Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Section break 5

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

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

Actually, you seem to have lost one element of {{db-u1}}: It won't categorize pages in CAT:CSD if they belong to the User talk: namespace and there is no rationale. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the vast amount of discussion above we saw that and decided that it was just asking for pages to be tagged and forgotten about, never to be dealt with. The huge number of User talk pages that have just appeared at CAT:CSD is, I think, confirmation of this. Happy‑melon 11:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

We could always merge the histories - I think they're almost entirely non-overlapping. It's just a bit of a pain. Happy‑melon 14:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a full merge of the histories because I imagine that would be a pain. But it might be good for the histories to have an edit summary that pointed to the /new pages. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to do it by having an edit summary pointing to the /new pages. I think the /new pages should eventually be deleted. I suggest either merging the edit histories, or else doing a null edit with an edit summary which lists the names of the contributors. Note that there may be contributors to the new wording (e.g. Moonriddengirl, and in a few cases others) who may not currently be attributed in the /new templates but whose contributions may be evident at the discussion subpages. If it's decided to do it via edit summary rather than merging the edit histories I would be willing to do some or all of the work. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we want people to be able to write their own reasons like this? Maybe when the resaon parameter is used, extra words should be added making it clear that this is not one of the standard template wordings. (Or maybe admins are quite smart enough to see that for themselves). --Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that {{delete}}, or {{db}} I should say, was completely useless for exactly that reason. But the overwhelming consensus seems to be (or seemed to be at the time of its several TfDs) that no wikimedia project could be complete without a template to request deletion at Template:Delete or its translated equivalent. Happy‑melon 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the templates don't have the ability to explain why the tagger thinks it fits the criterion, I've used {{db-reason}} (aka {{db}}) before simply because the particular tag available for the applicable criterion was too inflexible.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Most/all admins check the history prior to deletion or removing tags, and I always look to see if the nominator has left an additional note in their edit summary, which is fairly common. Happy‑melon 13:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the following wording be added to db, as italic, non-bolded wording immediately after the tagger's reason, i.e. passed in as parameter 2 to db-meta: "(custom wording by tagger.) For valid criteria, see CSD."

Thanks to Happy-melon for copying the new versions of the templates into place, and thanks to all who participated in developing the new versions of the templates: Moonriddengirl, Happy-melon, Od Mishehu, Ozzieboy, Allstarecho, N, White Cat and R'n'B. The deletion log looks great: it's cool that those are the words we put in. I think you're quite right, Happy-melon, that the wording in the deletion log summaries needs to be short; otherwise the deletion log would be clogged up and repetitive. Detailed wording isn't needed at that stage, and the link to the whole criterion is given, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

What in hell is wrong with you people?

Look at this edit.

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

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

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

I think perhaps you're going a bit overboard here. Was that diatribe really necessary? The nature/profession/longevity on wikipedia of an article creator is categorically irrelevant when the article is written as it was in the diff your provided. If it meets the SD criteria, it gets tagged. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think this was a wee bit on the uncivil side? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, there's always the option of improving the article instead of deleting it after 2 minutes. We're here to create and expand content, that should be the first option that's considered I'd think. RxS (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I think it's right on the mark. There are people out there who make no contribution what so ever to the site but if you look at their deletion logs it's at a rate of several deletions per minute. Something about that just isn't right. Zenasprime (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Few admins are promoted who haven't been the main writer on a Featured Article or participated at ANI, UAA, RFP etc, for many months. Believe me, the admin bit is not something you just ask for and receive. Happy‑melon 09:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been at RfA recently, have you? Drop by sometime and get a nasty surprise. Relata refero (disp.) 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The last time I was there was in February. Happy‑melon 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably too busy to see who else was being promoted on the strength of six months of vandal reversion? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with people who are involved in that line of work being promoted - I certainly wouldn't consider six months of RC patrol "[making] no contribution what so ever[sic] to the site", as Zenasprime claims. Happy‑melon 09:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. I merely think that you should recognise that many people are being promoted now who have never actually written a full article or participated in dispute resolution or in any way been exposed to anything beyond the ordinary. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

<EC>Well, maybe Michael you aren't being so unreasonable. Like Strangelove says, it might be better to improve rather than delete. See below. Dlohcierekim 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At least look into improvement, I know that a lot of crap comes through but there's no damage done if an article sits untagged for 8 minutes instead of 2 or 3. I know it's easier to tag something right out of the chute but any or all of three things may happen when people don't dig a little: You make someone else do the quick research work before possible deletion, a legitimate article gets deleted and/or a newbie gets bitten. It's not a race, right? RxS (talk)

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

I think we were discussing the idea of delayed speedy tags (for notability) at one point, but I can't remember what talk page it was on. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot V, if I remember correctly. Happy‑melon 09:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it, it was Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Time switch. Seems the discussion on it died down, but I still think it's a great idea that would help issues like this. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points, Michael. Near the top of this page it says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." I would like to see this idea repeated within some of the CSD criteria and on the templates; I think it tends not to be noticed enough where it is. Alternatively, it could be moved closer to the top of the page and perhaps put in bold type.

Deleting and then restoring a page doesn't necessarily get the toothpaste back into the tube: consider the case of Ggggggggggggggg12, a valuable contributor who has apparently been permanently lost to the project after the user's first article was speedy-deleted. The article has been restored, but the contributor has left, with a very dim view of Wikipedia. And here's another example of a knowledgeable person who left Wikipedia when their article was deleted, even though the article was restored again: "An admin later restored my work and reprimanded that editor, but this ended my active involvement in Wikipedia; it simply seemed to bothersome to spend time on it."

People need to be careful. Other than attack pages and perhaps copyvios (and ?) there is no reason to rush to tag or delete articles within minutes of creation. Is it a race to get to be the one to tag or delete an article before someone else does it? Even just tags can be off-putting to an article creator. When doing new page patrol, you can look at pages that are an hour or so old. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RFA culture now places much weight on accurate C:CSD tagging. So yes, sadly, it has become a race to place the tag first. That's not good. But I'm afraid it's true. Given the ammount of G12 and, worse still, G10 pages, to restrict quick tagging is both problematical and would require a technical change to the software. This thread is deeply concerning. I believe the solution is for admins to be far slower in deleting and more willing to advise the editors who have tagged a page that they got it wrong (tactfully of course). An editor looking to seek adminship with a bunch of "speedy declined" comments on their talk page is likely to be far more circumspect and will hopefully look to WP:AFD to demonstrate policy knowledge instead. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  There is no reason for it to "become a race to place the tag first." There are thousands of non-patrolled articles more than a week old. That is more than enough time for any creator to not only demonstrate importance but also demonstrate notability through references. On New pages patrol I used to set a high offset to find the oldest non-patrolled pages. I'd regularly get up to 14,500 but the software is so slow at finding those high offsets that I switched to smaller offsets. Still it's not at all hard to switch to non-patrolled pages that are a day or two old instead of a few minutes old. It would be a big help if Special:Newpages made it easier to get a list of older non-patrolled New pages instead of by default showing the very newest New pages. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Actually, Michael's peroration (i.e., a "rant" you happen to appreciate) has the potential to do quite a bit of good. It raises awareness of a growing problem among those of just dropping by, those of us who have not been directly affected by the problem (yet), those of who may well be motivated to help in addressing it nonetheless. This is clearly another ugly symptom of the deletionist virus whose spread has manifested itself in many different ways around our project. Thanks for the eyeopener, Michael.—DCGeist (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What in the hell is wrong with you people, giving all this deference and coddling and praise to this repugnant post that starts with "What in the hell is wrong with you people" and continues from there. There is nothing new about boneheaded CSD tagging happening and also nothing new about it being sometimes acted on by certain admins. The wonder is that we get it right most of the time (and we do get it right most of the time). This post ignores the fact that we are a volunteer run project with over a thousand separate admins and many more users each of whom are editing by his or her own lights. This post was spitting into a fan we are all standing behind. Of course there will be errors given the nature of what this place is and how it exists. Don't for a moment think I am defending the deletion or the tagging. But examine the tenor and tone of the original post ("Why must the allegedly important job of protecting Wikipedia from spam be done only by people paying no attention to what they're doing, and not caring?"). That is not to say that we shouldn't strive to reduce the tendency of these types of poor deletions happening. It's always good when that conversation takes place, but it taking place here is in spite of the nasty way this post started. All of you thanking this user for bringing this up as if these concerns are even slightly new need to first look at the archives here and elsewhere and realize we are retreaded matters that have come up over and over. Yes, we should encourage people not to tag at the 1 nanosecond mark and start new pages patrol later than the first page of newpages; users whould be consistently informed of tagging, etc. none of this is new either, far from it. The conversation should be focused on how to implement these well worn suggestions. And where is the evidence that this is a growing problem? What I see is consistent errors over time in tagging by newpages patroller, of which some smaller subset of articles so tagged are actually deleted. That is an inevitable result when you're dealing with a cast of thousands. If someone provides evidence there has been a statistically significant increase in these errors, then that would be something to examine, but just saying it is so is mummery.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate some of (11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) the points Michael brings up regardless of whether these points are new and regardless of whether the current problem is greater than it has been in the past or just big. I agree with DCGeist that just posting here as Michael did can do a lot of good in itself, raising awareness among all who read the post. I don't necessarily either condone or condemn the wording and tone of either Michael's or Fuhghettaboutit's posts; I'm simply expressing agreement with some of (11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) the content of Michael's post as distinct from its tone.

The main reason I just spent weeks (along with other users) developing updated versions of the speedy deletion templates was to try to have a small positive impact on this very problem. By making the wordings of the templates conform more precisely to the CSD's, I hope that we've achieved a slight reduction in wrongful deletions by those who might read the templates more often than the CSD's. Some of the changes in the template wordings are also intended to try to encourage (at least a slight!) increase in the number of people who click on the link and actually read the CSD rather than just looking at the template wording. It would be good for people to try to think of additional ways to help with this problem. Thanks again for your contribution, Michael. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have spent many, many hours writing posts to new pages patrollers explaining why their tagging was improper, improved the language of many of our warning templates, and created 30 of our most high use warning notices because I am very concerned over these issues. That does not mean I divorce the post from its context and thank a user for indiscriminately lambasting all admins and newpage patrollers while painting with a giant brush.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I expressed my meaning inaccurately. I meant I agree with what I see as the underlying message in Michael's post (not necessarily what anyone else sees as the underlying message). I don't agree with all of the statements in it; there seems to be some overgeneralization there and I didn't intend to reinforce any inaccurate or emotional criticism of volunteers. Thanks for the work you've done on this, too, Fuhghettaboutit. I'm sorry any hard feelings caused by my reply above. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The trick is to _start_ each article about a company with some assertion of significance. That should be the very first step. Looks like a good tagging to me, that is why we have the {{hangon}} template. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, when you do that, it gets deleted under G11. :-\ --Coppertwig (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In my new page patrols I usually try to use improvement tags when it's borderline, but I have noticed that most articles won't get a speedy tag if they include a reliable third party source right off the bat. Part of the G11 trouble is that the majority of articles I see tagged as G11 don't reference anything outside of the subject. Sometimes you'll even see things like links to alexa to show "importance" of a website. Also, I've seen that the under construction tag helps a great deal in avoiding immediate tagging. I think it might be a good thing to push the importance of the various under construction tags on new pages.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I personally don't feel that there's anything wrong with tagging articles right off the bat. Speedy deletion is a system of checks and balances and I think that when an administrator reviews the deletion tag it falls to that admin to do a small amount of due diligence. I've always thought of the concept of speedy deletion tagging as an alert system for potential problems and although there should be more restraint used by some editors in tagging for speedy deletion the choice to keep or delete is ultimately made by a higher authority or a peer review. I don't think we should bite the taggers on bad deletion calls unless there is a blatant misuse of the CSD tag.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that there is something very definitely wrong with speedy-tagging articles right off the bat, in some cases. If they're attack pages or copyvios, no problem. If they're one-line articles that have existed for only a few minutes and the main problem with them is that they're too short or missing context, assertion of significance, sources etc., then I feel it's important to wait to give the creator the opportunity to continue adding to the article. The CSD policy says "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." Note that in the case of Ggggggggggggggg12 a valuable contributor apparently permanently left the project after their first article was speedy-deleted before the user had time to finish typing it in. If there isn't something "wrong" with that, maybe we have different POV's about the definition of "wrong". :-) (Note: I mean "wrong" in the sense that something needs to be fixed, not in the sense that anybody is doing anything in bad faith.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting into bold type this part of the 3rd paragraph of this policy: "try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation". --Coppertwig (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a bad idea, mostly because both "try" and "too soon" are so vague as to be of dubious value— let alone emphasized. — Coren ^(talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the reason for your revert, Coren. Your point is valid. Perhaps at a later date I'll suggest a change in wording. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Duplicated Topics

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

Redirect. Simple as that. Unless the pagename is utterly ridiculous, there's no reason to delete. If the page name is ridiculous, redirect and then tag for R1 :D. (Don't actually do that or you'll be slapped for WP:GAME, use {{db-g6}} with a suitable wording= parameter). Happy‑melon 10:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing redirects, but some of these are just strange (read: repeated letters and all kinds of weird commas) spellings. I'll consider the other options. Thanks.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If Happy-melon's good suggestions of redirect or {{db-g6}} aren't useful in a specific situation, you might also consider WP:PROD or WP:AfD. You can also try contacting the creator if a page is recent and explain why it is inappropriate in a friendly way. Sometimes creators have responded to this approach by willingly placing {{db-author}} on the page. Inappropriate page gone: no fuss, no drama, no trauma. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the duplicated title is deliberately inappropriate, redirect is always the right answer. First, remember that deletion has no advantage over redirecting. We don't save any money or space by deleting a page. People say they're "cleaning up the database" but it doesn't really clean up anything.
But second, remember that even if the spelling mistake or extra comma seems weird to you, it probably made sense to the person who created the page or was a good-faith mistake. Redirecting points the original editor(s) to the correct page where their contributions will be most appreciated. Deletion can often leave those original contributors confused about where their page went and lead them to incorrectly assume that we have database stability problems.
Best of all, though, redirecting requires no discussion and no administrative overhead. You can do it in a single edit. Even the fastest of the alternatives above requires 4-5 times the effort. This is what redirects are for. Rossami (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, more excellent pointers by all.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has mentioend: for bizarre typos, redirect and then use {{db-r3}}. Mangojuice^talk 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

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

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

• • I'd definitely check if the new article has information the established one doesn't. If it does, then merge is the prefered course. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So what I'm taking away is a strong leaning toward merge and redirect as the best option. Sounds good.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand/Change CSD I4 to include "incomplete source"

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

Although, I don't involve myself in image deletion much and so may be unaware of some of the nuances, it seems to me that "insufficient" is too vague of a term to be used in a speedy criterion. Speedy deleting is always a bit of a bite, and should be reserved for cases that clear and unambiguous cases. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on all this as well. What some people call an incomplete source will be considered sufficient by others. Could you give more examples? There should be a central place to co-ordinate and discuss image tagging work by bots. I'm aware of several such bots, and I'm aware that source tagging is distinct from non-free content tagging, but I'm not aware of any complete list. I made a start on the central co-ordination for non-free content at WP:NFCC-C, and would support an extension to include all image work (sources of free images as well as non-free). It would help if we could require something like {{information}} to be used at upload. MECU, do you run an image sources tagging bot? If so, could you add it at Wikipedia talk:BAG#Image bots? And could you notify any other bot operators you know of? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not run a bot, despite being called one several times. I have thought recently that all image processors (like me, and maybe bot runners too) should have a place to discuss problems and work together on issues. I formed WP:IMG last summer, but it never took off. I'd be happy to coordinate and work on the project again with others as well.

I understand your comments that "insufficient" is perhaps too vague, though I think it's the best term to describe the problem. In short, the policy should be the sourcing information should be sufficient so that anyone could verify the license tag is correct with the source provided. (I would even recommend that the WP:IUP clearly state this under the requirements, sourcing section at the top.) So, if a book is listed, full information about the book should be given so someone could verify it. Much like "replaceability" for NFCC (which has a CSD reason, and someone could think it is and another disagree). An example of this currently is Image:ArmitageRetribution.JPG. There is no sourcing information provided on the page, but if you edit the page, the uploader claims the sourcing information provided under "location=" (which is an invalid field in the tag) provides the source, but it's largely generic information that doesn't help and could/would take hours of work for someone not familiar with it to find the true source (if they find the true source at all), where it may take the uploader seconds. The information isn't always a URL, but most of the times it is. I've tried marking images as "better source requested" using {{bsr}} but it's mostly failed. There are cases it has worked, but if you look in the category, there are images still from last summer.

I'd like to point out that "speedy" isn't always fast. In this case, users are given 7 days to comply, seek help, ask questions, most of which never do despite being told in the tag(s) how and where to ask for help. I've always helped when asked.

Lastly, this has largely been enforced already by myself and other admins who generally have understood this is the requirement, but it has flown under the radar as "no source". (this is evident by the many deletions of images marked as no source that fulfill the requirement.) This is confusing to many (especially newcomers) and as such, in trying to help them, I'm trying to create this new class. Imaging uploading an image where you thought you provided a source, but then getting a message of "no source". Would not a message that says "insufficient source" be a better term to relay the problem? MECU≈talk 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you need image specialists to come along and help. See what I did here and here. I found those in that image category you pointed out: Category:Images with poor sources. It's not that difficult, but then I know my way around the license tags and several of the large image collections online, such as the Library of Congress. I also tend to know which ones are really free and which aren't, which helps. Part of the problem is that a lot of people who do this work are at Commons, and getting them to help out over here is not always easy. Seriously, if you try and get people involved in a constructive project, you will likely make much better progress, and get less negative feedback. Then again, it does sometimes pay to look a little further before repairing an image. Sometimes it is much easier to find a suitable replacement. I realised that Commons must surely already have a large collection of Bodmer paintings, and so they do. See commons:Karl Bodmer. And there we find the two images, in colour, that are equivalents of the two B&W prints I just improved the sourcing information for. Compare Image:Bodmer bison dance.JPG and Image:Bison dance of the Mandan indians in front of their medecine lodge 0051v.jpg, and Image:Bodmer mandan males.JPG and Image:Mandan indians 0053v.jpg. Ironically, the Wikipedia images I just repaired now have more precise sourcing than the Commons images which have a generic link to the description page of the 1840-1843 French book containing some of the Bodmer paintings. Which is a better source? Would you be tagging the Commons images for deletion? If not, why tag the Wikipedia ones for deletion? Anyway, I hope you will agree that getting people to fix images voluntarily by persuasion and cajoling is better than tagging for deletion, though I realise that you think tagging for deletion is one way to get people to fix things. Would you consider stepping back and analysing the overall picture before doing more tagging? Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is going off topic of my proposal above involving the discussion on my talk page. I listed the problems I have with other editors correcting the sourcing information on my talk page, but another reason is that we're then not teaching the uploaders to fish. There is no feedback or helping image uploaders in providing all the required image information. No, a book is a valid source on Commons (LOC can be too). You hit the nail on the head when you said: "though I realise that you think tagging for deletion is one way to get people to fix things." Perhaps folks shouldn't take the "no source" tag as a "OMG! YOU ARE SUCH A RETARD AND COULDN'T EVEN PROVIDE A SOURCE! YOU ARE SO A NOOOOOOOB!" and more like "Hey, I think there's a problem with the image, you wanna maybe fix it? You've got 7 days at least." Perhaps the design of the template (red on orange background) is part of that (with sometimes big red red shiny ! warning sign). But all this isn't part of my proposal above. I'm trying to clarify that "insufficient" sourcing information is a valid CSD I4 and that these images should no longer go under "no source" since it is confusing to users. MECU≈talk 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of articles with sources

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

I agree, and think that a clarification of the CSD page would be beneficial. We should not be deleting an article for failing to assert importance when it actually asserts notability. That said, I think we should only consider sources that do not clearly fail the reliable sources guideline: in other words, a link to a MySpace or IMDb profile or to a corporate website should not prevent speedy deletion per A7. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - any article that cites something that looks like a reliable third party source shouldn't be deleted under A7. Hut 8.5 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Citing a source is similar to asserting notability. However I ran in to one article I speedied today (can't remember which and too lazy to look) that at first glance had references but they were actually non-existent. The references should exist or the assertion falls at the first hurdle IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought this was so obvious it never needed to be said. Of course citing to reliable sources constitutes an assertion/indication. Well if it needs to be spelled out, count me as a fourth in agreement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to just parrot everyone else, but I agree that it might be a good idea to clarify it; sources more or less negate any A7 argument (though it of course depends on source). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; anything doing a passable imitation of a reliable source (ie not a link to MySpace, YouTube or someone's blog) should disqualify an article from speedy deletion. I'd also have thought this was obvious, but apparently it's not. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a little note about this to the A7 template, saying that "citing reliable sources might be an assertion of notability". ViperSnake151 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in spirit, but sometimes a source does not assert notability. Sometimes, it does the opposite. Having said that, I generally go looking for notability and verifiable sourcing there of before I delete, even when I think it is obviously, desperately deletable. Amzing what I've learned that way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

#Vague guidelines that apply to CSD and A7 relates to discussionGnevin (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins identifying and deleting speedy canditates in one go.

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

In the instance of a clear cut G10 (outrageous attack) or G12 (total cut and paste of another site) yes, certainly. In all other instances I personally prefer to tag an article rather than make a unilateral decision. But that's my personal standards. Pedro :  Chat  07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've identified and deleted in one go a few times, and I don't see any problem with it; the nature of speedy deletion is that it's supposed to speedy (i.e. without necessarily giving anybody the chance to respond) and clear-cut. If a case is clear-cut, it shouldn't matter whether the deletion is performed by the same admin as the one who identified it or not. In those cases where admins speedy delete a case that isn't clear-cut (it does happen, although I find that admins generally exercise more restraint that recent change patrolling non-admins in that regard), there's WP:DRV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(All of that said, if there emerges a consensus that admins shouldn't do that, I'll obviously abide by it.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's clear cut, sure; I sometimes do tag articles to get a second opinion, though. The key question I think is "Should it have been deleted?" more than the precise chain of events by which that deletion happened to occur. If an admin is repeatedly making bad deletion decisions, that seems to be a problem in itself. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Luna's nailed it. There's no particular chain of events, as long as deletions are in policy and don't cause (too much) upset to good faith editors. Pedro :  Chat  07:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another key question is: "Can the underlying problem be addressed?" If the answer is possibly yes (as in not so few A1 / A3 and A7) I prefer and would advise to rather tag and inform the creator. After all speedy does not mean fast but refers to a simplified decision and giving a chance to respond seems to be the better choice in such cases. And if I delete a good faith attempt directly, I try at least to leave a {{subst:[[template:Nn-warn-deletion|nn-warn-deletion]]|Article}} type notice. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely yes, an admin can identify and delete a proper speedy-candidate immediately. That's the very nature of the speedy-deletions. The criteria are so narrowly worded that any reasonable editor with a modicum of experience can immediately reach the same conclusion that Wikipedia is better off without the page. If it's a judgment call in any way, then the page isn't really a good speedy-candidate and should be taken to XfD instead. If people are misapplying the speedy criteria (and some inevitably do), then we have to educate/retrain the editors and admins who are doing so. And if we've got "speedy" criteria that require judgment, they probably either need to be rewritten or weren't good speedy-candidates in the first place. Rossami (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely, sometimes speedies hang around when there's a backlog (which we generally consider a bad thing) and sometimes they are gone before the tagger has even copied the warning to the author's page. As stated above, the only reason to not delete on site is to get two pairs of eyes on it and that's only necessary when the admin isn't sure. I rarely look to see who tagged an article (and then only when it might be unclear why I declined the speedy - so I can notify the tagger), so I don't know if any particular tagger has any idea what he or she is doing. We delete based on policy, not based on whether there's a tag on the article (and I often delete for an entirely different reason than that for which the article was tagged).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I've been called an evil deletionist by some, I figure it is better to be moderate, and not be both prosecutor and executioner. I will nominate or delete from others' nominations, but not do both myself. I gather from the tone of this discussion that the consensus is that this need not be followed in the case of the truly blatant attack pages, etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

That is basically what speedy delete means, it can be deleted without consulting others. Any user has the authority to instantly delete an article that meets these criteria, but admins have the ability. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carl's point above that even the CSD tag is unnecessary but must disagree with his parenthetical comment. If the page does not clearly and unambiguously fit within one of the existing and deliberately narrow CSD criteria, it must be taken to XfD (or perhaps prod) no matter how obviously bad the page appears to you. Admins who apply WP:IAR to the speedy-deletion process do significantly more harm to the credibility of the project than the vandals who find a temporary loophole in the policy. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'm really not sure how we can be debating this :D - only articles which inequivocally satisfy one of the CSD criteria should ever be deleted, no matter how they are found. Any article which is not a clear member of a CSD category should be PRODed or AfD'd, whether it's CSD tagged or not. Happy‑melon 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's only what certain members of Esperanza AMA I mean CSD or AFD (or DRV) would have you believe. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

IAR means IAR, it's not an expansion of CSD, it's just IAR - and it can most certainly justify a deletion, if there is a rule that needs to be ignored it can be ignored - any rule, but that's not the point of this thread. Nor is CSD the place to have it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vague guidelines that apply to CSD and A7

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

This is confusing but

1) A7 not applying to CSD is nonsensical because A7 is one of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, that's how it got the name A7.

2) A7 is not the same as a claim of "doesn't meet WP:N". Here's an example: Consider an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7. Now let's say you look at the references and find that he was a candidate from an inconsequential branch of the party and he received a total of 3 popular votes all in his home town and zero electoral votes and he was not covered in any national or regional media but since the East Anytown Daily with a total readership in 1920 of 300, is now archived on the internet, you were able to find this information. He's probably not notable and you should AFD the article. (Or, in some cases WP:PROD it).

3) On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability.

Understand?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but i would suggest this is very unclear still, i would suggest changing

1. Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.

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

I'm not clear what you are suggesting be changed to what.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Non-criteria be changed to

1. Notability. Articles that make no claim to notability at all , are only eligible for speedy deletion if the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject as per A7.

Consider this example an article Joe Schmo that says Joe Schmo was a 1920 Republican Party candidate for President of the United States - this article asserts notability and is not eligible for A7.

On the other hand consider the same article but with the text Joe Schmo was a man from Montana who was involved in politics in the 1920s. This makes no assertion of notability and is eligible for A7 Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008

• Well, I technically mis-stated them above as you've noted, the examples should use the words "importance or significance", but I think we treat those as essentially the same as notability as far as the assertion goes. I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability. What I can tell you is that the assertion of either does not equal notability and the lack of notability does not equal the lack of an assertion thereof. Are you suggesting that we should include the example? I made it up as I typed, maybe it should be thought through a little more if it's going to be actually used.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should include the examples if not the one's you suggested some examples .

You said I'm not sure that even I can parse this to the point that and assertion of importance or significance means something less than an assertion of notability however i'm not sure that this is the issue i think the guideline is trying to state that any assertion of importance,significance or notability should go to AFD and only an example likeJim is from Ireland he is 10 where no assertion of importance,significance or notability is made should apply for speedy Gnevin (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that I see them as one and the same. One equals the other. What we probably ought to do is italicize the word assertion in the criterion description, and maybe remove the sentence that essentially says it has nothing to do with notability since that just confuses the issue.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of the new wording ? Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Still not sorted Gnevin (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on my memory, (and a read back through the archives would confirm or counter), A7 does not use the word "notability" because editors felt that word has a unique (to say the least) meaning in WP. I don't think it is a question of less or more, just different. And the most improtant word in the A7 guideline is "assertion," IMHO. Articles (those falling into A7's "families," anyway) must assert something, not just describe it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

and the assertion does not have to be in the expliit words, but has to at least indicate something that someone might reasonably think notable. "X is member of the A state legislature" is an assertion of importance even if there is nothing else about his career said in the article. DGG (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text

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

An example of an article that qualifies for A7 is User:Gnevin/A7, while [1] asserted notability and A7 didn't apply.

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

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

Proposal for U4

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

Been there, done that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Except there's clearly a reason to not delete all of these pages. -- Ned Scott 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody (that I know of) has ever wanted to delete all of the pages. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but it seems people regularly go through Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and delete pages indiscriminately. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not speedy. Indef doesn't mean forever: indefs are often unblocked. Even if permanently blocked, the user may have left valuable encyclopedic contributions in userspace. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be an argument for deleting the page but I don't think that it should be a speedy deletion criterion. There aren't all that many such cases so it would appear to fail the third bullet above and I'm not so sure that there's even a clear consensus on bullet 2. I recommend taking the decision to either the more general Deletion policy page or even the Userpage page first. Once there is a clear policy on exactly which pages should and which should not be deleted, the question can be brought back here to determine whether it can be effectively implemented via speedy-deletions or if the decisions should remain at MfD. Rossami (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points, taking this to WP:DP or WP:USERPAGE first is likely a better idea. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I suppose another idea would be to make those templates not use the category by default, but instead require a trigger, so only "trophy" or other such pages are placed in the category. -- Ned Scott 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Besides the various scripts and programs used to fight vandalism that would have to be changed (not to mention the fact that people who don't use the scripts probably won't even notice the change), we should tailor the templates for the most common usages, and those are vandal-only accounts, blatant username policy vios, and blatant trolls, all generally blocked within a day of account creation. I should also note that there is now a bot that removes the category from all pages that transclude {{do not delete}}, which is included in all the sockpuppet categorizing templates. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is a good enough reason to change things, then the scripts and programs will have to be changed. And if people using the templates manually don't notice the change, then they aren't paying enough attention. When setting up a deletion process, the default should always be keep. The real problem, though, is probably the admins clearing the backlogs of temporary Wikipedian pages. If they are deleting indiscriminately, then they are misunderstanding their role. They should be checking that the template was correctly placed, and if the person has a history of contributions (ie. is not a throwaway vandal account), then the talk page should be kept. The other problem is that the template conflates the different reasons for indefinite blocks. To work out which talk pages should be deleted, you need to spend time investigating what happened. The best person to do that is the original blocking admin, who should use the template with a parameter "|delete". That way, the admin who eventually comes along to do the final bit of tidying up knows that the original admin reviewed things and said "if no contribs after a month, delete". Sometimes even then, there will be reasons to keep, but in those cases, the original blocking admin can use "|historical". All it takes is a change in the template coding, and a warning sign can be made to appear to remind those who forget to put the parameter in. The warning will say "delete is not always the correct option. If you can justify deleting the pages, put "|delete", otherwise, put "|historical". After one month, other admins will clear the pages where there has been no activity. Carcharoth (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see such a good reason. The majority of these pages are throwaway vandal and troll accounts. I see no good reason to have admins do extra work when blocking vandals just because a few pages of indef blocked accounts that aren't sockpuppets, vandals, or throwaway troll acconts that for some reason we might want to keep get deleted. The CAT:TEMP category has been around for close to 2 years. Pages of blocked users have been deleted for 2 years and I've seen no evidence that the project has been damaged as a result. Mr.Z-man 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't toss around deletion lightly because of minor convenances. You might not see the damage, but it's already been done. The vast majority of Wikipedias are unable to review thousands upon thousands of indef blockings, as well as thousands of messages and conversations are lost, and in no way trackable that would allow a Wikipedian to request undeletion. It's been in place for two years because the people who created the page didn't have enough foresight to anticipate this, and the discussions to implement it were extremely lacking in any real community input or consensus. Most people assume there was such a discussion, and think "well, there must have been a good reason" and then don't bring up the issue. I'm not one of those people, and I'm saying we should review this situation, with good and rationale thinking. I'm obviously not alone, as noted from the AN thread. I'm really getting tired of your "nothing's broken, not going to budge" attitude. It's not your decision, it is a big deal, and there's a ton of reasons to change the way we do these things.

I don't see a single good reason in your reply that says why we shouldn't change the default. Updating bots or scripts is easy, very easy, and we do it all the time. In fact, it would be such a non-issue that I'm having a hard time understanding what your objection is. Trophy pages get deleted, others do not, it doesn't cause any more extra work (it actually causes less work), everybody wins. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Adding Disambiguation to G6

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

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

Fair enough, just a thought.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

'bot madness

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

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

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

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

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

If this is widespread, this is certainly a matter for concern. Can you give us some examples of the bots and images involved? Happy‑melon 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The only examples I can provide are my own; check my talk page (if the 'bot hasn't fired). The images in this case are very old, before any of the new tagging rules came into being. Maury (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Placeholder numbers.

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

A8 was a previously existing criterion which was merged, but links will remain in the deletion logs and other places, where they can't be easily altered. It's not a problem now, but if a future A-series criterion is created which goes into A8, then the old deletion logs won't make sense as they'll reference a criterion which doesn't support the deletion. Happy‑melon 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also other places where it would make past discussions confusing. I find 124 hits using a Google search restricted to "Wikipedia:" ([2]); 43 restricted to "Wikipedia talk:" ([3]), and in the user and user talk spaces, though there are many false positives: 375 restricted to "user:" ([4]); and 194 restricted to "user talk:" ([5]). Make of that what you will. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CSD I9: "Blatant?"

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

Perhaps an image which comes with a watermark asserting copyright and the name of the website it's been lifted from tagged as pd-self (I have seen this)? Or alternatively, a famous image like this one tagged as pd-self? Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I read "blatant" as meaning "clearly obvious" in this context. Images from wireimage, for example, when the user is not asserting fair-use. Also, pretty much any image that the user is claiming as his or her own but which obviously does not belong to him or her. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Those make sense to me. But right now, the text of the criterion is confusing. I propose that it read:

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

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

I support your suggested changes. I believe they are clearer without altering the underlying meaning. --Yamla (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if a non-free image is uploaded as a GFDL image, with no FU claim, I think that it, too, is I9-deletable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PUI might be a better location to discuss these. I agree with Od Mishehu, the images don't have to just be self-licensed. The way Mangojuice states it, it sounds like an image that just has {{GFDL}} on it wouldn't be eligible. There is also unclear wording in this sentence: Includes images that do not have a license compatible with such as stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. should probably be: Includes images that do not have a license compatible with Wikipedia which include, but are not limited to, stock photo libraries like Getty Images or Corbis. MECU≈talk 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I would have no objection to dropping the words "self-created", though that probably does describe the bulk of cases (even ones with just a {{GFDL}} tag, which does tend to imply that the uploader owns the image). Other change - no objection from me. Mangojuice^talk 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Meta currently lists as one of its general deletion criteria:

“ Banned contributor: content created and edited solely by a banned user after they were banned, where there is possibility of bad faith. Good contributions by a banned user should be accepted, but where bad faith is possible it should be assumed. Note that this is a controversial clause, and such deletions may be contested. ”

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

the question is whether the gain in decent contributions will be outweighed by the difficulty in maintaining and enforcing a flexible but adequately protective policy. I just don't know. I'd like us to be able to do it, but I can think of too many users who would take unfair advantage of it. DGG (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The above IP among them, in fact. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That IP is for George Mason University, and thus the user is very likely Sarsaparilla. The large majority of his edits would be useful. With edits to existing articles, there is no problem. The edits may be reverted on sight, and restored at leisure if anyone cares to review them, which would ordinarily be the case with Sarsaparilla, when I become aware of them. But with deleted articles, only administrators can review them. If I know about the articles, I'd be happy to review them or to ask someone else to do so. With article edits, I've brought back in some of Sarsaparilla's parlipro edits, and another editor reviewed the bulk of them. I'd suggest this: existing policy, articles from blocked editors are deletable on sight. But an admin *could* userify such articles to the user space of a volunteer who would then take responsibility for reviewing them. If they seem good, the user could then move them into article space on his or her own responsibility. but the edit history would be intact. I'd be willing to do this with Sarsaparilla's contributions, I think his contributions are worth the effort. This would protect the encyclopedia from problem edits and article creation, and still allow some level of continued contribution by a blocked user, perhaps leading to rehabilitation. Or not. But I don't see how it could hurt. I do think it important to keep in mind that block and deletion policy are not intended to be punitive, only preventative. Of course, once the blocked user sees this is happening, he might just create the article in the volunteer's user space, thus making less fuss, one less task for the administrator.--Abd (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The CSD G5 policy is strict because banned users are not welcome to make contributions at all, good or bad. Users that are merely blocked are not treated this way. But this was really designed for users that were banned for a LOT more problematic behavior than Sarsaparilla. I think some others regard Sarsaparilla's contributions as more problematic, though, and you should be wary of making edits on behalf of a banned user, or you could be blocked for proxying. I have seen cases in the past where a G5 deletion was declined because it was discovered too late and the contribution was worthwhile and others had already built on it. So yes, in some cases these contributions may not be deleted, but it's the exception, not the rule. Mangojuice^talk 05:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Handy CSD template

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

Criteria for Speedy Deletion
G1	Nonsense
G2	Test page
G3	Vandalism
G4	Nonsense redirect formed from reversion of page-move vandalism
G5	Contribs by a banned user
G6	Non-controversial 'housekeeping' tasks (i.e. disambiguations with only one page, talk pages with no history, useless redirects)
G7	Page blanked page by only editor
G8	Talk page of a non-existent page
G10	Attack page
G11	Spam/ads
G12	Blatant copyright violation
A1	Empty/no context
A2	Foreign language articles
A3	Pages consisting only of external links/no content
A5	Transwiki has been completed
A7	No significance
R1	Redirect to a non-existent page
R2	Redirect to a user page
R3	Redirect from an implausible typo
I1	Same or better image already exists on Wikipedia
I2	Corrupt or empty image
I3	"No commercial use" or "by permission" images uploaded after target date
I4	Lack of licensing -- Should only be used if the image has been previously tagged with {{no license}}, {{no source}}, or a similar template
I5	Unused copyright image -- Should only be used if the image has been previously tagged with {{or-cr}}, {{or-fu}}, or a similar template
I6	Image with fair use tag but no fair use rationale - must have been tagged as such for seven days and uploaded after May 4, 2006
I7	Bad fair use template - image tagged as fair use with a template that is patently irrelevant to the actual image
I8	Identical image has been moved to or is otherwise available on Commons. This speedy deletion has a one-week grace period.
C1	Category that is empty for at least four days and has never contained anything other than links to parent categories.
C2	Category being speedily renamed
C3	Category that is used solely by a template that has been deleted
U1	User's subpage requested to be deleted by the user with whom it is associated
U2	Userpages of users who do not exist
U3	Fair use galleries in user space
T1	Templates that are divisive and inflammatory
P2	Underpopulated portal

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

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

Ingo Dammer-Smith

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

Its indicates importance, not notability. So A7 doesn't apply , if you think its WP:NN and AFD is required Gnevin (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S but if you can find a better example please add it Gnevin (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a better example on this very page. [6]

Great stuff! Really clear example ! Thanks for the changes you made to , A7 should be a lot clearer now Gnevin (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I feel a bit uncomfortable about having one example that is an obvious A7 candidate and one article that indicates notability. Makes it seem like every non-notable article is deletable under A7. Leaving this to more experienced editors. For indication of importance Ingo Dammer-Smith might be a better example, although we then would need some explanation of why this article indicates importance. I think the claim that the article on Ingo indicates importance because it says that he had a part in a notable television series is one that it's going to be difficult to get consensus for. Personally I think this article should be an rd to Oscar Scully. Taemyr (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thoughts? Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)