Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

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)

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 -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- 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 -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- 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 -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- 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)

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)

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 -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- 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)

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 -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- 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)

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)

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)

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.

I suggest this be removed. Who cares who created the article, if it's a good article, we're better off all round. Having this Criteria is ridiculously petty and like punishment for daring to edit. I think that as a community, we should care about content, not about who created the content. Should we delete perfectly fine articles, based on the knowledge that a banned user created them? - Probably not. We can delete the article in question, arguing perhaps that it is unsuitable, based on some criteria of suitability; Even so, this should be done in a regular deletion, not a quick deletion. This is a meritocracy, do good things, and you will be rewarded. For this reason, I think a CSD criterion content created by banned user has no place here.

I understand that while some administrators want to give the message to a user that you do not want him/her on here, that is fine, but lets be logical. If you are a banned user, are you going to bother reading the message, or start from scratch hoping you can evade the next time? Now think of yourself as a child trying to do math, are you going to bother with the hard problems, or are you going to get the easy ones out of the way? Those two possible events apply in the same way somewhat. Nilocia ^{♈ ☮} 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - many of the worst of the serial sockpuppeteers get off on knowing they got to do what they wanted anyway. Summarily removing what they do removes part of their incentive. The ban policy doesn't say must, it says may. People are expected to use their own discretion. → ROUX ₪ 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Removing part of their incentive means nothing, when other serial sockpuppeteers get off from other things, be it a discussion on AN, or their SPI history. Nilocia ^{♈ ☮} 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)