimed, since there are no differences based on original author. There was a source originally and even if it's dead now does not change this. Even if one were to argue that F4 applied, it's imho too complicated for speedy deletion and should be handled at WP:FFD instead. Regards SoWhy 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There appears to be licensing information there even though the author's unknown. The use justification is what's relevant and that appears to be in place. Shadowjams (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying G11

I've noticed more frequent confusion among unfamiliar editors about criterion G11, concerning advertising and promotion. The issue concerns the degree to which an article might be considered spam such that it can be speedy deleted. Consider, for example, an article that states, "Splorf Park is a shopping mall located in downtown Splorf, consisting of 200 stores and eateries, a playground and amusement park, a waterslide, and six panda bears." On the one hand, this article might have the effect of promoting the shopping mall to a reader. On the other hand, it's written with a neutral point of view, only providing factual information. I think this is an example of an article for which speedy deletion would be inappropriate (not to the exclusion of AfD, of course).

The more critical issue is that the language used in criterion G11 is inconsistent with the article spam policy. (G11 can be applied to any namespace, of course, but essentially, WP:ARTSPAM, which is a section of WP:SPAM, is the relevant policy, because spam in other namespaces is usually inappropriate or appropriate for other reasons. It is the inconsistency issue that I think will render these changes relatively uncontroversial.

G11 currently states:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

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 does not qualify an article for this criterion.

The description of the criterion is insufficient to effectively inform editors what "unambiguous" means. I propose this amendment:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Pages that consist entirely of blatant, biased promotion or advertisement of the subject, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Simply having a business, product, service, or event as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

Here is an itemization of the substantive changes:

  • Change "are exclusively" to "consist entirely" - Articles on WIkipedia aren't truly exclusive. They reflect only their present state. Exclusivity implies a present restriction, whereas "consist entirely" implies a present state.
  • Add "blatant" - "Blatant" comes right out of WP:ARTSPAM: "Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted...." "Blatant" is used every time speedy deletion is mentioned there (occurs twice). If blatant is the standard, the criterion should reflect it.
  • Add "biased" - This is a substantive addition I offer on my own. I think the nature of spam is that it is always biased, as in not WP:NPOV, and I think that's the most effective basis by which an editor can determine whether an article is actually spam. I think this should be the focus of the explanation of the criterion. (WP:ARTSPAM explains that the way to negate spam is to apply WP:NPOV, but doesn't indicate that it's also the way to identify spam. Probably worth improving.)
  • Change "company or product" to "business, product, service, or event" - WP:ARTSPAM already uses business, product, and service. All I've added is "event", because I think it's also instructive. "Business" is the relevant word, because "company" is a narrower term (refers to the organization of a business) and its narrow meaning isn't relevant for this purpose.
  • Added "advertisement" - It's present in the title, but not in the explanation, for unknown reason.

I appreciate your comments. --Bsherr (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the main change, from "are exclusively promotional" to "consist entirely of blatant, biased promotion or advertisement of the subject". Too strong. It's true that some taggers tend to put db-g11 on articles that are quite neutrally worded and not promotional, but I think the answer to that is education, pointing out to them that A7 would have been better; on the other hand there are many articles that fit the first definition, and ought to go, but are not so extreme as to be covered by the second. We have a lot of trouble with marketing types who cannot understand that posting a long list of their company's aims, mission statements, products, achievements etc. in a public place is still promotion, even if the worst peacock words have been taken out; they could reasonably say that their offerings did not fit the proposed definition. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
How would you propose making it consistent with WP:ARTSPAM? --Bsherr (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see it improving anything. Most of the G11 tags I see are good ones. When they're not, I'll just decline the speedy. If someone seems to be making a lot of bad G11 nominations (or bad nominations of any type, for that matter), I'll probably drop them a note explaining the problem. The "article" example in your first post isn't eligible for G11 under its current or your proposed wording either one, so the problem there is not the wording, but that someone didn't read it. In that case, just a quick note that "Hey, that's an A7, not a G11" is the best approach. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As a quick matter of curiosity, I just took a quick look through CAT:SPAM. There were two speedy tags in it, both of which were unquestionably correct. Both of them were also for pages created by editors with the same name as the company they were shilling for, leading to two spam name blocks as well. That's not at all unusual for G11 tagging—most people do a pretty good job of it, and most of the time, it's unequivocally, undoubtedly spam. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to narrow the issues a bit to guide the discussion. WP:ARTSPAM says speedy delete if blatant, and since April 2009, WP:CSD has replaced blatant with unambiguous. There cannot be two standards for the same thing. Which should be kept, and which should be changed? Likewise with business/company. (Then we can address whether NPOV should be part of it.) --Bsherr (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Those things are synonyms, as far as I can tell. What's the difference between something that's blatant and something that's unambiguous, or between a business and a company? Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To me, blatant and unambiguous are the same, but that must not be true, because editors in April 2009 changed blatant to unambiguous, so they must have had a reason to differentiate. I don't mind which, but is there any benefit to using one term on this page and another on the other page? For business/company, all companies are businesses, but not all businesses are companies. Company refers to the organization of a business into a particular type of entity. --Bsherr (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Another way of inquiring. Would this change be controversial?

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promoting.

Pages that consist entirely of unambiguous advertising or promoting of the subject, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Simply having a business, product, service, or event as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.
--Bsherr (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I just don't see the reason for the change. "pages that consist entirely of unambiguous advertising or promoting of the subject" to me has precisely the same meaning as "pages that are exclusively promotional" but uses seven more words to say it. We're writing guidelines here, not legal documents - as far as I can see G11 and WP:ARTSPAM are sufficiently consistent with each other. I honestly don't think it matters if the wording is marginally different as long as the meaning is the same. ~ mazca talk 11:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree with premise - I think the nature of spam is that it is always biased - I don't agree. A huge proportion of spam is quite reasonable or neutral on the topic. It's just spam and promotion. Spam and promotion is about mentioning, writing articles, adding links and references, to get attention to the topic (your product, band, book, beliefs, etc). Nothing in that definition requires the added material to be grossly biased (more than most articles) and while it can be biased my experience is that promotional "spam" content as often is not. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I was only basing that premise on the Wikipedia guidelines, WPARTSPAM, "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." Spam + NPOV = Not spam. Therefore, Spam = not spam - NPOV. Can you identify where your definition is from? --Bsherr (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • But even if we were to ignore that suggestion, do you take issue with changing company to business, or keeping the sentence in parallel form for grammar? --Bsherr (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A9

I seem to remember this saying something about and whose band's article is tagged for deletion. No it doesn't. How shall I proceed? Dlohcierekim 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff just a few minutes after the criteria was created. The only discussion I found was a quote in archive 31 "Me late here, but I think the band's article should not just be tagged before the album is deleted, but already be deleted itself. So i'd drop the five words at the end as already hinted at by Stifle. Common sense says that people could still tag the album together with the band.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)" Though the comment makes little sense to me. The only thing I can think of is making sure that the band article is deleted first, though being able to tag them all at once would be helpful. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox only

We should modify A1 or A3 to include articles that include only an infobox. I see this often. I think I usually put these under A1, but I'm not sure. First, which way should it go, and second, should we modify the appropriate reason? — Timneu22 · talk 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the infobox contains enough information to see where an article is going. Most of the cases I've seen have infoboxes containing just enough information that the article qualifies as a valid stub. The rest are already speedable under A1/A3 without need to modify the wording of the criteria. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 02:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Often new editors create an infobox because they think it's a valid article content and usually instead of deleting the article, you can write a short sentence about the subject based on that information. Why should we want to delete them then if they can be fixed easily? Regards SoWhy 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A3

Does this include infoboxes? Should I tag an article that only consists of an infobox? Thanks, Nolelover 01:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The criterion is this: if all the information that's inside the infobox were to be carried outside of it, would the article still be eligible for A3? If not, then A3 doesn't apply. Really, the infobox is to be considered an integral part of the article. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 02:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, cause I just tagged "MLS All-Star 1997" which was nothing but an infobox with the final score of the game. It was deleted, but in the future I'll try to use that reasoning. Nolelover 15:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

R3 and page moves

In the wording of criterion R3, I see no explicit mention that the criterion applies to redirects created as a result of a page move (e.g. "Create a new article"). Yet the criterion is often invoked in such situations. Would it help to add that mention to the criterion's wording? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 02:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It only applies if the page is moved from a title that, by means of then becoming a redirect after a move, becomes an implausible redirect. So, after a page move, if the remaining redirect meets the R3 criterion, it's eligible for speedy deletion. I think it's probably clear enough as it is for people to reason its use following a page move, but if you have language in mind, I, for one, would be pleased to see it. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How about this:

Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages. This criterion also applies to redirects created as a result of a page move of an implausible title. However, it does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects.

-- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it could apply to an article converted into a redirect. Consider this hypothetical situation. An article about the banana exists at "Banana". Another article about the banana is subsequently created at "Banana (yellow Australian fruit)". An editor quickly discovers the duplicate article, determines that it's a substantial duplication of what already exists at "Banana", and redirects the page, without considering whether the redirect is valuable. Another editor comes along later and rightly identifies the redirect as an implausible misnomer (because the parenthetical is not required by the naming convention here, and it's, frankly, bizarre). I expect R3 should apply to that situation, no? --Bsherr (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
You can mark those as A10 if you want to. Recent consensus is to just get rid of such things. Gavia immer (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, undoubtably, when it was an article, it could have been tagged A10. But when it became a redirect, R3 became the appropriate criterion. --Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Then I take it you're saying that the phrase, does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects, which is currently part of the criterion's description, should go. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 04:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes! Pardon me, your proposed text is fine with me. Just thinking out loud, while we're on the subject. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the reason it was put in is because of this situation, which I recently saw. 2 Bad is a Michael Jackson single, which was redirected to the article on the album, HIStory. Now obviously, 2 Bad would be an implausible misnomer for HIStory, and I think that last sentence of R3 was intended to apply to this situation. But I think it should be restated so as not to implicate the Banana hypothetical above. Right? --Bsherr (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

G5

David Drake (chef) was created a month ago by a user who has now found to be created by a ban-evading sockpuppet. The article has now been tagged as a G5. How should this be dealt with? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several others, see [1] Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The G5 criterion, while pretty clear, is not an end-all argument. The banned user created this article while banned, and there are no substantial contributions by others. If you feel that the article may not survive a deletion discussion, you may go ahead and delete it. IMO the article has adequate sources and will probably be recreated by someone else, possibly in worse shape than what we currently have, so I'd keep it.
G5 simply allows one to skip defaulting to WP:AGF when dealing with confirmed banned users. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I'd say this rationale for removing the G5 tag is invalid in this case. There were edits by others, but none of them amounted to more than simply adding maintenance tags and reformatting. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I considered an edit in which another user categorized the article to be substantial (i.e. valuable), though I suppose reasonable people can disagree about whose edits are valuable. --Bsherr (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
With the exception of CopyVios and Attack pages, just about all of the CSD criteria, IMHO, are optional. EG just because a CSD criteria could be used, doesn't mean it has to be used. Now some of the others (for example Blatant Vandalism/Gibberish) there aren't many times that I'd see keeping them, but the others can call upon admin discretion. An article created by a banned user, that is a quality article (verifiable and notable and well written) might fall into that category. I know that others will argue, delete anything and everything done by a banned user. But I wouldn't.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Protect this page?

Should this page be semi protected for autoconfirmed users? — Timneu22 · talk 14:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be protected? Going back 250 edits to 19 July 2010 I see one revert. It does not get vandalised very often. I see no reason for it to be protected. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Protection is for severe, not sporadic problems. Wikipedia is called "the encyclopedia everyone can edit" after all (even if it's not completely true anymore, let's try to keep it that way as much as possible ;-)). Regards SoWhy 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is on the watchlist of so many established users that the amount of vandalism seen lately is quite manageable, and, should a vandalism spree occur, blocking the offending users sounds like a better solution than protecting the page. After all, this is where requests for CSD amendments are proposed and discussed. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A5 clarification

Does A5 cover news articles that are already covered on Wikinews and, if no, should it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Only if it was transwiki'ed as the outcome of an AFD. I think the restriction to WQuote and WSource makes sense, those are pretty straight forwarded but people usually need an AFD to reach consensus whether something only consists of material violating WP:NOTNEWS. Regards SoWhy 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion cleanup

I have been noticing more cases where admins appear to be deleting links to all articles that were linked to something that was speedy deleted. While it may be difficult to determine if a subject is notable, deleting links just because of an extremely bad article is not appropriate. I might delete links created by the creator of the bad article, but to delete old links is in my mind simply wrong. This has other interesting effects when the deleting of these links causes articles to be removed from dab pages. Do we need to reword the process to make it clearer that deleting the article does not mean you must delete all of the links? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK is the only relevant guideline imho - it's irrelevant whether the article was speedy deleted or deleted as a result of an AFD. So I think you should notify admins acting like this that they should not delete red links to subjects where articles could be created. OTOH, I won't argue against deletion of old red links in general. If there is no way that the article can be created, there is no point of having such links. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to enforce the CSD#C1 4 day requirement?

I've just found out that the CSD#C1 requirement of waiting 4 days is impossible to do at the moment as mediawiki doesn't show when a category was emptied. Why is that requirement there? Should editors be not allowed to place a C1 on a non-empty cat, to make it 4 days from when the C1 tag is placed on the now-empty cat? Should a bot scan for and remove C1s on non-empty cats to ensure that the 4 days is maintained? Or should the 4 day requirement get thrown out the window and allow empty cats to be CSD'd with immediate impact? The-Pope (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you may nominate an empty category for deletion any time. If, 4 days after nomination, the category is still empty, that means any article that was listed into it in the mean time has been quickly delisted and doesn't belong there, and it can safely be assumed that the category has indeed remained empty all this time. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually this was fixed a while ago do the a large number of out of process deletions. {{db-c1}} is now a smart template. The category is put in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for 4 days before being moved to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. So I don't think there is a concern for nominated categories. If an admin deletes one that is not tagged, then we still have a concern. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info, but can someone look into how Category:Minor Counties cricketers was deleted under CSD C1 on the 5th, but pages were only moved to Category:Minor counties cricketers on the 4th Sept? When was the cat tagged with CSD#C1?The-Pope (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

G4 clarification

Section previously named Clarification

I don't know how often this comes up but an odd situation recently arose regarding the speedy deletion of Category:RiffTrax films. The category was originally kept at a CFD closed June 1 2007 under the name "RiffTrax movies". It was then deleted at a CFD closed December 2 2007. The category was re-created under the current name September 2 and nominated for deletion again. I tagged it for speedy deletion G4, recreation of deleted material. It was deleted and then restored. The basis for the restoration was this sentence from the policy page: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." I interpret that to mean that someone who disagrees with the result of an XfD "keep" result can't then go and tag the item for speedy deletion. However, the user who reversed the deletion interprets it to mean that any XfD survival forever prohibits speedy deletion, no matter what happens subsequently, including a deletion through XfD.

This strikes me as a completely unworkable interpretation. If this interpretation is correct it empowers individual editors to override consensus at will and ignore the fact that consensus can change. Category structures are frequently re-examined after they are initially kept and consensus changes. A notable example of this is the consensus-building process that took place around categories for actors by TV series appearance. Many of them were nominated individually and kept, only to be deleted after a very long and very thorough discussion of the complete structure. It makes no sense to interpret CSD to allow for re-creation of those categories and force another 7-day discussion on them.

I would like to suggest that the above-quoted sentence be understood to allow for speedy deletion of previously deleted material even if it survived a deletion discussion before being deleted. In the alternative I suggest modifying the sentence to say so explicitly, for example "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations or material that has been deleted through a subsequent deletion discussion." In any case it should be noted that the sentence reads "should not" and not "may not" or "shall not" and so is not an absolute prohibition. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed modification to speedy deletion criteria. If there's a difference of opinion and a piece of previously deleted (and previously XfD retained, regardless of the ordering) is brought to a subsequent discussion rather than being G4'ed, it will be another chance to review consensus. If there are repeated recreations of material against consensus, then it might well be appropriate that the title be SALT'ed and an editor proposing recreation be required to seek consensus before amending that status. Speedy deletion criteria are intended to be restricted to things where no uninvolved, good faith editor would disagree with the outcome. If the content has previously survived a deletion discussion, then it's clear that someone disagreed in good faith, else the content would never have survived such a deletion discussion in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If a page is deleted through XfD after surviving a previous XfD it should be understood that consensus regarding the page has changed. XfDs are usually not unanimous so declaring that speedy deletion should be disallowed on the basis that a good faith editor would disagree with it hamstrings the process. Most content eligible for speedy deletion is created in good faith and presumably its creator would disagree with its deletion. There is a process for "reviewing consensus" on previously deleted material. It's called deletion review. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Consensus change goes both ways: that which has been deleted in one XfD can be sustained in a future AfD, but allowing G4 of such content forecloses such discussions. As a regular participant in DRV, I can attest that it is a poor place to debate the merits of keeping or excluding content, as it is specifically designed to gauge whether the previous close accurately interpreted rough consensus, and it loudly proclaims that it is not "AfD round two". AfD round two is... AfD again. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
So a page is kept at XfD1 and deleted at XfD2 six months later. It's re-created a day after deletion and it has to go through a third XfD because consensus might have changed in the last 24 hours? And when XfD3 is closed a week later and some willfull editor re-creates it a day later, we have to have XfD4? Ridiculous. I'm sorry you've had such trials at DRV but I've seen plenty of discussions there that don't center around the "AfD round two" point. Those that do tend to be those in which the nominator simply posts hir disagreement with the outcome rather than explaining why the close was in error. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe declining or overturning the speedy was correct. If an article, or anything else, was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion and is recreated in the exact same form it can and should be deleted as a recreation of previously deleted material. It's a rather odd interpretation of policy to say that this is not so. However, this seems to be an isolated incident and not a widespread problem so I don't see any pressing need to change policy. It might be a better use of your time to have a discussion about this one specific case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
What this policy says: If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.
What this policy does not say: If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.
You're welcome to think that's a "rather odd interpretation of policy", but it simply happens to be stated in black and white. Like any other policy, it can be changed by consensus, but as I've pointed out, it actually makes perfect sense, since consensus can change. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
As you pointed out, the language reflects a general ("should not") outcome, rather than a mandate ("must not"). In that specific case, it really depends on what's happened. Has the editor made an actual good-faith effort to address the problems at the AfD2? If not, the edit is disruptive, since the proper venue for immediately contesting an AfD closure is DRV. If the article HAS been improved and there is disagreement about whether or not the improvements were sufficient, then another AfD is appropriate, and that AfD can appropriately judge the necessity for SALT'ing the title if the edit is disruptive, and there's nothing that prevents a SNOW close in case one or two editors are clearly editing against consensus. G4 is not a tool to foreclose an ongoing discussion, however, which is how it was used in this specific case. In every case, an ongoing XfD discussion takes precedence over G4--snowballing an XfD and a G4 may look substantially similar, but the difference is one of deference to community input: SNOW takes a number of editors, historically about six, and G4 takes one admin. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to understand a bit more about the restoring admin's reasoning. Cow of Pain, could you ask that admin whether he or she would be willing to talk with us here about it? As Beeblebrox said, it could be an isolated incident, but it could also be a fundamental vagueness that we're not seeing. --Bsherr (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? that G4 should consider only the most recent deletion discussion result. User:Jclemens, who has responded already, overturned the RiffTrax G4. He also wrote "Note that technically, all the G4s for this content were improper, since it survived AfD once here, even though it was later deleted in a second AfD." at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 31 when closing Samuel Galindo. I disagree with Jclemens's application in these two instances, but I see how it is supported by the quoted sentence. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New criteria for existing bands and living persons without a license

I'd like to propose a new addition to files (F12) for bands which are still together and living persons. It sounds very specific, but in fact the following encompasses a very large amount of cases:

F12 Copyrighted images without a license

An image that:

  • Is primarily of one at least one living person, bands that is still together, or building that is still standing and
  • Is not primarily of at least one person who is no longer living, band who is no longer together, or building that is no longer are still standing and
  • Is uploaded with no license (A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned) and
  • Is known to have a non-free copyright and
  • Is tagged with {{subst:[insert future template]}} may be deleted after one day.

This does not include images uploaded with a licensed, used under a claim of fair use, or images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license. This includes most images from stock photo libraries such as Getty Images or Corbis. (borrowed heavily from F9, including this to satisfy cc-by-sa :))

The reason I include this is that an absolutely huge amount of n00bs upload files of their favorite stars (or sometimes, buildings in their city) from the first image they find on Google. These images are copyrighted, and we will never be able to include them, no matter what license they use, to demonstrate the appearance of the main subject due to WP:NFCC#1. It simply seems quite process-wonky of us that if the uploader puts a {{pd-self}} tag on it, we can delete it immediately, where as of the uploader doesn't include a tag, we cannot delete it immediately. Why should we have to wait 7 days to delete this file (note: it was accidentally mistagged by me due to this)?

The only reason I include the one day wait is in the off chance that someone had a valid fair use claim (e.g., a historical event) and simply forgot to include both the license and the rationale. However, the possibility that someone who is so unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia's interface is extraordinarily unlikely to be familiar enough with our policies to know how to properly apply fair use in such a situation; it's probably just as likely that someone would accidentally click pd-self when meaning to choose fair use (and even this is immediately deletable under F9).

I've tried to craft this to be as uncontroversial as possible; but more importantly I've tried to craft it to be as least disruptive to the project as possible, and the most useful in getting rid of the unnecessary process of keeping those copyrighted images on the servers for 7 days. I find it no more likely to cause accidentally deleted valid files than F9 or F10.

Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking "why not just modify F3 to cover "Files uploaded without a license or with a clearly incorrect license, where the image is uncontroversially copyright under a non-free license". The problem is, how do you know if that non-free upload is going to be used under a non-free/fair use rationale? So it's unclear if speedy delete on sight is sensible, you just don't know.
Possible solutions - 1/ a shorter "prod" (48 hrs notice to remove or provide a fair use rationale). 2/ add criteria to cover the main cases where we can be fairly sure no fair use intention or claim will exist.
FT2 (Talk | email) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think a small amendment to F9 would cover this off. The first sentence of F9 is currently

Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case.

Replace this with

Images (or other media files) which violate a copyright and have no plausible claim of a free license or fair use.

and I think we are done — "no plausible claim" includes "no claim" and "an implausible claim". Stifle (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a question on wording - no plausible claim means what? Ok, I mean I know what it means but in this regaurd, if I am reading the correct, if an image is uploaded and it is an obvious copyvio you could use G12 *or* you could use F9. (Now I know someone will say that G12 is for text, and a slight old timer like me knows it does, but it is explained that all of the "general" CSD's can be used for all namespaces and thusly applies to files, etc - but back to F9) So now my question is (and I know this has been raised over and over again) that if we know it is a Unambiguous copyright infringement why do we need to also know the license on the image contains no plausible claim of a free license or fair use? This is akin to my old discussion here about adding a new criteria, or rewording this one, because F9 states This does not include images used under a claim of fair use which, if a FUR is slapped on, negats any copyvio CSD. So this new wording somewhat reads better, but I think you would have to either remove the line about images with a FUR not being able to be tagged as a copyvio or remove the section in the proposed wording that says no plausible claim...of fair use. P.S - I'm in favor of the new wording provided the issue with fair use is clarified because it would apply to an image such as File:The Doors band members.jpg, which is a copyvio from Getty Images (The Doors band members), which if tagged CSD F9 it would be declined because it has a FUR attached. (This is just a P.S - I never knew about this image: File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg. It was an image upped with a FUR attached and was deleted a few times before Jimbo himself deleted it as a copyvio. Just food for thought) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Read the first word of G12 :) Stifle (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Unambiguous What does that have to do with what Jimbo did? Or are you saying he used the wrong CSD? PS - to be fair, when he used (and others) used G12 it read Blatant copyright infringement which meets these parameters: and used the words "Material" and "content" as well as the phrase "for images: no assertion aside from tags" (General criteria - March 2007). There was no specific image copyvio tag at the time. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I see whatsoever in this cropping up is if someone uploads an image, and forgets to put a license on it, and it's deleted before the user gets a chance to fix it. I'm not quite sure how we'd address that, and I'm also not sure it's that big of a deal anyway - WP:CSD#A1 suffers from a similar problem. As for Soundvisions' objection, I'll have to think on it a bit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have an objection to Stifles wording as much as I think it ought to be clarified in regards to what a non-free copyvio would be (ie. - an image of a living person taken from AP that is tagged with a FUR). As for the question of an image being uploaded with no license, it is fairly common to tag the image with a {{Di-no license}} and notify the uploader. The tag allows the uploader one week for a license to be applied before deletion. On the other hand if the image is a blatant copyvio, or marked as "non commercial only" or "with permission only", there is no one week grace period. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

pd-ineligible should be exempt

I noticed a few speedy deletion tags on images that are {{pd-ineligible}} (due to a design too simple to attract copyright protection). Does Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion make it clear enough that adding speedy deletion tags to such images is against consensus? -84user (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The page says that a page can only be speedy deleted if it meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion. No F-criterion meets images that are ineligible for copyright. So what's to make clearer? Can you name those files you noticed this on? Regards SoWhy 19:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not wish to embarrass the user that has added tags to such images; I suspect they are not looking at the image page description or maybe the Wikipedia:Twinkle script being used is not noticing the {{pd-ineligible}}. File:Triangle-blue.svg is one example that I have just reverted a second time (with AGF). -84user (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that example does show that this user, in this case, deliberately tagged the page incorrectly twice, either because they did not check the history or because they have an incorrect interpretation of the criteria. If you notice people doing so, leave them a message on their talk page and ask them not to use {{subst:nsd}} for such images, even if they are lacking a source, because it incorrectly places them in CAT:SD. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Money image- derivative work

File:1000 dollar bill-1995-.jpg is a recent upload - uploader says is' a fake redesign of $1000 bill. Not sure if this meets anything CSD-able, if not should it also be tagged with something like {{Non-free currency}}. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Imho not straightforward enough for a CSD. If you think it should be deleted, it's probably something that should be discussed at WP:FFD. Regards SoWhy 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Could someone check the (deleted) images of File:Series1996$100usnote.jpg and File:Cleveland bill.jpg to compare to this one. I see they were both speedied as copyvios. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't US currency PD? Per File:USDnotes.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In Canada, reproducing currency or the likeness thereof may be regarded as a criminal act. The best way to protect oneself against prosecution is by writing the word "SPECIMEN" across the image, as done here. I'm wondering whether the US has similar laws. Should that be the case, the image may be speedied as illegal reproductions, and criterion G9 could be invoked as well. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 07:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just a few things. The image is question was deleted and is now restored - don't know the full story behind that other than uploader saying it was fake. I did some searching and found that as of July 14, 1969 the thousand dollar bill is no longer in circulation. And typically you do see the word "SPECIMEN" on images. See images of the 5 dollar bill and the 50 dollar bill on the secret service website. Now as for the rest - here is what I found:

The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided:

  • The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated
  • The illustration is one-sided
  • All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use

Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made. This policy permits the use of currency reproductions in commercial advertisements, provided they conform to the size and color restrictions.

Motion picture films, microfilms, videotapes, and slides of paper currency, securities, and other obligations may be made in color or black and white for projection or telecasting. No prints may be made from these unless they conform to the size and color restrictions.

Printed reproductions, including photographs of paper currency, checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps, and securities of the United States and foreign governments (except under the conditions previously listed) are violations of Title 18, Section 474 of the United States Code. Violations are punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both.

So there is that - still not 100% if simply stating that an image is fake and that "I created this work entirely by MYSELF" is acceptable when the image appears legit. In this case how many people have ever seen a real thousand dollar bill? More so if they have been out of circulation since 1969. If it was obvious like Bart, Fred or One million pigs I don't think there would be much of a discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it, then restored it per this discussion, has the uploader been informed about this thread? Also does it make a difference if the bill is out of circulation? I'm assuming that the Feds are concerned about forgery, which isn't such a concern if the bill is no longer legal tender. ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
When money has stopped being printed it is still valid for face value at banks and stores. The link that is provided above (out of circulation) even states: While these notes are legal tender and may still be found in circulation today, the Federal Reserve Banks remove them from circulation and destroy them as they are received. The collectors market for them may make them more valuable than their face value, which may mean people who have them are less likely to "spend" them, but could also make for discussion in regards to counterfeit money. IMO more so because most people have never seen one - as I said the image looks like a real bill, it is based on the real bill, if it were to be printed people could think it was a real bill. That is a part of my concern in this case. Do a quick visual compare of File:1000 dollar bill-1995-.jpg to real money - File:1963 dollar.jpg, File:New five dollar bill.jpg and File:US_$50_Series_1996_Obverse.jpg - to see my concern. If it looked like One million pigs it is clearly not real. Also I just discovered we have {{PD-USGov-money}} which actually mentions the Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992 in a collapsed form, though the size/reproduction restrictions are being ignored in some cases. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
OK that's different, I'm pretty sure that in the UK various old designs of money are no longer legal tender, but if old designs are still legally money in the US and accepted in shops I can see there is more chance of forgery . So I see your concern, we might need to delete these, but as SoWhy explained above this isn't a matter for speedy deletion. If the discussions at WP:FFD become so clear that there is consensus for a speedy deletion criteria then by all means raise this here again. But the issue for speedy deletion is not Should x be deleted? the issue for the speedy deletion process is Can we be sure that all deletions of this type will be so uncontentious that a new or modified speedy deletion criteria would be appropriate? ϢereSpielChequers 17:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just though this was interesting: dif - this image placed into the Large denominations of United States currency and described as "Counterfeit". (Oddly Fake denominations of United States currency contains no images) Not sure if the I.P is also the uploader. To answer the question - I was thinking the same thing in regards to a CSD that would apply to a legal issue other than copyvio. I hadn't thought of it before, but in the past if there are legal-ish text edits made they are reverted or removed from the article or userspace. But what if it were an image of, say, child porn? Or, is this case, a usable image of a "fake" bill that could be used for counterfeiting? And that is a good question - that all deletions of this type will be so uncontentious. There are discussions all the time about not being censored but at what point do legal concerns (Such as a copvio) overrule that? As for this image - as there does not seem to be any current speedy that it would fall under I suspect it should be sent to IfD, perhaps citing the legal side of it as reason for deletion. I am welcome to thoughts from others either way. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump discussions on notability of religious figureheads

I've posted a query at theVillage Pump on whether -- while considering an article tagged with a csd A7 -- the claim of being a Hindu saint should be always considered equivalent to being a claim of notability. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well notability isn't really our concern at speedy deletion. But I would say that like being a professor or a bishop asserting someone is a saint in any religion is an assertion of importance, and you need to use prod or AFD if you think they are not notable. If you know that a particular sect or religion regards all its adherents as saints then I guess A7 would apply, but you'd need to point that out in the tag. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD candidates with bad titles

In general, should articles which have been nominated for CSD, with or without a subsequent hangon addition, be moved with the CSD and hangon tags intact while pending administrator review if they have a bad title? For example, an article entitled "Doe, John" is A7 nom'ed and hangoned. Should it be moved to "John Doe"? (I'm not talking about, BTW, the A10 situation where "John Doe" already exists and the redirect would be in lieu of deletion.) My inclination is not to move them, as to do so would just leave a redirect to be cleaned up in addition to the article. What do you think? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that if the article is appropriate for CSD deletion, there's no point in doing any cosmetic tidy-up on it including fixing the title. On the other hand if it's inappropriate, I would remove the CSD tag then make the changes. Thparkth (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely; if it's CSD then its title is usually not relevant. For PROD, I'll generally move to the correct title, but not for CSD. I think not for AfD either, but I'm not sure what I normally do there. — Timneu22 · talk 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How about junk like Cow:? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's db-r3. Implausible typo. — Timneu22 · talk 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but the paragraph about R3 specifies a recent redirect. The edit history of Cow: shows several editors trying to make this pesky one go away. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops, too late. Now it is gone. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This is something I remember fighting for a few years back.. for "recent" to stay out of that criterion. Why does it have to be recent?? - filelakeshoe 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Because there are (were?) ancient CamelCase redirects floating around, leftovers from the days before MediaWiki. The "recent" is (was?) to block those from being speedied under this criteria. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would leave a name change to the discretion of the reviewing admin, who can and should move it if they decide it doesn't merit speedy, but there's no reason it couldn't be done earlier. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I very much appreciate it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • One advantage of moving is that it can de-orphan an article, which can in turn make a big difference to rescuing it, alternatively trying to move it can show that a referenced article on that subject exists and rather than speedy it you can just turn the article into a redirect. So for goodfaith speedies such as A7s I'd recommend it. But for attack pages and "She's our prom queen and totaaly awesome" type A7s that assert unimportance then I wouldn't bother. ϢereSpielChequers 13:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposing the removal of G5.

F2 clarification with regards to Commons images

Currently F2 states "...This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." Looking back at the discussion that preceded this addition back in 2006, it seems that the original intention was to allow the deletion of all file pages for any Commons image to be speedied. In fact, this already seems standard practice, so I'd like to see if there's any consensus to removing the "empty (i.e., no content)" wording from F2. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Professors

I appreciate that not all professors are notable, and I don't know what proportion would survive AFD. But am I out of line in regarding being or having been a professor as being an assertion of importance? Yes this is based on a real example and a discussion elsewhere, but I'm not linking to that as I want to raise the principle not the example. ϢereSpielChequers 08:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Here in Australia, "Professor" is a very senior role - a Professor here shouldn't be deleted at AfD let alone through A7. But I'm aware the term "Professor" can connotate more junior roles in other countries. Having said that, I don't think I've ever tagged or deleted a professor - I think the position is a reasonable claim of significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
In the United States, simply being a professor is not an assertion of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It's different in different places, so it's better to go through AFD as some will be clearly notable, others not. Aiken Drum 10:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. Being a professor does not make somebody notable. There are thousands of professors out there (and I mean professors, not assistant profs or associate profs), most of them spend their time being good to adequate to lousy teachers and never having written anything more than a pedestrian research paper or two. I would expect something more than a statement "X is a professor" as an assertion of notability. A named chair, a distinguished title, or an assertion of the form 'Prof X is known for his/her work in Y' is I think necessary. (Even for Aussie Profs!) --RegentsPark (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Timneu, it is just shy of wp:PROF, so while not a good defense at an AfD I think per A7 it's an assertion of importance. ErikHaugen (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have dozens of friends who are professors. They all miss WP:PROF, as I expect most professors do. That's why I say they aren't notable. — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is not Notability, we leave that to AFD. The test here is a much lower one of whether something is an assertion of importance or significance. If American Professors are unimportant what title do they have for the senior academic of a particular discipline at Yale or MIT? ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The question is whether 'is a prof' is sufficient as an assertion of notability. Generally, senior notable academics at Yale, MIT, or Columbia, would have a named chaired position. So, if the article said, 'X is an American psychologist and is the Pavlov Professor of Psychology at Yale, that would be sufficient assertion of notability. However, on reviewing WP:PROF, as well as the comments above and below, I think tagging or deleting a Prof-only assertion without investigation is probably not a good idea. That assertion, along with any one of the criteria listed in WP:PROF, would likely be sufficient for the article to survive AfD, so the prof assertion alone should be sufficient to not be speedy deleted without further investigation.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that WP:OUTCOMES says "Professors (in the American sense of the word) tend to be kept and deleted in about equal numbers", I think we have to treat anything higher than an assistant-professorship as being a credible claim of significance, and hence sufficient to escape A7 deletion. We certainly shouldn't be speedy deleting anything that has a 50/50 chance of surviving AfD IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Thparkth's reasoning. Professors usually received at least a certain degree of coverage in relevant journals and newspapers and there are usually some works and essays published by them. "Important or significant" in A7 means that the subject may be considered to have traits or accomplishments that makes them stand out from the crowd. Whether these are sufficient to make them notable is irrelevant at this stage, so WP:PROF can only be cited as an argument a minore ad maius, not e contrario as a reason to fail A7. Regards SoWhy 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Speaking of university education, I was surprised (again) that argumentum e contrario didn't exist yet, so I created it (since such arguments are currently one of the things I spend most of my time on ;-)). I'd welcome it if some people could help fix the mess I wrote there, especially since we could take it to WP:DYK if it became somewhat okay within the next five days Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 17:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I must agree that being a professor is enough to pass A7, even when the article doesn't stand a chance at AfD. A7 should be for cases where the article doesn't give one any reason to suspect that sources can be found. A7 should be for cases where one sees no reason to bother with a search for references, not for cases where the references used, if any, are inadequate. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 17:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We had a very long discussion about this last year (see here), and for me, a prof is enough for A7, as a credible assertion of importance. Beyond that it's up to AfD to decide if they meet WP:PROF and the GNG. GedUK  09:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Criteria proposal: How-to content that presents a legal liability to Wikipedia

I've come across a couple of articles recently where the article consisted solely of how-to content that may constitute a legal liability to the Wikimedia Foundation. One was Acid Bomb, which contained instructions on how to make a potentially dangerous object; the other was Care of residual limb, which contained medical advice and which another editor blanked per WP:MEDICAL pending a prod.

So my proposal here is adding another CSD criteria in the "general" category for pages that consist entirely of how-to content and which only serve to give medical or legal advice, or instructions on some subject that can be interpreted as causing physical harm to people or property. As with all other CSD criteria, this should only be done in cases where there is no clean revision to revert to, and how-to content that doesn't fit in the "legal liability" category (e.g., how to change a tire) must still go through the prod or XfD processes. I'm sure this happens more often than I am aware of, and going to ANI (as I did with Acid Bomb) only increases the visibility of such content given how many people frequent that board. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not needed. You can blank the content, and use the general delete template with a persuasive reasoning. If you want to draw less attention you can talk to an active admin, or perhaps email (but this may not be so speedy). Some of these topics could be rewritten so they could be valid topics for articles, if they were not how to-s so general speedy delete for how to articles is not appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm fine with the time it takes to bring thing to ANI and get it resolved, and I don't see the need to call this out with a specific guideline or CSD criterion. I think it's pretty clear that IAR allows for us to handle things like this without needing to write specific rules. Still, the concern has merit and if this is enacted it won't be the end of the world, hence a weak oppose. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would delete things like that per IAR (just use {{db|1=Inappropriate for Wikipedia; presents legal liability to Wikimedia Foundation}} and blank it). No separate criterion really needed. fetch·comms 02:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the lack of frequency with which I've come across such articles. IAR is sufficient, and in the case of medical advice a shiny prod tag is enough to tell the reader what our community thinks of the advice. I've recently come across a series of articles giving fiscal advice as if Wikipedia were an extension of the IRS website. All but one of the articles were deleted as copyvios, with the remaining one deleted yesterday as an expired prod. I think that's the best course of action. As for bomb-making instructions, criterion G3 takes care of the vast majority of cases. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blanchardb. Bomb making instructions are most likely a case of G3 and the rest can be handled by G12 and PROD where needed. Deleting content because it might constitute a problem for the Foundation is usually not a sufficient reason on its own. Anything might create a problem and it's not our task to judge what might and might not. That's why we have disclaimers after all. Regards SoWhy 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blanchardb and SoWhy. Remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. WP:NOTHOWTO covers all such instances, regardless of subject matter (and regardless of danger). No need to pull the fire alarm on this. --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How to delete CSS pages?

The templates like {{db-userreq don't work on them. If any admins are reading this, please delete User:Jeandré du Toit/monobook.css. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-17t03:16z

Yes check.svg Done GedUK  08:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The only way (I know of) to delete such pages is to use its talk page or another user page to request an admin's attention and outline your request there. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Tagging .js and .css pages with the templates does work - that is, it puts them in the relevant category. It's only the page display that breaks. Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Deprecated

Just wanted to query this template, specifically the 14 day wait period. There is nothing particuarly speedy about 14 days; in fact, since this is twice the amount of time it would take for a discussion at WP:TfD, does it not rather defeat the purpose of having a speedy deletion tag?

Also, could an admin please have a look at Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion? There are only 8 pages in there, but some have been tagged for as long as a month now. PC78 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done All deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to my other point, would it be acceptable to at least reduce the 14 day period to 7 days? No other deletion process takes longer than 7 days (at least not that I am aware of). Would a specific speedy deletion criteria for deprecated and unused templates be desirable? PC78 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the effect of that would really be a merging of deprecation into T3. Should we be discussing that? --Bsherr (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Possibly, I'm certainly open to suggestions. This is virgin territory for me, so I'm winging it somewhat. PC78 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the speed of populating the relevant categories. Note that right now Category:Templates for speedy deletion is empty, yet look at what transcludes the template, and note the number of templates ripe for deletion. I'm not sure why this is happening, but I'd be concerned with shortening the length of process while it's going on. --Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Cache delay? I don't know; some of those templates were tagged as long ago as 9 September. I've done some null edits though, so the category is now populated. I don't think it's a worry though. Per CSD G3 those templates can't be deleted until after seven days (they won't be added to the category until then). A delay in categorisation will only lead to a delay in deletion. In any case, I don't propose to reduce the seven day period of CSD G3. PC78 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
That's some serious cache delay. I'm concerned about effective categorization into Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates for speedy deletion, which I believe is the pre-ripe category. Hopefully it's not an issue as it is for T3? --Bsherr (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I have seen delays of over three weeks. The CfD process has started adding a count of remaining changes when the articles are categorized with templates, see the working subpage. Sometimes a date is added so you can get an idea of how long the process takes, or look at the date the discussion was closed. The one currently there appears to have been added on September 3 and has 1,165 left. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
To get back to the original post: The reason for the 14 day period is that such taggings, unlike TFD, don't really notify the community about the proposed deletion. Since this can affect thousands of pages at worst and since templates are rarely checked for taggings, it's a good idea to have a longer waiting period to give more people the chance to notice it. After all, this is a G6 template, so speed is really not important. Remember, the "speedy" refers to the decision-making process, not how fast it's deleted after tagging. Regards SoWhy 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but you can apply the same argument to prods, or other speedy taggings; it doesn't really justify the significantly longer period in this one instance, IMO. If you have to wait a minimum of 14 days, you may as well take it to TfD instead. PC78 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
PRODs can only happen in article space, a place which is usually much often viewed than Template: space. As for other speedy taggings, the only other timed speedy I can think of is for images and, unlike with templates, it's in most cases possible to notify those interested in keeping the image, i.e. the uploader(s). With a template that was created years ago it's much harder to find out who exactly would be interested in keeping it. Regards SoWhy 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well there's CSD T3, as noted above. I hear what you're saying, but I don't agree. As I said, if you want a quicker outcome than what {{deprecated}} allows, then you're better of at TfD. If on the other hand you want to "find out who exactly would be interested in keeping it", you're still better off at TfD because there will be more eyes on it. PC78 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
But T3 requires that the tagged template is a hardcoded instance or duplicate of another template, i.e. after deleting that template, it will be replaced by the one it duplicated, thus not removing any functionality. On the other hand, deprecated templates will be removed without any replacement, so it's not the same. As for TFD, yes, it would make it easier to get input and would be faster but then again, speed is not relevant when it comes to deprecated templates, is it? The reason we do not list them at TFD is because almost all of them are uncontroversial and it would flood TFD if we listed them all. As such, the longer delay of 14 days compensates that a bit by allowing people more time to find out about it. Since the speed of deletion is not important, I fail to see why we should change it. Regards SoWhy 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The criteria for {{deprecated}} is that the template be unused and deprecated, so there wouldn't be any loss of functionality after deleting. Still, I won't pursue the idea if there is no support for it. Thanks for your comments. PC78 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If the only distinction between Deprecated and T3 is redundancy, it would be useful to clarify that. There's a whole lot of verbage on both T3 and Deprecated that could be harmonized save that distinction. Also, even though Deprecated is a type of speedy deletion, it's mentioned nowhere on the CSD page, including in the description of G6, the criterion it's supposed to be under. Rather than presume it's a part of G6, I think it would be much clearer to carve it out and make it T4. It does only applies to templates. If not, then it should be given much, much more distinctive mention under G6. --Bsherr (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Products

Has there ever been a discussion on a section of A7 that applies to products? Besides musical recordings, I don't see that any CSD tag applies to a product. I patrol new pages often and see a lot of product pages come in. Assuming they're not blatant advertising or a copyright which is common, there's no way to tag them for deletion other than with a prod. Obviously product notability isn't easily defined but I feel that there are products that are obviously not notable from non-notable companies that may be able suitably speedy deleted. OlYellerTalktome 17:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think A7 should be expanded to cover any article that doesn't make a credible claim of importance or significance. The current list of what falls within A7 seems completely arbitrary to me and just makes for more work PRODding and Afding. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times before, and the previous conclusions have been that there is no consensus (to keep same or change). I'd suggest looking at the archives of this page to to find them. The subjects under A7 aren't arbitrary; they're subjects that have been determined by consensus to be particularly prone to a conflict of interest. --Bsherr (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, products have been requested to be added multiple times, just search for "products" or "software" for some of them. So far, consensus has been always that such pages are not created often enough (requirement #3) and are usually likely to be too subjective (#1). A7 mentions those subjects that new articles are created about far too often for AFD and PROD to handle. Products on the other hand are not created that often and can be deleted using PROD and AFD. The problem with suggesting that A7 should be expanded to cover them comes, imho, from a misinterpretation of what speedy deletion is. It's not a regular deletion process but rather a special one that serves only to handle those cases which the normal processes are unable to handle due to sheer mass of articles, those cases where discussion is never needed or where quick deletion is essential. An A7 for products would not fall into any of those categories. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I just updated Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Common requests (which appears on WP:CSD) to say "and/or other products". — Timneu22 · talk 20:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A month or so ago I said that A9 could be a good solution to Products at CSD, similar to the band/album relationship is the company/product one (I discussed my reasoning more in-depth in the past archive). As SoWhy stated, passing number 3 is questionable, but as WP becomes more popular, it also becomes more attractive for companies to post articles about their products/businesses. I would hesitate to say that spam is the fastest growing new article category. Often product articles are not spamish enough for G11. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that modifying A9 would be an ideal solution. While I understand why A9 was defined narrowly as it is, there is evidence that product spamming is becoming as much of an issue. However, I think that has to be done in clearcut cases. If there's any doubt it can go to an AfD, which by the way is very easy by using Twinkle. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; I've come across a few product articles that were blatantly non-notable, but weren't quite written like advertisements, so I had to PROD them. I'd expand A9 into products as well. And as an aside, I haven't come across many A9s of late; only one that I can think of. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this , as I have in the past. It is very rarely obvious whether a product has no plausible claim to notability. We continually get very inadequate articles on notable products of all sorts, that merely need some attention--but attention by someone who knows the subject. It is very hard for an admin with no particular knowledge of the subject field to judge this quickly--and there is not a single admin in Wikipedia who has sufficient knowledge to judge them all or even most of the possibilities. When they go on Prod, multiple people have a chance at them: I can go in and rescue the possibly important books, someone else can catch the computer programs, and so forth. It's different with people. In a great many cases we get articles that any reasonable person--admin or not--can see would not be possibly notable, and where the facts stated can not possibly indicate any importance or significance whatsoever; there are several hundred of these a day, and all of us admin have gotten a good deal of experience with them. Web content & bands are fairly safe also--most web content is so thoroughly unimportant, and so self-evidently so, and so very easy to check quickly as well, that anyone with any experience on the web--and I think that inherently includes every admin here, can safely tell. Bands similarly, for those who have some awareness of popular music; while this does not include all admins, it includes a great many of them. (Myself, I do not delete these unless something is said that essentially proves unimportance to the degree that even I fell safe). Groups and companies, like people, are so frequently totally unimportant and so easily to distinguish the impossibly notable ones that we don't make many mistakes here--though it is actually a little more dubious in many cases than the other types and I am very cautious in dealing with groups in fields where I'm relatively ignorant and there isn't obvious precedent.
There's another reason not to include products--in most cases of non-notable products , they can be merged or redirected, and deletion is not a necessary option. This is not often true of the other types. There's a balance here, and unless there is some type of article where we can be sure of making very few false deletions, it's not worth the chance. The point of speedy is to get rid of the unquestionable, and products rarely are. I see a few on prod each day that might be speedy territory, but only a few, and its not worth it. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes, it's easier than you might think. For instance, I'm very familiar with medical equipment for various reasons (I'm only 20, and quite healthy; I'm no doctor (and never will be one), but I know a lot about endoscopic/arthroscopic equipment). It's often really obvious (at least to me) when I see "the new colon detox weight-loss panacea" that it's non-notable web product puffery from someone living in a country with lax laws on such advertising. However, if it's not written as a blatant advertisement, it has to sit for a week, unless it happens to fall into A10 territory. In a closely related example, things like this, an entirely non-notable energy product for women made by an entirely non-notable company, don't need to languish for 7 days; however, not many admins will invoke WP:SNOW even if there's not a chance in hell the article could ever survive AfD if brought there. This wouldn't expand it too much; it would just make the blatantly obvious examples easier to delete or redirect (there's usually enough information that the product could be correctly redirected), while those on the fence can go to PROD or AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I usually refrain from using specific examples but this one just popped up today and it's an exact case of what I run into that throws a wrench in the gears. This article was posted today. I'd rather discuss the article and not my particular opinion so I won't give it and ask that you don't reference my actions which are clearly visible in the history. My point is that the subject is new articles about products and not this particular article or my actions regarding it. The example given is just that. What do you think? Do you think that a guideline can be written that calls for the removal of articles who, on their face, have no claim of notability? OlYellerTalktome 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@DGG - It seems that one of your primary grounds of opposition is that books, films, ect. would be included which I think should not because of the potential for these articles as well as guidelines such as WP:AUTHOR Futhermore, the A9 type of deletion would help to prevent notable products from being deleted and would have NN products redirected.

@OlYeller - I would have tagged that as G11, but I tend to apply G11 fairly loosely.

@All - Here is a proposed wording for this expanded A9:

A9. No indication of importance (products and musical recordings).
An article about a product or musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the company or artist's article does not exist. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion does not apply to creative works other than musical recordings, such as books, films, or art.

We could also exempt software here if consensus says so. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support any suggestion that permits CSD of products that are immediately recognisable as not being notable. However, I think A7 would be the criterion to expand. I generally do not use or broadly interpret other criteria for CSD rationales which are not directly applicable, because in the past I've been slapped on the wrist for doing so.--Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Image for db-meta and db notice templates

Further to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#Images for speedy deletion templates?, it is proposed that the new symbol at Template talk:db-meta for speedy deletion templates and notices be implemented. Since discussion volume has been light, I want to confirm that consensus is that there are no objections. If anyone has any comments, they are welcome at Template talk:db-meta and Template talk:AfD-notice. --Bsherr (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD#G8 and interwiki deletions

If an article is a literal translation of one at a different language wikipedia and the original gets deleted, would 'our' article be dependent on it in the sense of CSD#G8? If not, is the reference to the translated but deleted article sufficient to assure attribution or what else do we do?. I just converted one such tag on Wilhelm Friedrich Mittrich into a prod pending clarification whether we consider it eligible for speedy deletion. My initial thought was not. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a dependent article, although a failure of an appropriately equivalent criteria at another Wikipedia would be a good reason to nominate it for deletion here. G8 is for talk pages, subpages, and the like--not articles that came from other Wikipedias. As far as attribution goes, I think the reference is sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that G8 should not apply here. It might be eligible for G12, as it is a technical violation of WP:Copyrights. Since the en history starts with the translation, the {{translated page}} on Talk:Wilhelm Friedrich Mittrich is only sufficient while the original source is visible (WP:Copying within Wikipedia, both Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects and Reusing deleted material). The missing attribution can be provided by a de admin retrieving the relevant edit history/list of authors and pasting it to the talk page. There was a discussion about importing the original language revisions as general practice to avoid this issue, but I can't find it. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Foreign-language Wikipedias often have deletion criteria that are different than ours, especially when it comes to speedies. For example, original research is a speedy criterion on the Spanish Wikipedia (criterion A1.3) while the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't even have a speedy deletion system in place.
Bottom line, just because an article was deleted in a foreign Wikipedia doesn't mean we'll get consensus to delete it here. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that deletion rationales in general do not transfer from one edition to another. I was only having second thoughts about pages that start as translation of an original that later gets deleted for any reason, process or consensus. So thanks for confirming that G8 does not apply. Actually it would be a great detriment for translators if their articles get deleted by default in such a case. Proposing such articles for deletion will be reasonable in many cases and any missing attribution is still recoverable in case the article stays.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above statements. If the source text for a translation gets deleted on another WP edition it has nothing to do with notability criteria over here. As long as multiple reliable sources cover a subject it passes WP:N. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this gives another reason why importing is more appropriate than copypaste when translating articles. I know that the German and Greek wikis import articles so maybe we should encourage more of that here? The only thing that does look complicated is what one does about accounts where different users have the same name on different wiks. ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought of importing as a much too bureaucratic solution and it also provides a history that many users at the target Wiki may not be able to read. As for the German Wiki it is done though for legal reasons of copyright requirements. Creating translations from scratch as it is being done here at ENwiki should be kept though on this server. Attribution can be given by a permalink to the source version and that's sufficient in my opinion. And if the source text is deleted the copyrighted content disappears and so does the need for attribution. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"...if the source text is deleted the copyrighted content disappears and so does the need for attribution" is, I'm afraid, wrong from every possible point of view. Legally, copyright exists from publication, and does not cease if publication ceases, so we must comply with the copyright licence. Morally, we must keep our promises to content contributors; it's important that we obey the GDFL scrupulously. Ethically, we need to attribute our sources even if that source is not available online. And Wikipedia policy contains no provision enjoining us to disregard these things. In short, WereSpielChequers is exactly right.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy on Stockman

A non-admin who has been handling maintenance of WP:RM is trying to delete the redirect at Stockman to complete a page move. Please expedite. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Clarification of G11

It has come to my attention that WP:CSD#G11 is often misused, in particular more liberally than it should be used. I think a main reason for this is that it is unclear what constitutes "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." In the more specific description given, who is it to decide whether the page is "exclusively promotional" and "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic"?

Note that A7, while a little subjective, does a much better job. An article either makes a credible claim of significance/importance, or not. So the only issue at hand is whether the claim is "credible." But in this case, people in general (I can't explain why, it's the general pattern I'm noticing) are much more willing to PROD or AfD the article when they're unsure, compared to G11.

Do you guys agree with my analysis of the situation? If so, how should G11 be clarified to make it more objective? -- King of ♠ 00:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My own rule of thumb is asking "Is this article clearly trying to sell me something and/or promote something for economic gain?" There's a difference between a resume and a biography, a company profile and a prospectus, and an article ABOUT a product versus an article promoting a product. Unfortunately, I haven't got a better way to articulate it. It's a matter of, "I'll know it when I see it." Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. Just a couple months ago, I urged simply making the criterion consistent with the language in WP:ADVERT, but there was no consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The current language of the CSD does seem to be consistent with WP:ADVERT. To me, what makes it so is lack of multiple sourcing and peacock terminology. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is: "Would there be any content left if I removed all the spammy parts?" If so, it's not unambiguously advertising; i.e. if there is any possibility to keep the page without having to write everything anew, then G11 cannot be applied. If some admins use G11 too liberally, then changing the wording probably won't stop them. Instead, you should point out to them that their deletions are inconsistent with the criterion they used. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. ... Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with db-spam." None of that is in the criterion! Instead of advertisements, we have the ambiguous "promotional," instead of blatant, we have "unambiguous". The guideline is absolutely clear. The criterion is muddled, in my opinion, because some users like the vagueness of it so they can abuse it. The number one response I get when I challenge a db-spam tag is that the article is so [bad, unsourced, unnotable, fancrufty, etc.] that it'll just be deleted anyway. Right now, an article about the health benefits of vegetables could be deleted under this criterion ("it's exclusively promotional!"). Most (but not all) admins get it. I'm just tired of fighting with regular users over what this means when the criterion could be so easily clarified. If there's interest, I'd be happy to propose revisions again, or you can check back in the archive to see the relatively begign sguuestions I made previously. --Bsherr (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was "blatant advertising" before, no idea why it was changed though. Regards SoWhy 20:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It was changed because users associated "blatant" with a negative connotation. (I happen to believe the negative connotation is desirable, but I wasn't around to comment.) The consensus was only a few users, they changed it for nearly all the criteria, and they never bothered to update the guidelines. I mentioned this a couple months ago too, because I think there's no upside, only downside, to varying the criterion from the guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

F12 - speedy deletion of images previously deleted as pseudo-speedy

At this point, we do not have a criterion for an image that was previously deleted as a pseudo-speedy deletion. In other words, an uploader can continue to upload the same image over and over again, and only have it deleted after seven days. The only way to short-circuit the process is to delete the image per WP:IAR or block the uploader (salting wouldn't work... could be uploaded under another name). So I propose we add F12:


F12. Files previously deleted under a speedy criterion for files
A file that was previously deleted under F4, F5, F6, F7, or F11, and which does not address the original reason for its deletion. This includes the same files under a different quality/resolution or file type, so long as it is substantially the same file.

Honestly, it's surprising how often it happens (e.g., [2]). And yet there is nothing we as administrators can do, unless, again, we go outside process. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have not seen this happening even once in all my time here. So unless you have more than that example, I'd say block the uploader instead, they seem to be inclined to ignore the warnings they were given. Regards SoWhy 19:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't do image patrol as often as some of us, SoWhy (I've seen it quite a bit)? And I think this is a rather uncontroversial criterion, so why not? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's that frequent, surely you can name further examples, can't you? I don't think controversy is the criterion we should judge new criteria by but rather whether they are really needed. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. However, my brain doesn't keep a log of such files. I'll have to wait a few days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of frequency, what if it's a different user uploading it? That different user would have no way of knowing about the previous speedy deletion, because records aren't preserved, right? --Bsherr (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also a good point. I would be welcome to further input on whether we should allow that or not, or how we could reword the criterion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion partially related to CSD

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Image_talk_pages_for_Commons.27_images that partly relates to the speedying of image talk pages. It may be of interest to people here. Dragons flight (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Db-multiple, Nn-warn-multiple

I notice a problem with {{nn-warn-multiple}}. The warning doesn't identify any of the specific criteria for speedy deletion that the article runs afoul of, but just refers the editor to the page to see the reasons there. This is a problem because the article could get deleted before the article creator has a chance to see what those reasons are. Since the warning on the user talk page is a key opportunity for us to communicate with the creator of a problematic article, we ought to make that message as clear as possible.

Either {{nn-warn-multiple}} should be modified to incorporate the relevant reasons why the article deserves speedy deletion, or we should avoid using {{nn-warn-multiple}} as a warning. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected to Template:Db-reason-notice. --Bsherr (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A7 extension

I think CSD A7 should cover unremarkable films. I also propose the creation of {{db-film}} to tag on unremarkable films. What does everyone think? ~NerdyScienceDude 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: Such articles are neither created often enough that PROD and AFD can't handle them nor is it really possible for an admin alone to determine whether a film really is insignificant or unimportant. Many films are shown at certain festivals only for example. So I think such a change would not meet the requirements #1 and #3 at the top of this talk page. Remember, A7, like any criterion, should be created or expanded only if there is a real need to do so, not because it might be convenient. Speedy deletion is an exception of the rule that deletions should be based on consensus, not a normal deletion process, so consensus based decisions should be used whenever possible. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree that extending A7 to films is not a good idea. CSD is for common abuses, such as "My Uncle Joe deserves an article." Ditto for books. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But wait...

While I'm resigned to believe A7 won't ever include films and books, check out this nonsense:

Jello pigs is the first book in the adventures of steveville series by Clayton yost the movie based on the book will be directed by Clayton Yost premiring on YouTube December 9 2010. It is about a town called steveville where everybodys name is steve ( even the girls), when a citizen sees a flying purple pig that looks like it is made out of jello. The pigs start attacking the city during the ragu festival until they burst.

Well, this falls under A7 because it's premiring [sic] on YouTube. But had it just been some stupid film, it wouldn't fall under A7. Frankly, "jello pigs" is an example of "this is my movie", which is the same as "my uncle Joe deserves an article", mentioned above.

Surely there must be a way to delete "jello pigs" and others like it even if it's not a YouTube movie. — Timneu22 · talk 18:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

{{db-nocontext}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
But there is context; the following would not be deleted based on A7: Jello pigs is the first book in the adventures of steveville series by Clayton yost the movie based on the book will be directed by Clayton Yost premieres December 9 2010. It is about a town called steveville where everybodys name is steve ( even the girls), when a citizen sees a flying purple pig that looks like it is made out of jello. The pigs start attacking the city during the ragu festival until they burst. — Timneu22 · talk 18:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
{{delete|WP:NOTMADEUP}}xenotalk 18:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately not all admins believe that IAR applies to CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
For myself, I think it applies only narrowly and in extremely obvious cases, but the one you're talking about certainly qualifies. Also, remember—there is G11 regarding promotional articles, and if an article exists solely to increase publicity or "get the word out", with no other possible encyclopedic use, it is promotional. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it {{db-web}} because it's just a YouTube video? --Bsherr (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes; my point here is that if it didn't say YouTube, it's technically not deleteable under A7. That seems like a problem for nonsense like this. — Timneu22 · talk 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
If it's not web content, I think it's a matter of NoWhy's criteria. Giving an author the chance to rebut a presumption via discussion is a good thing. In my own opinion, A7 is necessary, not virtuous. --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Making something up out of thin air and posting it on Wikipedia constitutes a WP:HOAX. There is no series of books on "Steveville" so this could have been deleted as a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's true in this case. However, my broader point was this: if a movie exists (for real!) and it's completely unremarkable and made by my brother John, this cannot be deleted by A7. But if it says "on YouTube", it can. Sigh — Timneu22 · talk 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Creation of db-u4

There should be a criterion for articles that are plainly copied into the userspace or usersubspace. I've temporarily added the extra criterion so it can be discussed. What does the community think? Set Sail For The Seven Seas 11° 48' 15" NET 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose There's no call for speedy unless some other criterion applies. In the vast, vast majority of cases, an MfD is the more appropriate method to seek consensus for such deletions. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I thought it had some validity at first, I'm opposed to it as a speedy deletion condition. I've copied articles for elaborate template or formatting testing, and I'd hate for them to disappear while I was testing. I think these would need to go to MFD, with the additional requirement that the user must be notified on his/her talk page, in addition to the article being tagged, for the deletion nomination to be valid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to go bullet-form !voting right away. Thanks for bringing it up for discussion, Seven Seas. To the issue, we explicitly encourage development of pages in user subnamespace. There's also a regard that a user page and its subpages belong to the user, and I'd be very uncomfortable with extending speedy deletion to those pages except for policy violations. If there's a true exception, I'd much rather it be identified at MfD so the user who owns the page can respond in a deliberate process. --Bsherr (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(My comment, orginally, was without the !vote, but the first !vote appeared before I could complete it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose, and agree there's no need to go right to a vote, and there's even less of a need to alter WP:CSD prior to having discussions about it. — Timneu22 · talk 01:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think CSD U4 should really be for secret pages, with a notification requirement and a 7-day holding period before deletion. FAKEARTICLE sure is a problem, but those need to be decided at MfD. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has just today nominated a couple of WP:FAKEARTICLEs at MfD, I think these should practically always go through a deletion discussion rather than a summary process like speedy deletion. For one thing, as already mentioned, we allow and encourage some use of userspace drafts, and only prohibit things like archives of deleted material, forks or abandoned drafts. Secondly, we ought to try to use such material for something if we can, even if that doesn't happen much in practice, and that means that a short period of advertising that the material is about to go away is beneficial. Thirdly, userfied article sometimes have complicated history and attribution issues that need to have an eyeball on them, and speedy deletion may mean that not enough attention is paid to this. Gavia immer (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The key word in this proposal is "copied". Copy/paste versions of articles in userspace are a direct violation of our content contributors' copyright licences. Preserving attribution is not optional, and it's entirely correct that a copy/paste of an article that's been contributed to by others should be deleted on sight, because such a thing is flouting our terms of use -- see the first bullet under "re-use". I agree that no CSD should apply where attribution has been correctly preserved.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You misread the terms. Re-use applies only to use outside the Wikimedia projects. --Bsherr (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but a copy within Wikipedia, detached from its history, is dangerous because it may be innocently copied outside by a reader who knows that Wikipedia articles are free to copy if attributed, but does not understand the difference between an article and something in userspace that looks like an article. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it's about the terms of use. When you add something, you agree to license it under GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Those licenses apply regardless of the ToU and if you copy an article without retaining proper attribution, you violate those licenses and as such, the copyright of those who contributed to it. So imho strictly speaking such articles already are covered by G12. Regards SoWhy 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that it's impermissible to copy a page into a sandbox to work on it? --Bsherr (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As long as you attribute in the edit summary ("copied from X version of Y article") my understanding is that attribution is maintained. → ROUX  20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Roux's instructions seem right, and that's consistent with WP:CWW. But surely failures to do this can simply be remedied on notice to the user, and don't require speedy deletion, no? --Bsherr (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Just copy the history onto the talk page (safe), or link to the original article's history on the talkpage (OK, but problematic if the article is deleted). I've done copy-history-to-talk to preserve attribution across transwikis before now. --ais523 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • SoWhy's got a good point in that G12 might apply. Maybe the need is to clarify G12 rather than add U4, although I'd personally rather see a separate CSD criterion for userspace GFDL/CC-BY-SA violations because a separate criterion is harder to misunderstand.—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm no copyright laywer, so I can't answer that. But I think those cases mentioned above, where no article containing the history exists anymore, are covered by G12 because there is no history anywhere anymore. If you only copy it to a sandbox to work on it, the history can still be found at the original location, so that should be different. But again, IANAL. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is the idea of Wikipedia:Userfication and when that is done, in general, the entire source history has to be "userfied" as well because of the attribution requirements. The Userfication process section states Copy–paste moves are generally prohibited by policy (but see instructions below for unusual cases), because they fail to retain the edit history of the content, so userfication must be done via the move fuction. For Cut and paste userfication it says a list of all the contributors to the original text (obtained from the page history of the original page) must be kept to meet the requirements of CC-BY-SA and GFDL. If the original content has been modified by other users, and is later moved or copied to another namespace, the list of contributors should be copied to the corresponding talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────G12 is for irreconcilable copyright issues. If there's a userspace copy of something that simply needs the contribution history retrieved, any admin can do that, and several of us have actually figured out how to do that. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems much better. (I see templates sandboxed all the time, and no one ever seems concerned with attribution.) We should bear in mind that this type of copying happens both in user space and as sandbox subpages in all other namespaces. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

NPP is clogged

We currently have unpatrolled articles all the way back to the 5th September with about 200 from the 6th September. So I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Increase_Special_New_Pages_from_30_days_to_60_days which people at this page may have views on. ϢereSpielChequers 14:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Does A7 cover World of Warcraft characters?

Does the "web content" provision of WP:CSD#A7 cover World of Warcraft characters? See the article Robthepally which I just tagged for speedy deletion per A7. I'd suggest explicitly including them in the criteria since I can't see an MMORPG character ever meeting verifiability and notability requirements. Grondemar 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If these are avatars/pseudonyms for "living people" then I think db-bio would apply. Article flushed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
at least I have chicken...? –xenotalk 04:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, good point. That might be the exception that proved the rule. Grondemar 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Robthepally makes quite the same claim to fame as Leroy. I see the article as safely deleted under A7 as non-notable web content or as an avatar per Ron Ritzman.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I was just reminiscing. –xenotalk 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you did. It inspired me to go watch that video again, and it was just as funny this time around.--Kubigula (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Techically not a speedy, but a WP:IAR applies there. Secret account 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Certainly within the spirit of A7, I'd say, being a combination of a bio and web content. ~ mazca talk 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree on the web content part but I think A7-bio applies: Your character is usually only a avatar of yourself and A7 does not care in what way the subject represents itself. On the other hand, an article about a character that's not player-created (e.g. Arthas) is not within the scope of A7-web. Regards SoWhy 10:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

db-a2

I don't get it and neither (I think) does half shadow. This applies to translated (poorly) articles too right? Marcus Qwertyus 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It applies to those that exist in this form on another project. If it was translated, it's not the same as the one on the other project, is it? The only translated texts to which A2 applies are those translated by machines (Babelfish, Google Translate etc.) since then the author has not done any work themselves and as such does not have to be protected from deletion. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In this case it was translated by machine. Thanks for the clarification. Marcus Qwertyus 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Criteria WP:CSD#F9

Isn't it rather redundant already to WP:CSD#G12? If so, I think that we can remove it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. A few years ago there was not I9/F9. It was added September 3, 2007, and in some ways was more clear than it is now. I don't think it it is redundant to G12 because, for whatever "behind the scenes" reasons, text copyvios are handled a lot different that image/file copyvios are. For example if there is text that is suspected of being a copyvio the offending text it simply removed where anyone can revert the removal or, if there is a larger section, it is blanked via use of the {{copyviocore}} where it is "hidden" until the issue can be resolved. With images they can not be removed (outside of removing them from the article) or "blanked", they are either speedied or sent to IFD or PUI where they are still visible, and usable, by anyone. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There is also the issue of fair use, something which doesn't apply to text. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually fair use does apply to text. For example a review of a book could use a small passage from it. That is partly why there are tags such as {{quote}}. Fair use can, and does, apply to all media. See also What about fair use? and Plagiarism - Sources under copyright for more. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough. But no one is thinking to place a G12 on that. Someone might place a G12 on an image not understanding its significance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

An admirer of the work of the great DAKSHA SHETH student of Kumudini Lakhia and India's Pina Baush

1. Daksha Sheth Dance Company -http://www.dakshasheth.com/ 2.Daksha Sheth 3.Aarti - Academy for Art Research, Training and Innovation

Google links over 5000 pages http://www.google.co.in/search?q=daksha+sheth&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivo&ei=E4K8TISUL4SivQOKkdz3DQ&start=10&sa=N

THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.166.91 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure what the quesiton is. I see that Daksha Sheth was deleted three times - twice for being a copyvio and once via A7. Is that the question? Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much everything this IP has edited is now peacock word filled tripe, if not copyright violations as well. HalfShadow 18:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2 articles with exact same name

There are two articles that somehow have the exact same name: Women’s Sports Foundation. One (a stub) was created in or about December 2006. The other (not a stub) was created in or about February 2006. When you go to Category:Women's sports organisations, you will see two entries for Women’s Sports Foundation. The first entry links to the lengthier article; the second entry links to the stub article. I would like to delete the stub article, but am reluctant to follow the normal Wiki procedure for speedy deletion, because there are two articles with the exact same name; I don't want to accidentally delete the lengthier (non-stub) article or accidentally delete both articles. Is there an administrator who could handle this? Eagle4000 (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They do not have the same name. The shorter article is Women’s Sports Foundation, with the apostrophe being U+2019, the punctuation apostrophe. The longer article is Women's Sports Foundation, with the standard ASCII apostrophe. Algebraist 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've redirected the stub to the longer article. Had it been recently created it would have been eligible for WP:CSD#A10. Hut 8.5 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I didn't know there are two different apostrophes. Thanks also for the redirect. Eagle4000 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

G6 subtleties

Could someone tell me what's the difference between {{db-histmerge}} and {{db-copypaste}}, and which one is preferred for tagging cut/paste moves for admin attention? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The former is for cases where the history exists at two places, i.e. an admin has to do a number of steps to merge them into one. The latter is for cases where someone, mostly a new user, moved all content in one copy-paste edit to a new location that needs to be deleted.
Or to say it another way:
and
  • for {{db-copypaste}}, the admin has to delete the new page, then perform a simple page move.
I'm unsure about your question though. Did someone cut parts of another article and created a new article from it (i.e. WP:SPLIT) or did they copy the whole content and then turned the former article into a redirect (copy+paste move)? It does sound like Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves though. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That answers my question. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to get rid of Template:Db-notice-multiple and Template:Db-multiple

Earlier this month, I noted a problem with the templates that purport to request speedy deletion of a page on multiple grounds: see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#Db-multiple,_Nn-warn-multiple. Unfortunately, the problem has not been resolved. The problem is that the notice to the article creator reads as follows: "A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons." The problem with that is that the page could be deleted before the article creator has a chance to see the reasons. Hence, this warning could wind up being useless.

I believe the only way to resolve this is to either (a) revise Template:Db-notice-multiple so that it incorporates the actual reasons for the speedy deletion request, not just refers the editor to another (soon-to-be-deleted) page where those reasons are listed, or (b) delete Template:Db-notice-multiple and Template:Db-multiple, and let editors apply any deletion templates separately. If multiple deletion reasons apply -- like an attack page on a non-notable person -- the {{db-attack}} and {{db-bio}} templates can be applied to the page separately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

{{db-multiple}} was created after some discussion exactly because we wanted to avoid several huge banners on pages where multiple reasons apply. They make navigation harder and are more bitey than the single one. So the problem you mention shouldn't be "fixed" by getting rid of {{db-multiple}} but instead by what you suggested as solution "(a)". Regards SoWhy 06:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy; we went through quite a long protacted debate over this subject, and I think your 'a' solution is the best, though I've no idea how to implement it. GedUK  08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur too. I'm afraid I do know how to implement it, and it's going to be an enormous pain in the butt. --Bsherr (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely a useful tag to keep around, but I agree with the need to tell people why the article was deleted. Perhaps the best solution would be to create a speedy deletion template that could produce the reasons by typing the code letters like db-multiple (For example you would be able to type or db-multiple could produce {{subst:db-notice-reason|G11|G12}} and the appropriate reasons would pop up. Someone who knows something about templates: Is this feasible? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the solution. And it's going to be a pain in the butt to code. --Bsherr (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, in the event that the page has already been deleted, the user will, upon clicking the link, be presented with the deletion log, which should contain the reason for deletion, and a link to the complete speedy deletion criterion. It may not be ideal, but isn't that good enough? decltype (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about article being sped deleted

I'm disappointed an article I created got deleted quickly. I created an article on "business sense" and explained that it is an idiom that means good financial decision with common sense and had a reference. The article was deleted in a few of hours after creation saying there wasn't enough context to establish the subject of the article. I believe the context is well established. There was a note saying put a message "hang on" if I disagree. Since it was deleted so quickly I didn't get a chance to use that option. Questions:

  1. Should there be two categories of speedy deletion. One that needs to wait at least 24 hours prior to deletion or some other X hours?
  2. Was speedy deletion used appropriately?

Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Daniel. The first step is to raise this on the deleting admin's talk page, and I've just done this for you. If you're still unsatisfied after the deleting admin has responded, you can take the matter to deletion review where experienced users will form a judgment about whether the article should have been deleted or not.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, users can't see the article to judge whether it should have been deleted or not (though administrators can). The concept of speedy deletion is provide immediate deletion of certain very narrow types of pages, and while input from the creator of the page is welcome, it's not guaranteed by the process. I always strongly suggest using the WP:Article wizard to create articles. Articles created through that process are significantly more likely to be acceptable for inclusion, or to get helpful attention (as opposed to deletion) if they are not. If you do believe the speedy deletion truly was wrongful, you can request a review of it at WP:DRV. --Bsherr (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your article consisted of one short sentence. At best this is a sub-stub, more likely an entry appropriate for Wiktionary. Even at Wiktionary it would require additional information. We have both deletion review and as the article title is not locked, direct creation of a better, much more detailed entry as ways to proceed. More complexity at Speedy deletion is not necessary. Rmhermen (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, Rmhermen, in fairness to Daniel.Cardenas, users don't have to write a complete article with their first edit. They're allowed to save it after writing the first sentence if they want.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Note: It was tagged for deletion 40 minutes after a single-edit creation and deleted just over an hour after creation - with no additional edits from the author in that time. Rmhermen (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that speedy was used appropriately here. There is no "waiting period"—as the name implies, speedy deletion means the article is subject to immediate deletion, and there's very little if anything in the "article" to provide any context. To avoid this in the future:

  • If you need to develop an article, do this on a user subpage, and move the article to mainspace once it's ready.
  • Ensure that you have sufficient reliable sources from independent sources to sustain the article. If you cannot find good in depth sourcing from several sources, there's a good chance that the subject is not notable and so is not a suitable one. If you can find them, cite the sources you use in developing the article. Don't just brain dump—being able to verify information through such sources is a requirement, not a nicety. Always ensure to use and cite sources when editing an article, unless you're making very minor changes (spelling/grammar fixes, etc.) There is no better proof against deletion of an article than to cite several solid sources. (Note this means solid sources, not sources that are unreliable, affiliated with the subject, or mention it only in passing.)
  • Ensure that your new article is at minimum a valid stub before placement in mainspace. This should mean at least a paragraph, and with sources to back it up.

If you do this, you'll find future articles of yours tend to remain, and that you don't waste your time starting articles on subjects without appropriate sourcing to sustain them. Speedy deletion does not preclude a new article that is appropriately sourced, so if you have or can locate sources for that article, by all means, give it another try. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • For all the effort we've just spent wrangling about whether the speedy deletion was justified, we could've written the article on business sense twice by now. I can't believe it should be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question/comment - an logical quesiton that will be illogical to some. According to one of the comments above, "one short sentence" is not really sufficient enough to survive {{Db-a1}}. If a one line article in mainspace is no good and should be "at least a paragraph" what about The Trout (film)? 1579 in music? Different Touch? Or is it that no content articles or a one or two line article is acceptable as long as it has sources and meets one of the notability guidelines? (Although if not having notability were the issue {{Db-a7}} or one of the offshoots would be more appropriate) The way I have always understood {{Db-a1}} is that "context" needs to be looked at and in this case there was an article about "business sense" that contained a definition. The "context" would have been, for example, somebody asking "What is 'business sense'?" and reading that it was, as described by the content creator, "an idiom that means good financial decision with common sense." If that meets {{Db-a1}} than what about other articles where "what is/was...?" is asked and a one or two line reply is given? In that regards there isn't much difference with Enumerative definition, Board mix, Escape (1930 film), LOL! (program), Lol, France, Definition (Jersey album) or even Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (Yes, I know that last one is a policy but the question itself is valid) and Business sense. Using common sense I think all of them, including the deleted Business sense, have a "context". (ie - "what is 'Ignore all rules'?" "It is a Wikipedia policy that means ignore all rules" / "What was 'LOL!'?" "It was a television program about..."/"What was 'Escape'?" "It was a 1930 British crime film about...'") Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that any article consisting of "one short sentence" should be speediable (in fact, "Very short articles" is listed specifically under "non-criteria"). Clearly in this case the context supplied was sufficient to describe what the topic was. WP:NOT a dictionary is not a speedy deletion criterion. This deletion was out of process and detrimental to article development. Dcoetzee 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Is being a centenarian a "credible claim of significance" for A7?

One editor is currently tagging multiple biographies about people who's only claim to significance is that they have lived to an age greater than 100. Generally these biographies are sourced to a local newspaper articles. I strongly doubt that merely living to age 101 makes a person notable, but is there a consensus as to whether or not it is a credible claim of significance for A7?

Thparkth (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider the higher standard, notability. The basic criterion for notability is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Local newspaper articles would meet this standard. Given that, I think the lower A7 standard of significance is probably met. I think it would be best, and produce the fairest outcome, if the articles went to AfD. Even a bulk AFD would be better than none at all. I respect that an argument can be made otherwise, but better to err on the side of more process. --Bsherr (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The 4 articles that I propose deletion are too "well known" in the outer world. As Bsherr pointed out, their mentions are from a "local newspaper". None of them, for example, have served as a politician, nor do any of them have a notable longevity record, such as oldest living twins, longest marriages, oldest in a country, etc. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
With the greatest respect for our most senior, senior citizens, simply being a centenarian is not a notability criterion for Wikipedia, and as longevity increases dramatically in developed countries, even less so. If a 104 year old lady is still working full-time driving a 44-ton artic, piloting a 747, or swimming the Channel twice a year, it might be a criterion, but even then it is still only a news item. Coverage in local newspapers, however often, especially in weekly ones, free ones, or web-only ones, is trivia. In this case for example, there is therefore no compelling argument for the existence of a Wkipedia article, even more so because the facts are presumed, and not confirmed. It also raises the question, in spite of the hard work put in by editors, if the entire series of articles and/or lists of centenarians should be deleted. On thing is sure, unilaterally blanking pages is not the way we do things here if we don't like the content; that privilege is reserved strictly for attack pages under WP:CSD G10. The correct method to contest a page, if it cannot be improved or repaired per WP:BEFORE, is through WP:PROD or WP:AfD. --Kudpung (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is becoming a notability discussion, rather than a "credible claim of significance" one. However, I would say that a person who is called "probably the oldest woman in Ireland" by two independent newspapers is probably notable. Thparkth (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have actually done some work in this area; Lists of centenarians clearly states that The following is a list of lists of centenarians (people who lived to be or are living at 100 years or more of age) known for reasons other than their longevity. As such, simply being old is not worthy of inclusion on WP, and I agree that WP:N should apply here. Sure, being 100 will get you some local press, but this isn't really significant. Don't centenarians fail WP:ANYBIO for the most part? — Timneu22 · talk 12:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Timneu22 - I agree with you here, as so often ;), but what do you think about the "credible claim of significance" issue? Should these be speedies or AFDs? Thparkth (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Tough call. Probably AfD, assuming that the article includes local newspaper links or something. Is there something more than WP:ANYBIO that applies here? — Timneu22 · talk 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Good thinking, but WP:ANYBIO is an inclusionary, not exclusionary, criterion. So while meeting ANYBIO would satisfy notability, not meeting it doesn't indicate a lack of notability, necessarily. --Bsherr (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Timneu's got the point. I for one wasn't arguing for notability, just pointing out that because the articles would meet the basic criterion of presumed notability, at the very least, it should meet the crediblie claim of importance/significance, with notability ultimately to be arbitrated at AfD. If it's a nuanced question at AfD, it certainly shouldn't be decided by speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, considering that we do have Lists of centenarians shows that anyone worthy of inclusion in that list is certainly more significant than people who are not. Whether they deserve their own article is for AFD to decide (as said above) but the claim itself is imho enough to pass A7. After all, if you do live to 100, you are more significant than those who didn't and it's still seldom enough that coverage of this is highly likely, even if it's only local. And any subject that has likely received any coverage at all (even if the article does not mention it) is not something for A7 to handle. Regards SoWhy 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
From above a type-o: "The 4 articles that I propose deletion are less "well known" in the outer world."
The people on List of centenarians are notable people who have played a "better known" role in society. Eva McConnell is not the oldest after Australia's formation, which was on January 1, 1901. Mary Rothstein born February 27, 1901 is the oldest (known) and oldest born after. This person needs to get his or her facts straight [The person who made the article]. Eva McConnell just has a "cute" little biography of her, nothing else. I propose deletion on Katie McMenamin, Eva McConnell, Mary Dolan Quinn, and James Dolan (centenarian). --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Back to newspapers: 2 'presumes' don't make a positive. Most especially because many local and regional newspapers use the same news agency (in the US you probably call this a 'wire service'), or are even published by the same group or holding. BTW: In my home town back in the UK, being a 100 is no big deal nowadays - unless your foot slipped off the clutch and your wrecked 5 cars in the supermarket car park ;) --Kudpung (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
On these I would ignore the subject matter, as I (and others) have long interpreted the inclusion in an article of a putatively reliable third-party source treating the topic beyond a mere mention as an implicit claim of significance or importance, rendering A7 inapplicable. However, were this about unsourced articles that merely asserted "X, a resident of ____, is 103 years old!", I do think that would be subject to A7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I find your reasoning completely incomprehensible. Reliable sources cover non-notable subject matter all the time; indeed, it is most of the content of even the most reliable newspaper. --Orange Mike | [[User talk:|Talk]] 13:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The argument is that while coverage in a reliable source might not be enough to make something notable, such coverage is a strong enough indication of possible significance that speedy deletion should not be used. Thparkth (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
@Orangemike. Incomprehensible? Really? Would you agree that the linchpin of notability is substantive treatment of an article’s topic in independent, reliable, third party sources? Would you also agree that A7’s standard of an indication of importance or significance is a much lower bar than notability, but addresses a common underlying concern? If your answer to these uncontroversial statements is yes, then inclusion in an article of any apparently independent, reliable, third party source that treats the topic substantively is not only an indication of importance or significance but a fundamental indication of the same, flowing directly from the fact that we define what is important and significant for inclusion in our encyclopedia by the existence of such sources. We have even had discussions of including a statement highlighting this in A7, though I am at work now and do not have the time to dig up links.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemike. There are millions of centenarians, and newspaper coverage of them is pretty close to a random selection. Consider the newspaper article itself. If the age of the subject is ignored, does anything else in that article indicate encyclopedic notability? If not, then we shouldn't presume it based on the achievement of not dying for a little longer than the average person. bd2412 T 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that being a centenarian is any more a claim of significance or importance than being a taxidermist, taxi driver, High school prom queen or being redhaired, it is worth mentioning in any biography of a notable person if that person did live to over a 100, but it isn't a reason for an article. Being the oldest person in x or y country is a claim of significance, being a centenarian isn't, - remember potentially this isn't just the addition of a few hundred thousand articles on currently living centenarians, very few centenarians live to see their 105th birthday - so the number of people we would potentially be creating articles for would be in the millions. This isn't like being a professor where perhaps half of them are notable for being professors, so AFD is safest; almost no centenarians are notable for being centenarians therefore IMHO you are safe to disregard being a centenarian when deciding if the article has an assertion of importance or significance. ϢereSpielChequers 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the question is, what if that person has received newspaper coverage? --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
@Bsherr. Lots of non-notable things receive newspaper coverage. The daily reports of traffic congestion, fires and car crashes all appear in newspapers. If the only reason for the paper covering someone's 100th birthday party is that the local Mayor popped into the old folks home for a photo opportunity then no I don't think we should pay attention to it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, lots of non-notable things recieve newspaper coverage, I agree. That's not the question. The question is whether things without any credible claim of significance or importance receive newspaper coverage. Do you have a view on that? --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it partly depends on the Newspaper, but yes there are often topical news stories that don't in my view assert importance of the subject. For example when school exam results come out each summer the BBC and National Newspapers will each send a journalist to a school to get a bunch of teenagers for a photo to illustrate the story. In my view the UK A level results 2010 probably do deserve an article, an individual teenager does not, even though they have been live on the BBC receiving their exam result. ϢereSpielChequers 18:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Pardon, I mean in the context of WP:N, so, importing that standard, more than a passing reference or insignificant coverage. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
As the thread-originator, I would like to offer my own opinion after reflecting on the various opinions offered here. I think that since there are at least several hundreds of thousands of centenarians in the world, merely living to the age 100 cannot in itself be a credible claim of significance. Even with local newspaper coverage of the kind we see in Mary Dolan Quinn, I don't think the threshold of credible significance has been reached. After all, I am not "significant" for having a garage sale, even if my local newspaper writes a few paragraphs about my garage sale. I think if I was an administrator I would be comfortable deleting such an article under A7. Thparkth (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Taking your example, though, why would a newspaper ever write an article on a garage sale? Presumably, in the rare circumstance they do, it must be because that garage sale is somehow significant. Now, it may very well turn out that it's not at all a notable garage sale, but that's far beyond the analysis that goes into speedy deletion, isn't it? Are speedy deletion admins really reviewing newspaper articles to determine if the subject is important? Should they be? --Bsherr (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"why would a newspaper ever write an article on a garage sale?" Sadly I have spent much of my life living in places where "First Garage Sale of the Summer!" or "Crawford's Garage Sale Rained Out" would be the big story of the week ;) As to your more substantive question, I think an admin should sometimes review newspaper references when considering speedy deletion candidates. Specifically, in any case where the article contains no obvious claim of significance but does reference a newspaper article. Thparkth (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hah, now I'm just curious. Where can I find such a newspaper article? --Bsherr (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But the fact that it references a newspaper article is an implied claim of significance, is it not? It tells the reader "subject X is significant enough that reliable source Y talks about it" and that should be sufficient for A7's purposes. Whether the reliable source is enough to make the subject warrant an article is not a question for speedy deletion but AFD. I'd be stricter with your proposed counter-exception: We should assume that any article that references a newspaper article is enough to pass A7 unless the article clearly indicates that the subject is not important or significant. If such an article lacks any statement regarding the subject's significance, admins should act "in dubio pro reo" since the potential loss of a good-faith contributor because of such a incorrect deletion weighs much heavier than having to keep such an article for a week. Regards SoWhy 17:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
SoWhy is correct. Such an assertion of significance is enough to avoid A7, but not enough, by itself, to survive a deletion discussion. There is, and should be a large number of articles that fall into the area where neither a speedy deletion nor a retention via deletion discussion is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Does this represent the consensus view? It seems to. I follow the argument and I can support it, but it certainly isn't made explicit in policy from what I can see. Should A7 be reworded to make it clear that articles with sources that directly address the subject are automatically exempt from A7? Thparkth (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I would support that. I think SoWhy put it very eloquently. --Bsherr (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to object that just a reference to a newspaper article is significant. If the newspaper article in question significantly covers them, that's an assertion of notability (since notability is sourcing). If it just name drops them, or is something trivial (a routine obituary, an ad, a press release, etc.), that's not even an assertion of notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Right, I'm thinking more along the lines of subjects that meet what is labeled as the "general notability guideline" in WP:N, excluding the language concerning number of such sources. --Bsherr (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
But, Seraphimblade, A7's language (for a longer time now) does not require an assertion of notability but clearly a "lower standard than notability". So your objection is only valid if A7 were to require an assertion of notability. Since it doesn't, I think it's sufficient that a reliable source covers the subject specifically at all (the obvious exception being coverage that is routine and where the subject could be anyone, like yard sale announcements or obituaries). Whether that asserts notability is irrelevant for the purposes of A7 but rather something to be discussed in an AFD. Regards SoWhy 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just nominated an article because the only claim was that he's old. — Timneu22 · talk 16:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How "restorable" should speedy deletions be?

At DRV recently, there have been a few speedy deletions reviewed which did not meet any defined criterion, nor was there any assertion that restoring the articles for discussion at AfD would have posed any harm (i.e., they weren't copyvio, promotion, attack, BLP, etc.). Being charitable, it would be said they were IAR deletions, while it could equally well be said that such administrator discretion prompted discussion to occur at DRV that should properly be the domain of AfD.

So what does the community think should be the criterion for restoring a "routine" (non G3, 10, 11, 12) speedy deletion when the deleting admin refuses to do so?

  • Option 1: "Routine" speedies are restored and sent back to AfD per a polite request
    Pro: Puts the discussion at AfD.
    Con: DRV traffic will be shifted to AfD.
  • Option 2: "Routine" speedies don't prevent simple recreation, so there's no need for a process and the editor should just address the speedy deletion criteria and recreate the article without the problem
    Pro: Less bureaucratic
    Con: May be a hassle to access deleted content
  • Option 3: "Routine" speedies must obtain a consensus at DRV for restoration
    Pro: Keep more stuff that probably doesn't merit inclusion out.
    Con: Unclear that DRV is actually required before re-creating such an article, so it may simply serve as a barrier to obtaining the old text rather than preventing re-creation.


Discussion and preferences

  • Of the ones I've listed here, I believe 2 to be the most appropriate, but if someone does happen to challenge a speedy at DRV per option 1, there's nothing to be lost by restoring anything non-harmful and sending it immediately to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

First, so, SD is not just for articles. Should I assume that references above to AfD are meant to be for XfD, or are we only discussing SD of articles? Either way, there are concerning consequences from these alternatives:

  • Option 1
    • Reduces SD from a reviewable final action to a preliminary process on the way to AfD.
    • Many, many SD actions are questioned by contributors, and this would potentially defeat one of CSD's important purposes, preventing overwhelming volume at XfD.
    • SD becomes different from ProD only in timing.
    • Incentives to decide SD actions correctly are reduced, because any SD action, right or wrong, if questioned, goes to AfD.
  • Option 2
    • Page history and talk page discussions is entirely lost when page is deleted and then recreated, resulting in a loss of valuable resources for editing and discussing the page.
    • Loss of page history on recreated articles will result in rampant contravention and undermining of WP:CWW, because edits in deleted article, if perpetuated in recreated article, will not be correctly attributed. Interpreted extremely (but rationally), "copy-paste" recreations may be "G12-able" copyright violations.
    • DRV is the community's check on a unilateral power, and elimination of that review will remove this important safeguard and the channel by which the principle of consensus is imported into SD decisions.
    • Elimination of DRV for SD will redirect complaints about SD to this talk page, WT:CSD, and to noticeboards, which are ill equipped to deal with deletion review in the comprehensive way that DRV can.
    • Elimination of DRV for SD removes finality from SD. Pages can continue in a creation, SD, recreation, SD, etc. cycle in perpetuity. Or, XfD becomes the only way to get finality.
    • Relying on recreation invites escalation of conflict. Because of the lack of finality mentioned above, conflict is channeled negatively into "deletion warring" rather than positively into discussion.
    • No one learns from recreation. If the contributor is wrong, and the SD was correct, contributor never hears that, unless he or she is a rare self-reflective person. Likewise, if the SD was wrong, the admin never hears that, and perhaps continues to decide wrongly in the future. Relying on recreation is issue-avoidant and regressive.
    • All of these consequenses are far less efficient (and, as applicable, more bureaucratic), than DRV. In the short term, telling someone at DRV, "just recreate the article" gets the DRV off your plate, but it's kicking the can down the road, because the conflict isn't resolved. The loss of efficiency is in the long run. It's short-sighted.
  • Option 3 (status quo, I believe)
    • The con argument identified above doesn't seem right to me. My understanding is that userfication requests are satisfied for good faith pages, without the need for further process. DRV isn't a barrier to receiving the old text.
    • Preserves SD's ability to prevent blatantly contravening inclusions while not overwhelming XfD with volume, but maintains important check on this power.
    • Is DRV having problems with volume, or is it that users there believe their reviews of SD are in vain? If it's the former, we can discuss possible separation of SD review. If it's the latter, rest assured that the work done there is very, very important, and isn't made irrelevant by the ability to recreate pages after SD. Rather, it's how users learn from mistakes. That's a necessary and natural function: If DRV weren't doing that, we would be asked to here on WT:CSD all the time.

I'd like to hear more about what the problem is, so perhaps we can create some better solutions. I'm pleased to be discussing and evaluating the effectiveness of our process. --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about classifying these as "ordinary;" I find that the majority of speedy deletions fall into categories aside from A1, A3, A7 and A9, which are the only ones that I think could be considered controversial. At the moment, there is no reason to prevent the recreation of an article That contains more content, context, or assertion of importance (i.e., G4 does not apply). Perhaps the userpage notices for A1 and A3 should have a note saying that the user can recreate the article if they can provide content or context. For IAR deletions, It is probably a good idea to immediately send the article to AfD. A7 deletions should not; I would estimate that from my own experience about a quarter to a third of A7s are contested in some way, which would cause enormous pressure on AfD. I also do not think we need a new mechanisim for dealing with these deletions (This talkpage or a separate noticeboard) because that would quickly become overwhelmed. I think that this problem should be solved by giving better explanations in the automated template messages and at the DRV page. Currently, I think that most deletions are brought up with New Page Patrollers or deleting Admins and do not even make it to DRV. If the user who created the article does not admit the need for improvement (and thus the need for userification/recreation) but thinks that the admin misapplied the deletion criteria, then and only then should they be directed to DRV.
Files, I think, do not need any of this. Non free files that were unused but need to be used again can be handled at REFUND, and most others should not need to be dealt with beyond a simple explanation. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I tend to figure that if one can address the problem that led to the speedy, one can recreate it without problem anyway. If an article was an ad or attack, but someone rewrites it in an appropriately neutral manner, they've addressed that problem. If an article provided no context, and a new one does, they've addressed that problem. If an article was a copyvio, and someone rewrites it as genuinely original work, they've addressed that problem. And so on through all of them. History undeletion should be handled on a case by case basis. If there's a genuine need for the history, and it wasn't clearly inappropriate to restore whatsoever (such as attacks or copyvios), go ahead and restore it.
As to DRVs of speedies, I don't think "didn't technically fit a criterion" should ever be in itself be a reason to restore an article. It should be shown that the article in question does meet the relevant content guidelines and should be retained. Right action, wrong way is not in itself a reason to overturn an action. To reverse any deletion, it should, above all, that the deletion was actually not correct and the article really is sustainable by an appropriate amount of sourcing, not just that it wasn't done through the technically correct process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear: No speedy deletion criteria ever prevents re-creation of an article under the same name; that's why G4 does not apply to PRODs or speedies. Only an AfD allows a future unchanged restoration of an article to be G4'ed. Many speedily deleted articles can (and should!) be deleted if recreated unchanged. In some cases (G3, G10-12), the user who does so should be warned, and sanctioned if the behavior is egregious or repeated.
So, then, DRVing a speedy only denies a copy of the article from which improvements can be made, at least according to policy. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
As to your last sentence, did you mean not DRVing a speedy? --Bsherr (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, the practice presently is that articles restored in DRV as wrongfully SDed are often sent right to AfD for the very determination you speak of. That's option 3. --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would say option 2 is the status quo, and would add that anyone worried about losing the history or wanting to work off it can get the article userfied to work on. And I would say that does not need to change. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Preserving the history is required per WP:CWW for recreations that consist of content added by other users. Recreation alone does not address that. And presently, SD decisions are reviewed by DRV. Right now, the only part of option 2 that is status quo is that SDed pages can be recreated, but as I said above, some recreations may be G12-able as violations of WP:CWW. --Bsherr (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD G13: Stale incubated article

I propose a new CSD:

  • G13, article that has been incubated for more than 3 months and has not been actively edited in the last week.

There seems to be strong consensus that incubated articles should not be incubated forever. As well, the current incubation project page gives the 3 month limit. It's not clear that this situation falls into one of the existing speedy deletion criteria. The reason I propose this as a G section criteria is because Twinkle does not present the A series when nominating something in Wikipedia space. This option would not apply to userspace drafts, only for incubated articles. I think this is needed as opposed to other options because:

  • These aren't controversial enough for MfD
  • PROD isn't allowed in WP space
  • You might G6 them, but G6 isn't really meant to be a catch-all... after all, most speedy criteria cover something non-controversial, but we still codify them.
  • This would help everyone have confidence in the incubation process as a truly temporary staging area. Gigs (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, minus the 1 month criterion. Without casting too many aspersions, I think people can figure out why that criterion is open to rampant abuse. Suggest a week instead; the point of the incubator is to make articles decent. → ROUX  01:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no compelling rationale whatsoever for speedily deleting these. Skomorokh 01:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that all of these articles should have been deleted anyway? The incubator is an end-run around AfD as it is; if one is going to accept the existence of the Incubator those who are involved with it also need to accept that the point is not to have unencyclopedic articles sitting there forever. Fix 'em up or get rid of 'em. → ROUX  01:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not an end run around AfD, because no-one reads these articles. Even if it were true that most incubated articles were "unencyclopedic", they are not part of the encyclopedia – this is another non-objection. The worst one could say for most of them is that they are taking up space (which isn't a concern); at best that they can seed great content in future. The ones that are so problematic as to demand summary deletion either already fall under the criteria (attack pages, copyright violations and the like) or necessitate review (POV forks, notability deficits). This trigger happiness seems to be motivated more by emotion than any rational cause. Skomorokh 02:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You're projecting, there's no emotional motivation here and I will thank you not to speculate in that way again. Simple question: if all the articles in the incubator went to AFD today, would they be kept? No, no they would not; if they would be kept then they would be in mainspace. ARS and the incubator exist to end-run around the established process we have for vetting whether content should be kept. → ROUX  02:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What this comment elides of course is that the standards for inclusion for encyclopaedia articles and no-indexed Wikipedia namespace pages is completely different. One is for readers, the other for editors. Skomorokh 02:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
By the very same token, then, we may as well simply do away with AFD. Speedy takes care of the obvious cases. While I don't doubt that the ARS would be quite happy to see AFD completely gone, that simply isn't going to happen, and would be a bad idea. If the incubator must exist (a fact of which I am not convinced, but since it does exist we must go along with it), it must--the same as AFD has--have a specific scope and process, and time limit. There is internal consensus within the incubator supporting this point. I took a look at four random articles to see the quality currently in the incubator:
  • Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Cinnamoroll:_The_Movie - one reference, nothing indicating notability, would not survive an AFD. Has not been touched since June, was created as a sandbox, was never even in mainspace.
  • Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Modulus_Financial_Engineering - written like a blatant advertisement, no indication of notability, google shows only mentions are links to downloads of its software and press releases. Would not survive an AD. Not touched since May. Was moved to the incubator to evade a PROD.
  • Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kuttiyattu paradevada temple - no indication of notability, no references, no reliable sources found in the first few pages of google, only blogs and Wikipedia itself (and mirrors). Would not survive an AFD. In fact, was taken to AFD, where the only policy-based arguments were in favour of deletion. For some reason was moved to incubator. Last substantively edited in March.
  • Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/František Merta - BLP violation; the only reference indicates allegations, not conviction as the article claims. (Foreign language sources may say otherwise, and obviously there is nothing wrong with using non-English sources, but the content needs to be made clear and all BLP violating statements must be adequately referenced). No assertion that the article subject is notable apart from his alleged criminal actions. AFD survival is doubtful. Last edited in January.
I see no way for these four random articles to ever become useful mainspace articles. They simply would not have survived at AFD. Nor have they been edited in any substantive fashion for months, from which one may quite reasonably extrapolate that they will not be edited anytime in the foreseeable future; the goal of the incubator is (or, rather, should be) to take subpar articles that would be deleted at AFD and make them ready for mainspace. If the people who are dedicated to doing this aren't editing them, who will? There simply is no reason to keep them. I am not particularly confident that this random sampling shows anything out of the norm in the incubator. I will now be going through Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Unreferenced_BLPs to check for issues. → ROUX  11:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, this proposal isn't "anti-incubation", it reflects the current consensus of the participants in the incubator project that 3 months is about the right amount of time. Lets not frame this as a referendum on incubation. While this might increase the confidence in the incubation process among skeptics, it's mainly a technical tool to fill a gap for these otherwise non-controversial deletions. Gigs (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but don't see the justification for the haste CSD facilitates other than this might be the path of least resistance. A delayed-trigger like PROD would seem to suit your rationales and the purposes of the incubator much better. You rule out PROD because it's use in this context isn't currently allowed, which leads one to question how CSD is currently any different in that regard. Best, Skomorokh 02:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I just recently tried to get prod expanded outside of article space and failed. The main concern is that because other namespaces are so poorly trafficked that it opens the door for stealthy deletion of nearly anything. Prod might actually get more deleted sooner than this CSD proposal. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support with comment: suggestion of 3 month soft limit for Candidate articles to graduate, and 6 month HARD limit to graduate. No graduation = candidate article deletion = any associated NFC becomes orphan and deletable. (Also, you mean 'should not be incubated forever', right?)     Eclipsed   ¤     02:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That text you linked to is kind of out of touch with policy, prod isn't supposed to be used outside of article space, not even on former articles, and as our adventures earlier showed, it's not really clear at all what CSD it's suggesting that we use. Gigs (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your edit is better. No prod, just a speedy delete if missed graduation.     Eclipsed   ¤     02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional wishy-washy support If the deadline is moved to 6 months with an editor in good standing being able to request an extra month if they promise to finish it in that time I'd likely support. I really don't like the idea of deadline for the sake of a deadline, but I think it will just clear out those articles that don't really have a chance (or no one was interested in) so that work can be focused. That said, I think the folks that do a lot of the work there should chime in with their thoughts before we move forward. Hobit (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Chime in - I found the Incubator a short while ago when working on a new bio article in my userspace, but was unsure if the person would pass notability. The incubator had a lot of articles in it, and it was a bit confusing. I went through and marked ~50 for deletion, both as 'delete candidates' within the incubator, and as prod. Ran into problem that prod isn't allowed outside of WP space. Then tried tagging one as speedy, but was unsure what criteria to use. Once all this 'cruft' is deleted, the incubator will be a much cleaner space to work in.     Eclipsed   ¤     02:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Problem" is not a problem. NOINDEX can be added to problematic articles, or problematic articles can be blanked. No justification for speedy deletion just because an article is in userspaceincubated and not recently worked upon. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Ultimately, I don't have a problem with the incubator existing as a "not yet/currently notable/sourced" space, a trove from which articles for creation might draw, but which is acknowledged by all to be a not-ready-for-prime-time space. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    And the not-ready-for-prime-time-players would enjoy a clean work environment. CSD#G13 will make incubator cleanup tasks easier and quicker, and give us more time to graduate articles into mainspace.     Eclipsed   ¤     03:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    You might indeed--can you speak for everyone? I thought not. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Jclemens, you might not have a problem with that, but a lot of other people would. You are advocating abandoning point 2 of "What the incubator is not" which explicitly defines it as not a form of indefinite storage for sub-standard articles. The question here isn't "should we delete stale articles in the incubator", that question is answered already. Gigs (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Abandoning it? I never endorse it in the first place. Thus, it should be no surprise whatsoever that I oppose this. There's simply no good reason for deleting non-offensive, non-infringing content that has been removed from public view, especially since it is kept indefinitely for undeletion purposes. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'm confused. Are you saying that non-offensive, non-infringing content should stay in the incubator, even after there is consensus within the incubator to delete it? Or do I misunderstand you?     Eclipsed   ¤     05:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Non-offensive, non-infringing content that has been removed from public view certainly has no reason for its own speedy criterion, and the only reason for deletion I've heard is "It clutters the incubator", to which a solid answer has been raised: so move it to an inactive/hold/archive status. Since it's not a content problem, and is going to stay in the database forever anyways, what is the reason to require administrator intervention to retrieve it? I see none. If there is a problem, anything can be nominated for XfD or speedied per existing criteria as they apply, but this proposed criterion doesn't apply to such cases. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing that up. As others have already alluded to, this isn't a inclusionist/deletionist debate. There is strong consensus that candidate articles should not incubate forever, mostly to stop abuse, and also because it helps with cleanup and management of the project. There is a process already in place within the incubator to tag candidate articles for deletion, and to give interested editors a chance to object. After that process is completed, then G13 would come into play, as a non-controversial management cleanup. Other choice would be to use G6 Technical deletion.     Eclipsed   ¤     10:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Jclemens. Could someone explain what the problem is with a article in the incubator that hasn't been recently attended to (assuming it's not otherwise a speedy deletion candidate)? --Bsherr (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there's no proper way to delete stale articles without doing what amounts to an out-of-process deletion or bringing them to MfD. What do you think we should be doing with them? Gigs (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Nothing. Why does anything have to be done with them? --Bsherr (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If nothing is done with them, then the incubator will fill with cruft, and no one will want to play there anymore.     Eclipsed   ¤     03:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Older pages can always be moved to a separate category. --Bsherr (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • (e/c) Because the mission of the incubator is to serve as a limited-time staging area to bring articles up to mainspace standards. There's a pretty strong consensus that the incubator is not intended as indefinite storage, and that's among the people actually incubating articles. It's been documented on the incubator page for quite a while that stale articles should be deleted, but there is no supporting deletion policy means to carry out that intention. Gigs (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What about doing it "prod" style, in the way that T3 or Template:Deprecated works? That way, articles that people are still interested in working on won't get deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Like this? Maybe a bit overdoing it. There's already a process in place to identify articles to be, or not to be, deleted from the incubator. Once the 'incubator-delete' decision is made, it'd be nice to get rid of the page as quickly and easily as possible, to keep the incubator clean.     Eclipsed   ¤     04:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • As a replacement for the existing deletion candidate template. Basically keeping the wording of the existing template, but setting an actionable deadline for the deletion. Once the page has been identified for deletion, you really should give interested users a chance to object, rather than immediately deleting it. --Bsherr (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, there is a system in place to identify incubator articles for deletion, and to give users time to object. After the 'incubator-delete' is agreed, then CSD#G13 would come into play for the incubator cleanup tasks.     Eclipsed   ¤     04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's really neither here nor there for me. To me, incubation contemplates that an article will be improved. If it isn't, the incubated article ought to get punted, to save (albeit marginal) server space if nothing else. If someone wants the incubated article back, there is WP:REFUND.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • and to save incubators time :)     Eclipsed   ¤     03:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I still think we should have a J1, J2, J3, and so on...but this seems ok. Mono 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the pages should get more of a chance to improve, and speedy delete is too fast and invisible way to get rid of them. Use MFD if there is a good reason to get rid of them, otherwise leave them there. The similar situation applies to WP:AFC declined articles, not to be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I think claim 3 in the summary below shows that pages are given chance to improve.     Eclipsed   ¤     11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    I took a random sampling above. One of the articles has not been substantively edited in eleven months. How much more of a chance to improve do they need? I find the argument about AFC unpersuasive; those articles shouldn't be kept indefinitely either, but that is an argument for another page. → ROUX  11:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Summary to date...
    • Proposed: Add CSD G13 "article that has been incubated for more than 3 months and has not been actively edited in the last week."
    • Why? To assist with management of the Article Incubator project
Claims
  1. The Article Incubator is an active Wikipedia project with the goal of identifying potential Candidate Articles and improving them to meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria.
    1. counter claim - The Article Incubator is a bad idea, because it is a run-around of existing processes.
  2. Candidate Articles incubate outside the main articlespace, with NOINDEX
  3. The Article Incubator has an internal process for evaluating and tagging Candidate Articles for deletion. Editors are given a reasonable chance to object before final deletion. After this process is completed, to then add more work for a non-speedy delete would waste time.
  4. There is strong consensus that Candidate Articles may not incubate forever, and thus that deletions are 'non-controversial'
    1. counter claim: If content is non-offensive, non-infringing and outside main articlespace then it should be allowed to exist forever. Deletions would cause extra admin work on a WP:REFUND
  5. There is a weak consensus that the incubation time period should be limited to 3-6 months.
  6. Deletion of Candidate Articles is an ongoing administrative task of the project
  7. PROD is only for main articlespace, thus not a good option for deleting Incubator Candidates
  8. A new G critera will assist Twinkle users.
  9. CSD G6 Technical Deletion is not a good option because it would be a 'catch-all'. Better to have a more well-defined criteria.
    1. counter claim: G6 is good enough, use it.

OK, does that look correct to everybody? Please add any claims/counter claims I missed. Thanks.     Eclipsed   ¤     11:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's strong consensus to delete them in 3-6 months or so. People might not agree on the exact number of months, but the consensus for something in that ballpark is strong. This is particularly frustrating because the "inclusionist" arguments here are trying to turn the incubator into something that it was never intended to be, and something that might well get it killed as a project. Gigs (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, is frustrating. This G13 proposal is specific to the maintenance procedures of the Incubator. The inclusionists may be better served by creating a new proposal like "The Article Incubator is a Bad Idea, but if it exists, it should follow the exact same guidelines and policies as userspace".     Eclipsed   ¤     14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Inclusionism is an inapt label for my position. There's a large capability for "gray space" that is neither deleted and accessible only to administrators, nor in mainspace and viewable to our primary customers: blanking and NOINDEXing of content that everyone agrees is not ready for inclusion at the moment has entirely eliminated the urgency for deletion. If the incubator is too full, then by all means move the documents (which everyone agrees aren't offensive or infringing) into "cold storage" so you can have an incubator limited to active work, but the case for deletion is still quite lacking. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the fundamental difference between 'incubation' and 'cold storage'? There isn't one. What is the purpose of keeping articles that are not acceptable for mainspace and haven't been worked on in almost a year?
If you wanted to treat the Incubator the same as userspace, then the Incubator as whole may be considered the user. And thus by consensus in the Incubator, CSD U1 User request and CSD U2 Nonexistent user would be relevant.     Eclipsed   ¤     15:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of keeping inoffensive user contributions that may someday become articles is a fundamental philosophical difference that many involved in the discussion just don't get. If someone, once, ever said "That's a topic that should be worked on", then there's no good reason to remove it. Playing games to make "the incubator" its own user ignores the fact that real human beings dedicated their time and knowledge to share with others. If it meets a deletion criterion, by all means delete it. But if it doesn't, the "no one's working on it at the moment" argument isn't compelling. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a vast difference between IDHT and 'disagree.' So.. how about not doing that again? Great. The articles I have looked at in the incubator, particularly the ones which haven't been touched in months, would not survive an AFD. In fact, every inoffensive article that has ever been created "ignores the fact that real human beings dedicated their time and knowledge to share with others." Why are these articles different? → ROUX  17:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
My first reaction is to say "If you don't want to get an IDHT, then please listen and address the issues I raised." but that's not fair: I am proposing an entirely new way of dealing with deletions; a third path, if you will. It's not a conventional approach, but it's actually a better way to go. Of course the articles would be deleted at AfD, they already have been: they aren't in mainspace and won't be until they're fixed, so what we present to end users isn't an issue. They will always stay in the database of deleted content, so size is not an issue. The only real issue is whether the convenience of people looking at the incubator outweighs the destruction of sub-par good-faith content. Remember, in order to get into the incubator in the first place, someone had to have said "that has potential". No lack of forward progress changes that. We can deal with the neatness of the incubator by moving, we can deal with the visibility of the material through blanking or NOINDEXing. Nothing is gained by taking material-removed-from-mainspace and deleting it that cannot be achieved in a less drastic manner. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, the question isn't whether stale incubated articles should be deleted or not. That question is not even on the table. They will be deleted, because that's how the incubator works. If you want to create some new project to indefinitely archive deleted and unsuitable content, then that's an entirely different discussion. If this speedy deletion criteria isn't added, then they will just be deleted "out-of-process" like they have been done up until now. This is just giving a CSD number and formal definition to deletions that already have been happening, and will continue to happen. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Compromise Move them back to mainspace and prod them there. That way they have 7 days in mainspace where they might attract collaborative editing, and if someone wants to reference them in the future the article can far more easily be found and restored. ϢereSpielChequers 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that will work, but at least that is thinking in the right direction. My concern there would be that it would be too easy for someone to de-prod an article without improving it. What then? Another AfD on something that has often already been deleted at AfD once? Gigs (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that putting not-ready-for-mainspace content back in mainspace is just not a positive step. While I'd rather see it kept indefinitely in a holding area, if it's just going to be deleted anyways why put it back into mainspace first? Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, holding area is OK, as long as it is not in WP:AI, and it's easy to move articles to the holding area. WP:COLDSTORAGE ?     Eclipsed   ¤     22:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with a WP:COLDSTORAGE, where useless (yet non-infringing and non-offensive) articles languish in a junkyard for those brave souls who strive to pick through them looking for improvable treasures. Kick 'em out of the incubator when they're no longer active, NOINDEX them, and leave them to rot as far as the incubator's overseers are concerned. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What about my suggestion above for a process similar to Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates? Effectively speedy deletion after tag on article for fourteen days with no objections. --Bsherr (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, pause-then-speedy is OK, as long as it is built-into the incubator eval procedure, and isn't adding extra time to the eval+delete procedure already in place.     Eclipsed   ¤     23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Total oppose: Articles in incubator are outside WP mainspace and are meant to be in a not-ready state -otherwise they would be in mainspace. If they are stale, this doesn't mean that someone else can't take them and reedit them. Even if they stay stale for years, they can always provide useful starting material: we have no deadline in article space, let alone in an incubator! --Cyclopiatalk 23:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess you missed the part where this is simply streamlining extant incubator practice. → ROUX  23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If this is practice, then practice is (IMHO) dead wrong. Have there been RfC's on such practice? --Cyclopiatalk 23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Why not make a new RfC if you want, but that discussion is not relevant to THIS proposal. The Incubator exists, and has existed since 2009. Strong consensus among past and present editors in the incubator is that articles may NOT stay in the Incubator forever.     Eclipsed   ¤     23:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
          • It is relevant to this proposal -it is extremly relevant to know what is the consensus about such deletions when dealing with a new CSD criteria. The incubator is still a rather obscure part of WP and I suspect (I may well be wrong: link me the relevant discussions if so) that there hasn't been a wide scale discussion on what happens there. That's why I feel a RfC could be useful. If there is "strong consensus", I'd like to see proof of it as in a RfC discussion or analogous. --Cyclopiatalk 23:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a lot of confusion on this. Let's clear up a few things: Deletions of Candidate Articles will not stop. It is an ongoing process, with strong consensus support from past and present incubater editors. Interested parties are given time to object, userfy, transwiki, or whatever. The only thing that might change is how Candidates are "Expelled". This proposal wants a new CSD G13 to make this ongoing process work better. I am currently using CSD G2 for this task, and it is working well, actually. But G13 would be better. If inclusionsists want to 'save' the content of these articles, then they should do it in a different project, and not inside the Incubator.     Eclipsed   ¤     23:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess the thing has to be discussed in a project-wide RfC. If things are like you say, they're worrying. --Cyclopiatalk 23:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
      • How is it 'worrying' to delete useless articles? I am truly baffled by this stance. → ROUX  00:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I think Cyclopedia disagrees with your premise that they're useless. --Bsherr (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Which would be fine, but inconsistent with the Incubators goals. Incubator is not about saving content forever. It is about identifying and launching articles into mainspace, that will have a good chance of survival.     Eclipsed   ¤     00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Eclipsed, you mentioned a current "eval+delete procedure" in place. Could you link to it or explain it here, please? Perhaps we can then figure out the best way to incorporate a deletion process. --Bsherr (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Article_Incubator#How_it_works is a starting point. There's 4 statusi for Candidate articles: new, start, eval, and delete. These are set via changing {{Article Incubator|status=...}} code on each article. Articles are put into automatic work ques via categories based on the status. But the details of how to do the expulsion/deletion are a work-in-progress.     Eclipsed   ¤     01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, that page needs some cleanup, and so does the template, which doesn't conform to the MOS. I'll put some time into it Wednesday. --Bsherr (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, incubation isn't meant to be an indefinite end-run around deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I suggest we use the existing classification system, so that CSD#G13 would be for:

    "Incubated article classified delete for one week month without improvement, and not suitable for mainspace."

The last five words say to the deleting admin that he must read the article and form his own view, not just zap it on a time-expired basis.
That would give much the same effect as a PROD: just as anyone can remove a PROD, so anyone could set the "delete" status back to "eval", though I wouldn't in this case forbid it being reset to "delete" later. If the "delete" articles formed a category, anyone interested could patrol it, as people now patrol the pending PRODs, to see if there was anything that should be saved.
The incubator's usefulness is as a manageably small pool of articles with some prospect of improvement; if it is allowed to become an ever larger and more stagnant pond, nobody will be motivated to fish in it. If articles expelled from it must be kept, they should go to a separate "limbo" as discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#WP:COLDSTORAGE, but I can't myself see any point. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
"A manageably small pool of articles with some prospect of improvement" is an excellent summary. It seems[attribution needed] when the Incubator started last year, it was mainly for articles at risk of deletion. Since then, seems[attribution needed] more and more editors are using it as a 'temporary staging ground' to build up articles. So in terms of risk assesment: Building up articles in mainspace is very risky. Building up articles in userspace is less risky, but less productive. Building up articles in the Incubator is less risky, and more productive. The risk in the Incubator is defined up front (ie: time limit based on activity/progress), and there is a support structure to assist with common article building tasks.     Eclipsed   ¤     08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I wish paranoid deletionists would stop treating the incubator as an affront. This incubator is not just for articles at risk of deletion. I had to rescue User:Fences and windows/Protest in the United Kingdom from overzealous deletion from the incubator, when the nominator and deleting admin didn't bother to ask me or Smartse whether we'd like to keep it. He started it in his userspace, then I expanded it and moved it to the incubator in the early days, hoping someone might pick up the baton. It still needs turning from a linkfarm and imagefarm into a proper article, and that will take some real work, but that article was NOT a "run around for deletion", so none of the arguments for deletion apply. Deletion of incubated articles without a good reason is just an unthinking bonfire of potentially useful material. Fences&Windows 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I wish wild-eyed inclu... no, let's not go down that route. I have upped the time in my proposal to a month, and add that, as with PROD, an article deleted under my G13 should be automatically restored on request. JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as drafted + suggested approach. Too broad. Wikipedia is collaborative, even on abandoned drafts. The current incubator contains partial drafts that look like they'll never make it, and also those with solid sources and possibly encyclopedic titles. I would not like to see the latter deleted just because someone though pressing delete was easier than moving to mainspace. Another user might see the few likely valid drafts and pick them up. I notice a possible good compromise (below). FT2 (Talk | email) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Incubator proposal

I notice the incubator seems to be 90% full of possible WP:CSD#A7's and pages that don't seem to have much visible chance of becoming viable articles. Wording already exists for both of these issues at WP:CSD and WP:UP#NOT. Assuming those are the real target, why not do it this way:

CSD#G13   Incubator draft articles that are stale or unlikely to be suitable for mainspace.

Incubator draft articles on:

  • Topics having virtually no chance of becoming an encyclopedia article (For example because the topic is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)
  • Topics that are real people, organizations, specific animal(s), musical recordings, or web content, that are more than 1 month old and unedited for 1 week.

Other incubator content then goes to WP:MFD as usual, in line with usual CSD practice that CSD only handles "safe" summary deletion cases. I think this delineates the main cases we would want incubator CSD. Time limit reduced because it's now more narrowly defined hence safer. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - This is more specific, and also allows continued incubation of 'active and progressing' articles. Combined with WP:MFD we'd have a good system. One change: 'draft articles' to 'Candidate Articles'.     Eclipsed   ¤     12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
"Incubator candidate articles on" or "Incubator subpages on" ?
Also, should this cover "Incubator and userspace drafts"? The same logic and criteria probably apply to both (whatever is decided), the two are used interchangeably, and it would be odd that the same draft could be CSD'ed in one drafting venue and not in the other. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so happy with including userspace drafts. There is an important difference, in that they have a named user who is (presumably) interested and can be approached about them. Sentiment at MFD generally seems to be in favour of allowing pretty large discretion on userspace drafts, with six months inactivity being routinely allowed before deletion. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Better to just focus on the Incubator. Userspace has different policies and guidelines.     Eclipsed   ¤     18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support but... the first clause is rather subjective for a sudden-death deletion. I would like to retain the PROD-like aspect of my proposal by adding at the end of that clause the words "and have been at status delete for at least a week". JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with JohnCD's modification We can give them a little while to improve. Gigs (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The A7's in the incubator have been placed there because some editor in good standing asked that they be kept there for work. Jclemens (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As these deletions would be classed as noncontroversial, the editors in good standing can easily do WP:REFUND if they wish to restart.     Eclipsed   ¤     18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Which would add another layer of bureaucracy despite the fact that editors in good standing requested those to be kept there - despite the fact that the deletion won't be of any benefit. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I assumed that 'good standing' would mean the editor knew the general guidelines and policies of the Incubator, already decided it was a better choice then userspace, and knew from the start that incubation is temporary.     Eclipsed   ¤     19:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • "Good standing" is not the same as "experienced". Regards SoWhy 19:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Heh, you are right, good standing != experienced. But if you're worried about bureaucracy, please consider the extra work involved with keeping non-active and non-progressing articles in the incubator, something that was never its goal.     Eclipsed   ¤     19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Can you explain, what extra work that is? I am honestly puzzled how not doing anything with those articles can be more work than deleting them. Regards SoWhy 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
                • In the (way too long) thread above there's bit of discussion of that already. But basically, incubator is A manageably small pool of articles with some prospect of improvement. Incubator is not a means of preserving sub-standard content on Wikipedia indefinitely. Any article not ready for graduation to mainspace is by definition sub-standard. To keep all non-active, sub-standard articles in the incubator, assessment and management of the 'pool' becomes more time consuming. Hope that explains my point.     Eclipsed   ¤     23:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • Not really. Once the article is rated (in this case as "delete"), what further management is required? Those articles can be safely ignored at this point and if someone wants to work on it at a later time, they can do so and then ask for re-rating, can't they? So it would be less complicated to simply leave them where they are after they are rated than to delete them, which is work for admins and to have people searching and/or requesting undeletion afterwards, wouldn't it? Regards SoWhy 23:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • "Safely ignored" articles are articles that can easily attract libel and other stuff, and can easily be put back into Google by someone removing the NOINDEX from them. As well, they will wind up in Google anyway, because sites that mirror Wikipedia often operate based on database dumps, and then post the articles in static form that doesn't implement NOINDEX. We can't "safely ignore" any non-deleted, unprotected, page on Wikipedia. Every single editable page here has an administrative and editorial overhead associated with it. We have deletion processes and notability guidelines for a reason, and that reason goes beyond just hiding copyvios and libel, it's also a question of the finite resources we have to maintain articles. Gigs (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • So the solution would rather be to hard-code the NOINDEX tag into all incubator entries, would it be not? We cannot control what other websites do, so that's not a valid reason to delete anything. As for finite resources, no one has to manage those pages once they have been assessed. Regards SWM (SoWhy[on]Mobile) 08:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The incubator's subpages and talk pages are already hard coded to be NOINDEXED. It's in Mediawiki:Robots.txt. Any page placed in the incubator automatically becomes NOINDEXed. For example a Google search for "Keith Akers" on Wikipedia finds nothing, although that page is in the incubator. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So Gigs' concerns are unfounded regarding this "problem", are they not? And since the activity of mirror sites is not a relevant criterion to judge our behavior, there is really no reason to delete those pages at all and doing so would be more work than simply ignoring them. Regards SoWhy 22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can't support this, too vague and non-objective to determine whether a topic has or has not a chance of becoming a valid encyclopedia article. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is a perfectly good method for removing hopeless articles, which is MfD, which has worked very efficiently for disposing of hopeless userified articles--as a summary of what happens, most taken there get deleted, but there seems to be a increasing feeling that there is no set maximum time that an item will stay userified. Usually those there only a short time do not now get deleted unless they are really unsatisfactory, or are not in good faith. The best way to find articles or potential articles unsatisfactory is, of course, a group discussion, not the fiat of an administrator. More uniform results occur if more people see it, and the discussions are centralized in as few places as possible. If an article is in the incubator at least one editor here has spoken up for not deleting it, and so it unlikely to qualify for a speedy. And of course, if anyone objects to deletion, the prod fails, so MfD is more dependable--even if the guideline at PROD were changed so that these WP space items were proddable . My personal view about the AI is that its procedures are excessively bureaucratic, and consequently only a few work there, as only a few work on the equally bureaucratic Articles for Creation--myself, I am much too impatient for the rules of either of them, and prefer the customary disorganized practice of people making improvements as they can, and nominating for deletion if they think unimprovable. I know some people think XfD the most over-complicated process of any, but nominating is very easy with Twinkle. And it has the advantage that the results are generally accepted --and that XfD can work on anything, based on whatever criteria the consensus feels justified. That makes it much better than a fixed rule, both for deletion and keeping. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just for the record, I think I have already clarified my position above. DGG summarized it quite well. And remember, per WP:AI, articles can be incubated if one user thinks they are substandard and no one objects. But if they can be incubated without discussion, we should not allow them to be deleted without discussion as well. Regards SoWhy 14:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Removal Procedure

I think the overall removal procedure needs to be defined better. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure. Thanks.     Eclipsed   ¤     00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a good idea. I think we were getting closer to consensus here. Gigs (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the overall removal procedure (not just CSD) has not reached consensus, and that is relevant to this discussion. I put forward the new RfC to try to combine keeping the incubator small and manageable, and still allow Candidate articles to stay forever if they are showing progress.     Eclipsed   ¤     01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Too many topics and sub topic all over on this. The incubator is not a policy, nor is userfication. I bring that up only in regards to how both of those relate. (As well as userspace that contains a user draft of an article) All of these should relate to the existing policy - which is mostly Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and related guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:User pages. This is how many conflicting "deletion criteria" come into play. Currently I see three things:
1. If an article fails a policy (or related guideline based on policy) it can be moved to userspace if it is deleted to be worked on via userfication.
2. If there is an article in the works it can be created first in userspace. (For a newbie you might go to Wikipedia:About the Sandbox which suggests If you have a username, you can create your own sandbox in your userspace and links to Wikipedia:User pages which one will read and see that a userspace may contain a Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future but does note that some matters may not be kept indefinitely and that some "User space archives" may not be kept indefinitely in userspace if unused. If you need mor ehelp you may go to Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft which will tell you that Above all, don't rush: Rome wasn't built in a day, and there's no reason your article should be - which will link to the oft cited in deletion discussions about this sort of thing - Wikipedia:There is no deadline)
3. Either of these can happen in the incubator as well.
Lets take userfication and a userspace draft - according to Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable In the past it has been nearly impossible to reach any sort of agreement on how to define "indefinitely", "long-term archival" or "Short term hosting". The same for Wikipedia:Userfication which says content inappropriate for the mainspace should not be kept indefinitely in user space. The suggestions have always varied from a few months to "forever", because, at Wikipedia there is no deadline.
How this ties back to this discussion is that the incubator is suggesting 3 - 6 months. But outside of the incubator there is nothing to really back that up - which in itself is fine because, I believe, the incubator is a project onto itself. As such is can set its own "guidelines" as it were - taking some common wording it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." But, as it is currently not a policy what is to prevent an article being taken from the incubator after that set time and having it moved to user space where such time limits seem to vary day to day? I have said it in the past and it bear repeating on this topic - there needs to be a set definition across the board in regards to this sort of thing. Currently Wikipedia:Article Incubator says Incubation is temporary (3 months), and is a more centralized alternative to creating articles in the user spaces of individual editors. If that is the case it should be backed up by policy, not just a deletion policy. So, for example, if the guiding policy were Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Content in particular which, under "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought", links to the Wikipedia:No original research policy and such an article would fail in mainspace than it would be good to provide a firm link that implies any such article that was being worked on either in userspace or the incubator could not sit for, using this discussion as an example, more than 3 - 6 months. There has never been one - and yes, if it were to be accepted here it would help - however as worded it only applies to material in the incubator. To me that is not bad if that is were the only option - but as pointed out there are two other options that do not seem to have any sort of defined time limit, and that is a loophole or sorts. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this needs more work. I've withdrawn the general RfC call for this, so we have some time to review & rewrite.     Eclipsed   (t)     14:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)