Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

New criterion - WP:NOT

It's fairly clear that whenever something falls under WP:NOT, the content will get deleted. Procedurally, we have a few possible options at the moment for dealing with articles that are not acceptable for Wikipedia- rewriting the article, making it into a redirect, or deleting it. These are exactly the same options that are available to anything that falls under WP:CSD, except for that last part. Instead of simply tagging an article that is not acceptable for Wikipedia for speedy deletion, we're forced to undergo a lengthy deletion process that involves PRODing it, having that PROD removed, and taking it to AfD where it endures a week of pointless discussion when we all know that it'll get deleted in the end. Sometimes I see editors try to squeeze by WP:NOT articles under G2, G1 or A1 when it's obviously not the case. Sometimes the articles get deleted under a valid CSD, like G11 or A7, but there are still many cases where those don't cover articles that should be deleted without question. It's pointless bureaucracy to force Wikipedians to waste their time on a full deletion discussion when an article should be immediately deleted. That is why i propose making the criteria under WP:NOT a criterion for speedy deletion. Please see below for the two specific proposals of A11 & A12.--Slon02 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference, a recent discussion about a similar proposal is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 42#Create a new CSD - G:13 Unsalvageable WP:NOT Violations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on that discussion, I've looked through the WP:NOT parts more individually. WP:NOT#ESSAY mostly falls under G11, as does WP:SOAP. WP:NOTLINK is related to A3. WP:CRYSTAL is often an A7. However, I still believe that WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOTGUIDE frequently appear and have to go through the PROD/AfD process without any solid reason other than it being current policy. Naturally we'd need to make sure that the wording would only make the article apply to the cases where it would uncontroversially be deleted, just like our current CSD do. (ex. "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.") That wording would eliminate the potential for abuse to the same extent that existing criteria can be abused, which I'd say is fairly low. --Slon02 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, I'd like to start by proposing the following:
A11: Dictionary entries Articles that consist only of dictionary definitions of a word, idiom or term with no encyclopedic content. This excludes any articles that could be rewritten to become encyclopedic.

A12: Guides Articles that consist solely of instructions, advice, suggestions or recipes that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. --Slon02 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been proposed time and time again and every time it has correctly been rejected. Have you read the last discussions on this topic, like [1], [2], [3], [4] etc.? I honestly fail to see how those two proposals meet the four criteria at the top of this page any more than the previous proposals did... Regards SoWhy 21:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I read those discussions. As for the four criteria at the top, it meets everyone one. I think that my proposals are specific enough to meet #1, although someone might suggest that they could be tighter. Seeing as those articles are not meant for Wikipedia per WP:NOT, and I specifically mentioned in the proposal that they either could not be rewritten (A11) or would need to be fundamentally rewritten (A12, same as G11 in wording), it meets #2. The frequency with which this discussion pops up is enough to show that #3 is fulfilled. #4 is fulfilled because I cited off the current parts of WP:NOT that are currently more or less covered by existing speey deletion criteria, leaving only these parts that are not. --Slon02 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As for A11, any criterion that uses "encyclopedic" in it is by definition too lose to be a speedy deletion criterion. We have 852 admins and that means that we have 852 different opinions as to what constitutes "encyclopedic" content and what does not. So your proposed A11 fails #1 because there is no clear definition of "encyclopedic". As for A12, the line between instructions and covering a subject is a fine line indeed and often content can be both instructing and covering a subject. Leaving this to the judgment of administrators poses the risk of articles being treated differently based on the reviewing administrator's familiarity with the subject, their language skills, their definition of "instructing" etc. Again, that's imho not "objective". As for #3, just claiming that it's frequent is not sufficient. I would very much like to see some actual statistics about how often those appear in PROD / at AFD. For example, I cannot find a single article in today's AFD log that was nominated for being a dictionary definition or a instructions-only article. Unless there are some statistics proving that it's really frequent, I think we should assume that PROD/AFD can handle it. Regards SoWhy 21:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I just did a little searching to find some data. Out of 75 current PRODs (picked randomly), 2 were for WP:NOT#DICDEF, 2 were for WP:NEO and 1 was for WP:GUIDE. That's almost 7% of all current PRODs, which is significant given that I'd say about 80% deal with notability. I also looked through all AfDs from June 16-22. A total of 282 articles were deleted- for WP:NOT#DICDEF, 1 for WP:NOTGUIDE, 2 for WP:NEO and 3 for both WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICDEF. That's 3% of all articles deleted at AfD at that time, and I think that it's quite significant. The AfD articles that I found were Quintain(5lines), Blogma, Chunav, Ping-ponging, Portioned learning, Lol@souffs, Tompion (bear hibernation), Bought in, Year of entrance exam- all with a clear consensus to delete. --Slon02 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the numbers, but I think we have different definitions of significant or frequent. Because speedy deletion for articles is mainly a way to deal with reducing the load to the regular deletion processes, I think sacrificing the ability for the community to decide what to do requires a much higher load than 3-7%, especially since PRODs are not really a "load" on the process. If we are to sacrifice community consensus for efficiency, it should only be in cases where the reduction of AfDs would be something like 30%, 40%, not 3%. On a side note, not really pertaining to the discussion at hand, am I the only one wondering why proposals to allow admins to have more rights to bypass community discussions are mostly made by non-admins and it's mostly admins who argue against them? One would think that it would be in the interest of non-admins to strengthen community decision making, not weaken it. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we do. However, that 3-7% (which, in another sample, I found to be 4%), ends up being one of the most common AfD rationales. It looks like my guess of 80% of AfD's being about notability was confirmed- my sample had 81%. The second most frequent was original research, with 7%, and WP:DICT was third with 4%. Granted, it wasn't a very large sample size, but it still shows the overall pattern. It's not possible to get something like 30 or 40% because notability is such a common argument there, and with due reason. However, almost everything proposed at AfD that does deal with WP:DICT ends up being deleted without opposition. Since people don't oppose those deletions, and since it's obvious from the start that such "articles" would be deleted at some point anyway, dragging them to AfD really just smells of SNOW. --Slon02 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say so but your argument is flawed. Arguing that almost all such articles will be deleted is for criterion #2 but it is not proof that it's frequent enough for #3. After all, we already have a process that deals with stuff that almost certainly would be deleted at AFD - it's called proposed deletion. It says so in the very first sentence of that policy. You need to make an argument why AFD and PROD cannot handle it, not why AFD should not have to handle it. Regards SoWhy 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Criterion #3 fails to define how frequent something has to be. It specifically uses the words "If a situation arises only rarely". Facts show that it doesn't arise rarely- it arises once or twice every day. That doesn't mean that it comes up rarely- it means that it comes up frequently, especially when compared to other reasons for why articles are deleted. This type of article, in its most obvious form, ends up going to AfD often, yet it never needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis because everyone knows that it has to be deleted. It follows the same reasoning as G11- the pure and obvious forms of advertising are speedy deleted, the unclear ones are sent to PROD/AfD. The same reasoning can apply to dictionary definitions- if it's purely and obviously a definition and not an article, then it can safely be speedy deleted without it having to waste everyone's time at AfD. Also, your last sentence is contradicted by these words- "speedy deletion is intended primarily as a means of reducing load on other deletion methods such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion." Adding this as a speedy deletion criteria will reduce the load, which is what speedy deletion is meant to do. --Slon02 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are free to disagree, unfortunately that does not change the facts. G11 was created because PROD/XFD couldn't handle the amount of spam-pages created day-by-day, not because such pages are regularly deleted anyway. You persist on arguing based on AFD, when I already pointed out to you that WP:PROD was created exactly to not "to waste everyone's time at AfD", so all those arguments based on the potential outcome of an AfD for those articles are irrelevant. No one - except the straw man you created - argued that those articles should be handled at AfD. As for frequency: Once a day is not frequent - three dozen times a day is frequent. It's sad that we have to discuss the meaning of English words here when no one in the real world would ever think that something that happens 3% of the time is frequent. The same applies to your argument about the "load": If you look up the definition of load, it will usually be something like "a burden; a weight that slows you down; etc.". 3% of articles that are deleted after 7 days of PRODing (which usually does not create any more work than speedy tagging!) is not a burden for the processes. If you persist on arguing based on "load", you really need to explain why the load cannot be borne by PROD or AFD. I don't think one can validly argue that the sentence you cite was ever meant to mean anything else than reducing a burden that cannot be borne anymore. After all, despite common misconceptions, speedy deletion is not a normal deletion process - it's an exception that removes the ability of the community to decide the fate of an article. Since consensus is the project's "fundamental model for editorial decision-making", it should not be curtailed without a very good reason. And "I wouldn't have to wait 7 days for a PROD to expire" does not sound like a very good reason to me. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

An article failing WP:NOT can often be fixed or content moved to remove the issue. Not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I had already limited the proposal to just two parts, and I believe that the wording should eliminate any possibilities where the articles could be fixed. --Slon02 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a great idea, and I think we need a proposed wording to refine this debate to where the criterium could be instituted or rejected. i kan reed (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be about what "wikipedia is not" but about articles that aren't articles

I think we're looking at this backwards. WP:NOT is about what "wikipedia" is not. A lot of articles that definitely are "articles" (ie they're "wikified", written from a NPOV etc) are taken to AFD for failing one of the "nots". Pages in mainspace such as resumes, how-to guides, adcopy, and most essays aren't "articles" but right now the only one of these that's CSDable is "adcopy" (G11). I might support a CSD criteria, under the same logic we use to justify G11, for other kinds of pages that would need a "fundamental rewrite" to be articles and by "fundamental" I mean you would all but have to blank the page and start from scratch to make it an article. Yes they can be PRODed but the flaw here is that if the creator goes to WP:REFUND and asks for it back we technically have to restore it in all its brokenness. If it's speedied we can tell him to read WP:FIRST and try again.

However, one problem with this is that we may see a slew of BITEey applications of {{db-notanarticle}} to incomplete first drafts so it should only apply to "non-articles" that are in a complete or semi-complete state. I expect this idea to be opposed for all the reasons given in all the previous discussions pointed to above but it is something to think about. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You..you're a genius! I think that this an amazing idea. The issue with BITEy applications of it already exists as a possibility with hasty tagging of A1/A3. That's also BITEy, yet not a lot of people do it. Some people not well familiar with policy do, but those cases aren't very frequent and those people are usually quickly corrected by another editor. --Slon02 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

See my suggestion about dealing with blatant NFT pages above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen admins delete quite a few things as "WP:NOT - IAR" within the past two days, and this is a WP:NOT#ESSAY, (which somehow got tagged as A7). --Σ ^talk_contribs 07:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with these as a speedy delete criteria, as a dictionary definition could be expanded. Almost all words in English could have an Encyclopedia article written on them, so we need a chance for them to grow. Instructions could be transwikied or converted to a suitable article with a rewrite. So that means we should give a chance for this to happen, so a prod gives this more of a chance. The aim of Wikipedia is to have more suitable articles so we should not speedy delete out of existence articles that could grow if the they a week's reprieve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a very subjective area--check out all the bus route AfD discussions currently underway. Speedy criteria are only for very concrete things, so this is simply not workable. If there are specific instances of NOT that are 1) clearcut, 2) always resolved the same way, and 3) frequent enough, individual criteria can be enhanced to cover them, but a general NOT CSD is not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of is pages like Beer tac toe, Ong language, or Got curled?, which were all self-serving NFT pages (admins only; I just remember them). The wording I thought of some months ago was "Articles stating that the subject was made/invented less than a month (or 30 days, don't care which) ago and assert no notability"; that's just a rough draft, but that gets at the basic problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Midd. --Σ ^talk_contribs 17:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that conceptually, this is a good way of putting it. However, historically there has been a lot of opposition to adding to the list of criteria unless the new criterion is very precisely and narrowly worded. I worry that there is no way to get "CSD A12: Page that is not an article" pared down enough that concerned inclusionists (like myself) will not worry that it will be so open to interpretation that it will license the mindless summary deletion of many good pages. Jclemens, for example, noticed this problem in his comment above. Pages like Beer tac toe or I ONT O are obvious speedy candidates to anyone who finds them, but good luck figuring out a principle that captures the "why" while not being too broadly defined. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'm guessing that if G11 hadn't been pretty much handed down from the foundation, it'd have been very difficult to pass through, because it's frequently a judgment call. That's what any criterion about NFT pages would have to be; I don't think that's A Bad Thing, but I definitely understand the desire to keep it narrow for the reasons described above. I'll try to work on some wording and see if I can make it a bit clearer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

it has not been handed down by the foundation, at least not as a speedy criterion. On one hand, the general principle that Wikipedia is not for promotion or advertising is more basic than the WMF, and part of the original idea of an encyclopedia, as one of the meanings of NPOV; NPOV and promotionalism are incompatible fundamentally, The distinction is what differentiates an encyclopedia from a directory, which is not to say a directory is a poor idea either. But on the other hand, the actual rule that we speedy delete articles that are wholly promotional as contrasted to removing them by some other process is not fundamental, and is a local procedure only. I agree with Blade that it is in reality a very impractical rule, and impossible to accurately determine except in the extreme cases. The criterion of needing to be fundamentally rewritten is meaningless--with enough effort one can rewrite anything if there is potentially encyclopedic content to be had, and there is a continuum from mere copy editing to fundamental rewriting. It's entirely a matter of effort and judgment. I delete about half my speedies on G11, often in conjunction with A7, so I can make the dual argument. To be honest with myself, many of them are judgement calls, obvious enough to satisfy me as hopeless, not necessarily blindingly obvious. In fact hopeless' is the way I personally think of the criterion. I wouldn't enshrine that word, though, as it's even more subjective than the present wording. The only way to get perspective is to look at New Pages, and I do that every few days to reassure myself that there is a n essential purpose behind what I am doing, that somewhere around one-forth of the material submitted just has to go. That I must use such wording, implies both the subjectivity--but also the general agreement of almost everyone here.

in practice, seeing what a minority of admins insist upon deleting even though it fits no criterion, I would not broaden the criteria. WhatI'd wish instead is that we had some way of automatically requiring the judgment of two admins each time without it being an undue burden. The backlogs recently have been very small, so maybe this is a possibility. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Hopeless" is the word I'd choose to summarize the theme of our criteria. Speedy deletion is meant to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. "Maybe there are sources to support notability or maybe there aren't, but I'm too lazy to find out, and this little stub only says positive things about the subject, so I'll call that 'promotional'" is not a CSD candidate. If you're not >99% certain that a week-long AFD would result in hands-down deletion, then it's not a CSD candidate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to derail, but this is exactly the problem with the criteria for speedy deletion. Contrary to your expectations, once something meets one of the criteria, many admins feel that they are blessed by policy to delete it without considering other factors. This is a direct result of the uncharacteristically rigid, legalistic language of the policy page. Almost all of the rest of our policy pages are substantially more vague, openly inviting (and expecting) that editors use their own judgment and therefore personally take responsibility for what they're doing. That was the basis for my failed attempts (ironically, due to opposition from fellow inclusionists like DGG) to loosen up the language in the policy. Since we're not going to do that, and since many people are going to use the CSD policy more as a bought priesthood (relieving us of the burden of critical thought in hard or difficult cases through the rigid and mindless application of rules) than an electric fence, we have to be very paranoid about introducing new criteria. causa sui (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"[G]ood luck figuring out a principle that captures the "why" while not being too broadly defined." In the past I've suggested the following criteria for articles in this vein, which I think really is narrowly tailored: An article on a thing (word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy, religion, etc.), which indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I think WP:NFT and WP:NEO are really the last two frontiers for speedy deletion and this covers both in a way that is fairly objective, uncontestable, seen with some frequency, and is nonredundant with any existing criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd fully support adding that in as A11. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While I support the principle subject to seeing statistics demonstrating the need (frequency of occurrence, universality of such pages being deleted). I'm, not entirely comfortable with the specific word "thing" nor with the list ending with "etc". I need to think longer though before I can suggest alternatives. I absolutely could not support unless the criterion is accompanied by an explicit statement that "important or significant" is a lower standard than notability and independent of verifiability and reliability of sources (like A7) - even with this text there are too many incorrect A7 taggings. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Saugie. It went through a CSD, PROD, and finally an AfD. Enough said. --Σ ^talk_contribs 16:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support a new criterion that only covered WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. --Σ ^talk_contribs 16:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm waiting until DGG gets a whiff of a CSD for a "thing". *g* We could consider removing the pseudo-constraint that the subject has to be a "thing" and just admit that we're going to delete anything that was "made up by your friends one day". But that seems to be nothing other than an extension of A7 to every possible article topic. Is that what we want to do? causa sui (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While there would be some overlap with A7, neither would be a subset of the other - A7 covers things that are not made up in one day, and things that are made up in one day are not necessarily within the topic areas covered by A7. I believe the reason for the topic restrictions on A7 is that these are the only ones where it has been shown there is a load that AfD cannot cope with. CSDs only exist for those specific areas where XfD cannot cope, XfD is not for those cases where CSD doesn't apply (there is a fundamental philosophical difference that many people don't seem to get). It is for this reason that I don't support a universal extension of A7 and why I would want an A11 to be similarly demarked (although not necessary to the same topics). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see my repeated opinion was requested above on some particulars. Neologisms need to be checked--what to one admin will seem very obvious as a neologism is not necessarily so. I have a good deal of confidence in my own accuracy of judgment, but this is is one of the sorts of things that i would never attempt to judge for myself, without a chance for a community opinion, We have enough problems with administrators deleting articles based on their personal extensions of the established categories. A good many proposed neologisms have in fact been contested, with various results; the frequent AfD debate show that this is the sort of thing that is rarely obvious, unless it descends into hoax territory. We get a fair number of made up one day articles, and most go very nicely by prod--nobody usually contests them, but there are examples where schoolchildren may think and write that they made up what turns out to be a well known children's game. As for the special class of drinking games, all I can say is I consider them matters for expert, and the expertise of the community in this particular is likely to be far wider than any one of us, however wide our relevant experience. And if someone has clearly written an article just to be a nuisance, I consider that disruptive, and we already have speedy for that.

More generally, what we need to do is try to refine and narrow more exactly the present categories. A wrongfully deleted article usually equates to a lost editor, and avoiding that is more important than the speed at which we delete any particular article. The only acceptable way to go when unsure is AfD. The community may not always be right there, but individual admins acting on their own account would do considerably worse, and after an AfD nobody can say they did not have a chance at a fair hearing. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

By including the requirement that the article's text actually indicate that it was made up/coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally in my suggested language above, I cannot see how any of the false positives you speak of are not insulated against. This language takes pretty much all of the judgment call as to whether it an obvious neologism or thing made up one day out of the equation. I include that language purposely for that very reason. But let's not talk in the abstract. I performed this search and then looked at the text of the article that was present when taken to AfD, After looking at 30 AfDs I did not find a single one that would have even arguably met the suggested criterion, given the framed language. Can you point to any example of a neologism or NFT thing that was ever kept at AfD that could have been deleted under this criterion if it was in place? I can't even think of a hypothetical example.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

An example case

A perfect example of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugie. Admins can take a look at the article. The thing is either a completely crap dictionary definition or a WP:NEO. It falls so far from what we expect from a new article, and we had to bounce it around between PROD and AfD. It was finally deleted today, but if there were an "unambiguous, unsalvageable WP:NOT violation" criteria, we could have wasted a lot less time on it. There are plenty more such articles where that came from. I'd much rather spend time improving struggling articles in Special:NewPages than have to try and shove a round ball of trash into a square CSD criteria, or shuttle this kind of thing between PROD and AfD, or indeed, find admins willing to do IAR deletions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and as the closing admin, I can personally attest that deleting irrecoverably non-notable neologisms and MADEUP things, among others, is overwhelmingly commonplace. The policy page simply needs to be updated to reflect this. Keep in mind that I'm the type of admin who typically hates to do out-of-order deletions, but because we see so many of these glaringly uncontroversial deletion candidates, and because {{prod}} is useless (it's usually removed by the article's creator soon after it's added), I simply do not hesitate on summarily deleting them after a quick google+sanity check. Taking them to AfD is simply a waste of time, because they always result in SNOW deletes. I have no idea what the people on this talk page want to phrase the new CSD(s) as, but the fact remains the policy needs to be updated to reflect the consensus that there realistically is a CSD for this type of thing already. --slakr^\ talk / 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Another piece of crap that I remember (but didn't tag, I think I saw G1 or G2 on it) was *~*. Another WP:MADEUP. I would believe that if we did make a new CSD criterion, it would have to be broken into different elements of the WP:NOT, to make it more concise and less open to interpretation. AfD and PROD are both a waste of a week. --Σ ^talk_contribs 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Son of PRA could be deleted as "Wikipedia is not a random free webhost". --Σ ^talk_contribs 18:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You read my mind. I used "Wikipedia is not a general web host." These sorts of deletions are truly that obvious and commonplace, so there really needs to be a CSD for this so we don't have to keep falling back to WP:IAR or clogging up WP:AFD, and so that non-admins actually can use a tag other than the generic {{db}} each time to let us know. --slakr^\ talk / 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IsisFlower Wikipedia and Randy sayrs. Surely WP:NOT is frequent enough that it needs a CSD criterion. --Σ ^talk_contribs 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT is far too broad and vague for a criterion, that will never happen. What might happen is that some specific subsections might get criteria, and these will be judged on the frequency of that specific failing occurring. It also isn't just about how frequent it is, it's about all articles falling within the definition always being deleted, and there being too many for AfD to handle. IsisFlower should have been moved to userspace as a test and the user educated that we're not a hosted. Randy sayrs was correctly deleted under G7 so is not evidence of the need for a new criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Poo-Poo Puddle - Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day, or for poor neologisms of crappiness. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While the title might be a neologism, the content was not something made up in one day. The content was an admittedly poorly written article about the effects of leaking sewage systems - an issue that has existed since there were sewerage systems. Whether there should be an article on this, and if so under what title, I'm not sure. I've not been able to find that we have such an article, but if we do this would be deletable under criterion A10, if not it should go to prod or AfD - there was no reason why leaving it up for a week would be harmful. That was a very bad speedy deletion, thank you for highlighting it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As you well know, CSDs are extremely specific subsets of their corresponding policies and guidelines. G11 is a very strict application of the more general WP:SPAM. A7 is a very strict application of the more general WP:N. The list goes on. All of these were created because of the large number of out-of-process deletions that had to occur, and because AfD gets clogged with their backwash.

To say that a strict application of certain parts of WP:NOT is impossible to accomplish on this talk page might be correct, but only because of the vast number of anti-CSD interests that watch this talk page. So, like it or not, the so-called out-of-process deletions will continue, and nothing is going to be done about it, because WP:SNOW is a de facto criteria for speedy deletion. The more you force people to use SNOW in glaringly obvious cases, the more likely they're going to ignore the increasingly policy-crept anti-deletion CSD discussions on this talk page, and, ironically, the more stuff is going to get deleted out-of-process in the long run.

--slakr^\ talk / 12:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (and I don't think other people here are) anti-CSD. What I am is anti-IAR speedy deletions, because they are fundamentally against the principle of consensus (CSD is a list of specific cases where there is consensus that individual discussion is not required, because consensus for deletion is a given). WP:SNOW is not speedy deletion - speedy deletion is deletion without discussion, WP:SNOW is deletion with abbreviated discussion (there is a big difference). If there are lots of the same things being SNOWed then that is evidence that a CSD criterion for them. If they're all deleted out of process then we don't know that the criterion is needed.

Regarding WP:NOT, I never said a strict interpretation of parts of it is impossible - just that a strict interpretation of all of it under one criterion is. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Peterborough where the nominator and some others are convinced that it falls foul of WP:NOTDIR, while other editors of equal standing are equally convinced that it does not. Speedy deletion is only for things that will always be deleted, and this discussion shows that not everything that some people think meets WP:NOT always will be (previous discussions of lists of bus routes have mostly ended in keep or no consensus, but some have been deleted). Therefore a criterion to exclude things that are not for Wikipedia needs to be more specific. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, we're talking about things that clearly and irrecoverably violate WP:NOT, and we're really only talking about a certain subset of NOT that frequently occurs, is obvious, and are indisputable violations (e.g., WP:NOTWEBHOST, among others). That's the reason why someone hasn't gone and WP:SNOW deleted the article you mentioned out-of-process—it's not just because there isn't a CSD to cover it. Conversely, most admins don't go around deleting things that do meet a CSD on a technicality, either, if it's obvious that it shouldn't be deleted. --slakr^\ talk / 13:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Because "I know it when I see it" is never going to be a CSD criterion, we need to define what it is about such "things that clearly and irrecoverably violate WP:NOT" that makes them so and we have to do so in a way that generates the absolute minimum number of false positives. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For the moment I'll comment on 2 of these..

• Saugie was snow deleted at AFD and right now I think this is the most effective was to treat "blatantly unverifiable" subjects that aren't CSD G3 candidates. Skip PROD, send them to AFD, and let it be snow deleted as soon as other participants say they can't verify the subject either.
• Son of PRA It would have been obvious to anybody with even the most basic knowledge of WP that it wasn't an "article" and trying to pass it off as one is like going to a football game with a net and tennis racket and saying "this is how we should play football". (OT: see m:Maddenville for an essay I wrote on this) It was articles non-articles like this I had in mind when I started the previous subsection.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would, however, note that Saugie's delete-worthiness is clearly evident on a single google search. That's why it's extremely easy to verify blatantly, irrecoverably non-notable neologisms, and that's the reason why sending them to AfD, even for the SNOW-pile of delete-!votes, is a waste of time. :P It's like using G3 to apply to hoaxes; a simple google search reveals that either the possible hoax is a true hoax or it reveals that there might be a shade of possibility of factuality. I'm saying that the same standard should be applied to self-evident things like that that would be more BITE-y to call vandalism than to just develop a separate CSD for blatant, irrecoverable violations of clear-and-evident portions of NOT. --slakr^\ talk / 13:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree that getting consensus to delete something that does not meet the CSD criteria is a waste of time. There is no deadline. If sending them to AfD means that there is evidence of a need for a CSD criterion then the time has not been wasted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Slakr. The whole point of this discussion is "hey, look, there's lots of stuff which no sane person would ever suggest isn't speedy-worthy but the criteria doesn't quite cover them, so let's change the criteria". I'll probably follow Ron Ritzman's advice next time I find a Saugie-type example (I give it a couple of hours of NPPing) and go straight to AfD rather than PROD, but surely the fact that I'm having to "hack" the deletion system to get stuff like that deleted shows we need to extend CSD sooner rather than later. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Hack the deletion system"!? How on earth is nominating something at AfD hacking the deletion system!? Articles for deletion is the standard way that articles on Wikipedia are deleted, CSD is the "hack" to allow things to be deleted without discussion in a limited range of circumstances where consensus agrees this isn't needed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding his point. Tom Morris is commenting on the irony that because of a loophole in the process, he is forced into skipping PROD (which is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions) and going straight to AFD because the snow delete on AFD is actually faster. That is technically "out of process" but still necessary since it's the shortest distance between "Creation of an indubitably speedy-worthy article not covered by current CSD" and "Article is deleted". causa sui (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be faster depending on how much attention it gets or which admin closes it. The main advantage to using AFD instead of PROD for "non-articles" and "semi-hoaxes" is that the clowns who create them can't go to REFUND and ask for them back. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sending something to AfD that could be prodded is "out of process" (although I'll admit to not being as intimately familiar with prod policy as I am with CSD), but prod not working as intended is no reason to speedy delete something that is not covered by CSD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't. That's why editors here are trying to get it done the right way and amend the policy -- in this very discussion. causa sui (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Adikiaphobia, Going HAM and Opposite Week. --Σ ^talk_contribs 05:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Opposite Week is at AfD. While this might be deletable under a "not for things made up by the author" criterion, it's not a classic example of such things and so could be borderline depending on the wording of the criterion. Worth noting though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Going Ham. Hmm. Deleted under WP:CSD#A3, which doesn't actually fit. It does make me think though that "articles that do nothing but define the title", where a definition already exists in Wiktionary or where the content would not be acceptable at Wiktionary might be a good expansion of that criterion (it's not a great leap from "restating the title" to "definining the title") if we can work out a good wording that does not require a knowledge of Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. In this example, I see several mentions of the phrase and a couple of what might be uses but in sources that are not "durably archived" (one of Wiktionary's requirements, but which as is not a concept in use here most Wikipedia admins will be unfamiliar with), so it would be speedily deletable. Confusing matters for the lexically inexperienced though is that "going ham" is a term used with a completely different meaning in the amateur radio community (meaning, I think, to select/use the HAM radio system/technology/conventions(?) opposed to a different one, e.g. CB radio). Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Adikiaphobia correctly deleted as a hoax (G3), based on it being a dictionary definition deleted from Wiktionary as a "creative invention/protologism". Obviously any dictionary definition deleted from Wiktionary would be a clear delete under the slight expansion of A3 I mused about above. I'll start a new separate discussion on this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Going ham" was tagged by me first as G1, which was then deleted as G1 and recreated under another title, which I didn't tag, but asked on IRC as "TheSigma" for advice on what CSD criterion it truly fell under. It was deleted as A3 by User:Zscout370 I believe. The series of phobias aren't G3 (hoax) because if you check the roots out with their Latin definitions, they are true. The phobias were just non-notable neologisms. We need a new set of CSD criteria to cover non-notable neologisms with no chance of being salvaged. (Vague idea, it will get developed further) --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

On the same topic: why is stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slogans on earth at AfD? This should be part of CSD's bailiwick. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is. Speedily deleted as A1. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's true, but I still don't see what criterion Beer tac toe or I ONT O quite fall under, or Once you jump a fence, an ocean is no problem". All three of those would definitely fall under the wording proposed above; the best I can think would be to highlight the importance of the "which explicitly indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally" part (italicized word added by me). That would keep the software and books by minor companies out of an A11 while incorporating the "book" written two days ago by the article's creator. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay you a dollar, Pasta chili, Merriage, Tray Golf, Education loans: How to plan and manage loan repayment, 8 Strategies to Having a Great Website, Passionate Marriage. --Σ ^talk_contribs 02:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution of Sports to Community and Youth Development in Nannyville, Kingston Jamaica. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That was exclusively promotional in tone and so covered by G11, so no need for a new criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Roberts list of greatest presidents. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that should not be speedily deletable as it requires checking to show that it is indeed original research and not some other person's list (that may or may not be notable) or sytnthesis of notable opinions that should be reworked into other articles. In this case it is original research that should be deleted, but future things of this type need more analysis than is appropriate for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How about adding to the currently nonexistent criterion that the article must plainly state that the creator has a close connection with the neologism or madeup game or guide or whatever, for example, "This word or game or whatever was made on 19:47, 14 November 2024 UTC [refresh] by Joe "? Things such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Band football (which happens to not be A7-able, which is why I declined it) and the aforementioned examples that went through AfD were just a waste of a week for what was sure to be a blizzard. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 22:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That proposed criterion wouldn't allow things like Band football to be deleted as the article makes no "plain statement" about a close connection between the author and subject (it makes no statement at all). I still don't see why such articles need to be speedily deleted, they aren't harmful and they are not overwhelming AfD or prod. If all of those you've listed here over about 3 weeks were all examples of things clearly made up by/closely associated with the article author and not speedily deletable using existing criteria (at a rough guess only about a third are) and had been submitted over 2-3 days at absolute most then I'd say there was certainly a case to be looked at. As things stand you haven't demonstrated a need, nor a specific wording that would allow the deletion of those you want to delete without generating false positives. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I almost snow deleted Band football but decided to turn my closing rationale into a !vote instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? The close connection was plainly stated in the first sentence in band football. What about MOBILE PHONES AND CHILDREN, if it weren't a copyvio? The very title of the page is dripping with the words "Wikipedia is not a place for essays", and even clueless anonymous users who read without editing would believe that it is unencyclopedic. The history of me AfD'ing the NOT violations have resulted in blizzards of Delete. If such pages are so uncontroversially deleted, why not speed it up? --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We get plenty of WP:NEO and WP:NFT every day. Often they are IAR'ed so we don't see them at AfD too often, which is sort of the whole point: When it becomes common practice to IAR certain types of subjects, that suggests a criterion is probably needed. Σ suggested a close connection as part of the nonexistent criterion; that's already in the proposed criterion I suggested higher in this discussion. You're right that including that would make it miss some, but including that gets us over the hump of being narrowly tailored so it doesn't rope in false positives. As for "a specific wording that would allow the deletion of those you want to delete without generating false positives", can you think of even a hypothetical example of an article that would meet the criterion I proposed that would generate a false positive?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried, and I haven't come up with anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Selling a restaurant. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would that need to be speedily deleted? Yes, it's not what Wikipedia is for, but it's not actually doing any harm is it? I also fail to see how it would be caught by a criterion as proposed here for things that were made up by the author? Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I put that there because I saw someone note that "unfortunately, no CSD criteria apply", and thought it would be worthy of note. Like I said, as the page is being destroyed in the blizzard so uncontroversially, why not speed it up? --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 17:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Because that's not what CSD is for. CSD is categories of narrowly and carefully pages that will always be deleted and would either either overwhelm the relevant XfD pages (e.g. A7), would do harm to keep around (e.g. G12) or there is no need for discussion (e.g. U1). The page in question here meets none of these requirements (and we have WP:SNOW for these sorts of things).

It's possible that things like articles that state the subject was made up by the author or their friend and which assert no significance or importance might fit the frequency requirement for a criterion, but you'll only demonstrate that by highlighting pages that would actually fit that criteria. Listing random pages that might be speedily deletable if some other undefined (and even unmentioned) criteria existed doesn't help make the case for anything.
I suggest you start a new section (not a sub-section of this one or it's parent) on this page explicitly proposing a defined criterion (taking note of the guidance at the top of the page) and either include or link to a list of pages that would be deletable under that criterion if it were implemented. If you have proposals for more than one criterion, make a separate section for each. If you want to bring to the attention of people who watch this page random pages that people think should be speedy deletable, then start a separate section for that, but unless you can explain how they relate to something that meets the frequency requirements for a new criterion or ammendment of an existing one, then I don't really see the point.
This section is obscurely titled and so muddled with discussion about random pages and multiple criteria that it's becoming next to useless for anything. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Criterion for made-up subjects

"An article about a thing (word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy, religion, etc.), which plainly indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Neologisms sometimes can't be deleted as a hoax because the roots sometimes make sense. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed criteria does not consider whether there is a credible claim of importance, or even if the subject is notable. I would suggest incorporating the importance criteria of A7, otherwise what happens if someone with a username related to the subject, makes an article about a new game or invention that is actually notable? Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forgot to include an example. Tappy jack shack and Gaalball. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid concern. I have added a bit to the sentence. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this and more already included in the criterion I suggested above (which no one has been able to come up with a false-positive for), or is there some limitation you're seeing?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've copied what you've written and added "plainly" in front of "indicates that it was invented..." The only thingt hat worries me is that the "etc." and "thing" will be used by more imperfect new-page patrollers as an excuse to tag things that shouldn't be tagged, though my suggestion wasn't better. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well "thing" could be replaced by "subject" or "topic", but if we're not limiting it to specific subjects then I don't see a need to list any. So perhaps "An article which plainly indicates the subject was invented, coined or developed by the article's creator...". If we are limiting it to specific subjects, we need to explicitly list them. I'd have written "clearly" rather than "plainly", as I think that would fit better with the other criteria, but it's probably just a stylistic choice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the wording of Fuhghettaboutit above; and as a word of advice, Σ, we have plenty of examples of what you're getting at. Any more would be overkill, and won't help us keep this discussion on track. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I Oppose Fugehettaboutit's version as it includes the vague language "thing (... etc)". As I said above if we're not limiting it to certain subjects then we should make that clear rather than leave it open for wikilawyering. If we are limiting it to specific subjects we need to explicitly list those. As I believe we are not limiting it, I could support the following.

An article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This is simpler and with little ambiguity. Changing "plainly" to "explicitly" would be completely unambiguous, but I get the impression from the above discussion that this wouldn't be supported. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Though anything which satisfies this criterion will almost certainly be deleted there are an awful lot of blatant NFT examples that don't explicitly say that the subject was invented by the article's creator or someone close to them, such as Sandy pants, Xopiad, Copy Paste Game, or Snauzball. I suspect that if this criterion was introduced the wording would be routinely stretched to include other types of NFT deletions. Hut 8.5 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a list of some more examples of MADEUP deletions to my userspace. Hut 8.5 19:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad you support the proposal. It is support, you've just failed to parse the language. Replacimg thing with topic with no list of examples is a language tweak resulting in no change to the proposed criterion's meaning at all, and if you support that, as you indicate above, then you support the criterion. Let me put it another way. You seem to think that "thing" followed by a list of examples plus "etc." is ambiguous as to whether its limited to just those examples or not. That is not a reasonable interpretation, and not open to wikilawyering, since the natural language meaning of it is unambiguously open-ended—that's what the words used mean. The reason I put the list of examples in, and prefer that form, is because it travels down the route of listing the most common NFT topics we see, plus invoking WP:NEO (with "word"), thus giving a reminder right in the criterion of items to look for. But all we're talking about is window dressing, not opposition to its actual meaning; your tweak of the language leaves us with it applying to exactly the same subjects, under exactly the same prerequisites, and we shouldn't get bogged down in that minutia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not mere semantics. Given the wide consensus that CSD criteria should be applied to the letter, it is important that we get the letters absolutely correct, and that means being precise rather than vague. Using "thing" rather than "topic" is less precise (is an abstract philosophical idea a "thing"? G11 was reworded due to a similar query iirc), using a list of examples when none is needed makes the criterion harder to parse and leaves it open to argument whether it was intended for the criterion to include things are listed, things that are similar to those listed (how similar?) or everything. I have been around here long enough to write "oppose" when I mean oppose and not write "oppose" when I mean support. You will also note that I could support an alternative wording (meaning dependent on other things, such as frequency, etc) not that I do support it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You've missed the whole point. You are supporting the substance of the criterion, but just don't like the precise language and have suggested some tweaks. Your use of "oppose" is thus outre. As I've indicated, I don't wish to get bogged down in that, and I don't think you understood what I meant by that: even though it's not a substantive change, even though you think it is, I'm fine with your redrawn version since it retains the criterion I suggested. The issue is thus moot. Others may suggest tweaks to your redrawn language, but support having such a criterion and I don't expect them to couch their suggestions as "opposes" either.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Note I explicitly said "Oppose Fugehettaboutit's version", not oppose the concept. (I am still undecided on whether I can support a criterion for this or not, so please do not put words into my mouth). I feel the issue is significant enough that I can support one version but not another, so I have said that I oppose the version I cannot support (if you don't think it is that significant then we will have to agree to disagree). This is qualitatively different to a change where one can still support the earlier version as a 2nd choice - if this were the case here I would have said I prefer my version rather than opposing the earlier version. "Oppose" means I do not support something for the reasons following the bolded "oppose" (as is Wikipedia convention). It does not necessarily mean I support or oppose a wider or narrower point, or an alternative. I hope people oppose my version if they cannot support it, even if there is another version they do support; if they prefer an alternative but would still support my version then I hope they express this. What is needed now is for comment from other people to see if there is consensus to implement this or not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your position. I understand your changes as well and how you have characterized them as a substantive change; I understand how you are parsing the original language, even though your interpretation doesn't comport with plain English language meaning. But you want to fight over that characterization, and how I turned your post back on you, and I don't want to fight. I have said in effect: "fine, you like this other language better and think it's really different? I don't think it is, but let's use it and move on" (that you've changed your stated position of supporting your own redrawing of the language is a separate matter). Nothing you are saying, after my support of your language, is at all focused on the criterion, whether we should have it or not. A person reading the past few posts just sees squabbling. So can you drop the stick and move forward?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with everything you've just said, but I do agree that this discussion is not productive (per the final sentence of my previous comment). No stick to drop, but more than happy to move forward. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to go on record just as I said about products and services below, that I am wholly in favour of an additional criterion for 'made up' stuff. This morning I was faced with the dilemma of eitherapplying CSD by the letter and sending a whole page of nonsense by an 11 year old about his club of friends who play games in the woods to AfD because there is no criterion to delete it, or choosing G2 and getting rid of it on the spot. I suppose if push came to shove, Arbcom could desysop me if <i had used the the wrong criterion, but do we really want that sort of rubbish to stay online for seven days while people debate it its existence? Or worse, run the risk of having it closed as keep because the kid who wrote it has canvassed all his palls in the shoolyard? Nevertheless, and unfortunately, talking about kids again, there is no rush to add new CSD criteria until we have resolved the extremely urgent issues surrounding NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to permit other editors to comment. →Στc. 04:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Criterion for guides

"A page in article space that does nothing other than give advice, instructions, suggestions, and other directives that are nearly impossible to rewrite to become encyclopedia articles." Example: IMacsoft iPod to Mac Transfer. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 03:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like this phrasing at all. I can't immediately come up with an alternative for the first part, but for the second I'd suggest using the "need to be fundamentally rewritten" language of G11. Additionally, I'm still not convinced that guides would meet the frequency requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

G4 and subsequent XfDs

The G4 criterion states, essentially, that a page deleted per a previous discussion can be speedily deleted after being recreated if it is "sufficiently identical" and "unimproved". So if the page looks like it did before deletion, and the concerns at the previous deletion discussion are still valid, the page can be deleted.

What the criterion does not state is what happens after subsequent XfDs. Let's say that an article is recreated after being deleted at AfD and looks pretty similar to the way it did before. This new discussion is closed as "no consensus". As our policy is currently written, I see no reason why G4 deletion is not still eligible. Technically, it can be speedily deleted even with a "keep" conclusion if the article is still identical to the way it appeared before, and the concerns at the prior AfD are still valid (possibly because they weren't even addressed at the new discussion).

Should the assumption be that any XfD after recreation that does not result in a "delete" conclusion makes G4 deletion invalid? Or perhaps the criterion should state that the most recent deletion discussed resulted in a consensus to delete? I suggest amending the criterion to make this clearer. I don't want to overcomplicate things but I ran into this situation recently myself. I actually was the one who did a G4 deletion after a "no consensus" AfD and felt that I was following the letter of the policy, but I'm still not sure that articles should be able to be deleted in this way. -- Atama頭 18:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the first assumption is correct. If the article survived an AFD, then its deletion should only be the result of a new AFD or DRV. If you did such a deletion, you possibly followed the letter of the policy but not its spirit. Any subject that was kept in a discussion should not be speedy deleted afterwards because speedy deletion is per definition the exception to the rule that all deletions should be the result of a deletion discussion. Deleting an article after it was not deleted at AFD essentially ignores the consensus of the debate in favor of the reviewing admin's viewpoint (so in that case, please consider yourself {{trout}}ed).

To sum it up: If the recreation happened after the article was deleted at AFD, G4 may apply. If the recreation was sent to AFD and kept there (either as keep or no consensus), then G4 cannot be applied. If there is support for it, I'd suggest we add that to G4 to clarify. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there need for that verbiage? I don't see how anyone bright enough to become an admin could possibly misunderstand the way G4 is supposed to work. Deleting under G4 after a keep or no consensus Afd would be POINTy at best, and warring at worst. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Since Atama admitted to do such a deletion and I do not think he was doing it in bad faith, there might be some real confusion. Regards SoWhy 19:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ack, did s/he? I thought this was a rhetorical question. The verbiage must be more confusing than I thought. It reads clearly to me, but if there is actual confusion over this, then yes, we need to copyedit so it is more clear. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Current verbiage

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

Suggestions to make this more clear? We could simply add a sentence which reads "any article which survives an Afd without being deleted does not qualify for deletion under G4." Or we could add it to the current last sentence: "This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which has survived an Afd without deletion, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did the deletion (and I'm a he :)). I didn't consider the deletion to be pointy, but of course I wouldn't, if I thought it would be I wouldn't have done it. My situation was this... Someone else placed the CSD request, I reviewed it and could not justify declining the request as our policy is written, so I deleted the article. I gave some thought about changing the wording and considered this; where it begins, "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." Perhaps it could instead begin, "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via the most recent deletion discussion about the page." I assume that if an article or other page was nominated and kept, and nominated again later and deleted, G4 should apply even though it was once kept. I believe that the spirit of G4 is to assume that a current consensus of editors favors deletion and that a demonstration of a change in consensus (via a newer deletion discussion) would be necessary to change that assumption. If my assumption is incorrect or my wording is imprecise please correct me, thank you. -- Atama頭 21:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, adding to my confusion here was that the discussion was not closed as keep, but as "no consensus". If there is not a new consensus to keep, does that invalidate the old consensus to delete? I think it might be fair to say that if there is no consensus in a newer discussion, then the matter is "muddied" enough that speedy deletion would no longer apply. On the other hand, in another hypothetical situation what if the AfD were closed as "delete", and after deletion there was a discussion at DRV about whether the closure was appropriate and that DRV discussion closed as "no consensus", does the article stay deleted or is the deletion reversed? That's almost the same situation, I don't see a big difference between an article restored after deletion and subject to AfD, and a DRV about an article that was deleted via AfD, the process and consequences of each discussion is the same. So again, I am honestly conflicted about this. This why I'd like the policy to be clearer about this. -- Atama頭 21:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus" at AFD means "No consensus to delete", not "No consensus what to do". If the community cannot decide whether to delete, no single admin should decide it for them. As for the DRV example, it stays deleted because "No consensus" at DRV means "No consensus to change the close", not "No consensus to delete". Since DRV only serves to check an admin's close of a deletion discussion, it does not influence the article's fate itself. Often people will say that DRV is not "AFD round 2" and that's exactly the reason why. Regards SoWhy 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good explanation, thank you. -- Atama頭 21:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Atama that G4 is valid if the most recent XfD resulted in delete. Adding "most recent" has been disputed in the past: see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 39#G4 clarification (September 2010) and User:Jclemens/CSD-RFC (stuck RfC draft, November 2010). Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another previous discussion: WT:Deletion review#G4 (copied from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 4#Carli Banks). Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My suggested phrasing doesn't cover that, does it? Darnit. Is there support for "most recent' now? (it has been a year, after all...) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Once kept, NEVER G4-able

The above discussion has it backwards. Per the lead of WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." Speedy deletion criteria are made to be brittle and "fail" to a full-blown XfD discussion. Thus, if an article is no-consensus'ed, then deleted at an AfD, and then recreated, why would that second deletion be automagic and able to take place without discussion? It wouldn't. Any deletion of any material which has survived an XfD at any point in its existence under CSD G4 is a non-policy-based deletion: that's the way it reads, and I think it's absolutely appropriate that it stay that way. If things are getting obnoxious with repeated recreations against consensus, then WP:RFPP is the way to enforce the community's will, not a one-admin decision. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Your opinion is that if an article was kept 3-2 in 2004, deleted 15-1 in 2009 because we enforce policies better these days, and recreated with the exact same content as the 2009 revision in 2011, assuming no copyright issues, we should waste several community members' times again? NW (Talk) 15:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer to the question, "why would that second deletion be automagic and able to take place without discussion?" would be "consensus can change". Also, it's not that the second deletion took place "without discussion", but rather that the second deletion resulted from the discussion that occurred just before the first deletion. -- Atama頭 17:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add, we do treat WP:PROD in this way because proposed deletions need to be completely uncontroversial. If an article went through AfD in 2004 and was closed 2-1 in favor of being kept, then in 2011 we still consider deletion to be controversial. I'm not aware that CSD is intended to be treated that way. -- Atama頭 17:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that NW makes a good point. The most recent deletion discussion should be controlling. That said, I'd hope that an admin would look carefully at a speedy of any article that was kept in the past at an AfD. Such an article probably has an interesting history attached to it... Hobit (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that, NW. I'm a big proponent of SNOW closes at AfDs when consensus is clear, as well it would probably be in that specific hypothetical case. In fact, the vast majority of G4s-after-a-previous-keep-even-if-the-most-recent-was-delete are nowhere near that clear-cut, are they?

G4 is for an AfD/deletion/repost the same content elsewhere or under the same title sequence. The wording also includes trivial modifications, but it is in no way an excuse to prevent editors from working on good-faith updates to deleted content in mainspace, which is how I've seen it applied on several occasions. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all actually. If an article was deleted through AfD, then the community decided that the article doesn't belong in article space. It shouldn't be placed back into mainspace because someone wants to improve it. That circumvents the entire process. We have the article incubator and user subpages for that kind of thing. G4 should be used exactly for that purpose. Does it make sense to totally ignore an AfD because someone wants another chance to work on the article? It doesn't make sense to me. -- Atama頭 00:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The circumstance that this recreation is allowed is when new information comes to light on the topic, and the issues in the AFD have been addressed in the recreated article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure--no one is arguing that the recreated, still-defective article should be kept. It should go directly to AfD, where it would be quickly and painlessly executed by the community rather than an admin acting alone. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If a situation is codifiable with just a few simple criteria which apply 100% of the time, then what is the point of saying "go to AfD or declare that you are speeding this per IAR". I see no upside to your preferred wording at all. All it seems to be doing is wasting community members' time, which is finite.

Also, can you explain to me how your proposal is consistent with G4's current wording: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." NW (Talk) 03:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NW, I am not making a proposal: I am pointing out how CSD is actually worded. G4 is limited in that since it's a speedy deletion process, it can only apply to speedily deletable material. Nothing kept once at an AfD is speedy deletable unless it's a newly discovered copyvio, and changing the wording of the G4 criterion doesn't affect the overall scope of CSD. Individual criteria can't expand the mandate of CSD, so "fixing" the problem the lead creates in G4 requires a change to the CSD criteria. Which is OK, but not too many people seem to be understanding the location of the issue, and are proposing changes that won't have any net policy effect while the CSD scope remains unchanged. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And I think that everyone else is saying that doesn't make sense at all for G4. I thought policies were supposed to be based on common sense and what's best for Wikipedia, not dogma. -- Atama頭 18:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the lead be rewritten to allow what you think should be the common sense application? I don't disagree that that's a reasonable way forward. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely. I'm not sure that the lead unambiguously matches what you're saying (that it clearly demonstrates that any XfD survival invalidates non-copyvio CSDs) but I can definitely see how it can be interpreted that way. So to avoid a situation where the lead conflicts with a change in G4, it should be changed. I'm not sure if it should be changed to say that it's referring only to the most recent XfD result, or that G4 is an exception, as copyvios are also mentioned as an exception. -- Atama頭 16:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the specifics, 2009 to 2011 might be enough time for consensus on the relevant issues to change. WP:Deletion review tends to allow recreation and send to a new AfD if the last AfD is a few years old. To make the hypothetical example clearer, the time between deletion and recreation should be shortened to days. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course if an article was deleted at a recent AfD and it is reposted with the same content, G4 applies, even if it was kept three years years before at another discussion. And this meets the letter of the criterion, which is not the statement you quote from the lead but "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." The general notion in the lead is a good one, but it was never intended to conflict with G4; it's just that a few very specific situations where it also would not apply (I can think of two others) are not as obvious as copyvios. It addresses the general idea that when considering a speedy, a one (or, depending on how you look at it, two) person decision, as opposed to a discussion among more people that explores the merits, is trumped in most situations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While it certainly seems like that might be the case, it's not. The lead paragraphs of CSD explain the process, which is exactly as it says: Speedy only applies when there's no controversy, and nothing except a new copyvio allows a previously kept article to be speedily deleted. G4 is just one criterion, and it doesn't trump the overall expectations for CSD usage. I, too, can think of others--but those would be IARs, which is always OK when the circumstances dictate it. In fact, NW's hypothetical example might be a fine example of an IAR speedy... but it's not a G4, because the underlying article had been kept once.

I'd be willing to help craft a rewrite of the lead AND G4 that actually fixes this, but I think the more important aspect of G4 reform is strengthening the "substantially identical" requirement. That is, no good-faith effort to address a prior deletion is G4-able now, even though it happens inappropriately at the moment, and I'd welcome the opportunity to strengthen the language appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see: you think that there's something controversial about an article whose most recent deletion discussion resulted in it being deleted upon the close of that discussion, being summarily re-deleted when it is reposted in contravention of the outcome of the discussion, with the repost containing the same content that the discussion considered. By contrast, I can't imagine a more uncontroversial matter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's been kept at AfD once before, indeed, there's nothing controversial about it: it's simply not eligible for G4 unless it's a copyvio, since it was kept at AfD at one point. Of course, special BLP measures apply as well, if needed, but remember: Speedy deletion is for things that no good-faith editor familiar with our policy disagrees with; for things that are an uphill and/or hopeless, yet contested, battle... AfD applies. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes no sense to grant the right to perpetual recreation to a subject that once managed to muster enough !votes to prevent a consensus from forming and has since been deleted by one or more subsequent AfDs. G4 should be based upon the most recent AfD as explained above. --Allen3 ^talk 19:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No one has proposed that. I've said that WP:RFPP or changing the overall CSD wording are both effective ways to accomplish that. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems people just aren't understanding the problem with the logic here--AGFing that I'm not explaining it well, let's try this again:

1) The general CSD rule: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."

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

Nowhere does 2) claim to supersede 1). It has a bunch of additional clauses about what is NOT G4-able, but nowhere does it claim to have an exception to the general rule articulated in 1). If there's a desire to have G4 apply to previously-kept XfD's, then 1) needs to change, not 2). Does that make it clearer? Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Explained that way, 1) need to be changed to specify the most recent deletion discussion instead of using its current ambiguous wording. If an article has been has undergone multiple discussions then "prior" may refer to any past discussion suitable to a wikilawyer's agenda and fails to recognize Wikipedia's policy that Consensus can change. --Allen3 ^talk 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should specify the most recent. I've actually always worked on that assumption--it does not really make sense otherwise. ` DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense to me: consensus can change, and consensus can change back, so speedying something that's been decided two different ways on two different occasions is inappropriate. Speedy is not about making things convenient for those who want to see things deleted, it's intentionally narrowly drawn to do things where the outcome is essentially predetermined, were it taken to AfD. Differing XfD outcomes is the poster child for consensus being able to change. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens, you may wish to re-read your statement and decide where you stand. Your statement the "It makes sense to me" indicates support for the two comments directly above (using the most recent discussion). This is followed with "speedying something that's been decided two different ways on two different occasions is inappropriate", indicating you oppose using the most recent discussion as the deciding factor when at least one previous discussion came to a differing conclusion. I suspect your repeated introduction of such non-deterministic language is the reason people are unable to understand your position. --Allen3 ^talk 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's break this down once more.

1) The way the lead of CSD is written, nothing which survived an XfD previously, except newly discovered copyvios, are eligible. I really don't see that as controversial, unclear, or ambiguous.

2) The way that would be applied, that any kept-deleted-recreated article would be automagically booted to AfD forever after, doesn't seem inappropriate to me.

3) At the same time, rewriting the lead so that G4 works the way several people want it to work doesn't seem inappropriate to me either.

So... does that help? Don't confuse my pointing out an inconvenient fact about the current verbiage with me saying that it's the only possible way it could be, and advocating that it remain that way. In this case, I think it's reasonable way to change it, but the discussion reveals a lot of poor assumptions about the purpose and scope of CSD. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) It makes no sense at all. Consensus can change is a complete red herring here. The notion is just as applicable to an article that was deleted only once at AfD as one that was kept and then later deleted. Consensus can change has nothing to do with the matter. G4 is a mechanism to enforce the result of deletion discussions that ended in a deletion. It is obvious and tacit that when an AfD is closed as delete it trumps prior discussions as a logical necessity—or we wouldn't delete at all as a result of the very discussion. It is just as obvious and tacit that when an article is kept that was previously deleted, the consensus of keep trumps the prior deletion on a going forward basis. Accordingly, of course an article whose most recent discussion was to keep is not subject to G4, and of course an article whose most recent discussion was to delete is subject to G4. This view of the lead language as inviolate, as to be interpreted like some strict constructionist scholar interpreting the constitution is a problem. Someone added the lead language in (actually here), the exception of a potential conflict with G4 was simply never noted, and we can remedy that now. Meanwhile, the reductio ad absurdum; actually not even, the natural absurd result of your interpretation, is that if an article was ever kept, upon a deletion result at a later AfD, one second after the close anyone can repost the exact same content that was considered at the discussion, and that repst has to go through AfD again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And why is that necessarily a problem that must be dealt with by unilateral administrator deletion? Do you think that the editor who reposted that article will escape unscathed? That sounds like disruptive editing to me, and RFPP would easily take care of that possibility. The much bigger problem with G4 is when administrators take one look at a rewritten article and say "Nope, I think the deletion rationale still applies" and delete the article (again, rewritten in good faith) without a discussion. If you want to pick on a real problem with G4, as opposed to a mostly theoretical interaction, that would be my pick. I'd much rather sculpt its applicability to safeguard good-faith reposts, even if that means we have to deal with disruptive editing without immediately deleting the reporting. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral administrator deletion? What? If you want to characterize it that way, that's every CSD. You think it should be treated differently when there's been a prior survival, whereas I think the prior survival is utterly irrelevant. People will escape unscathed? I have no idea what this has to do with the matter. RFPP? I'm again lost as to what you're talking about. Instead of deleting a repost we would protect it? Why? In what form? So an AfD ends and then the same content that was deleted is reposted. We should now keep that new content but protect it? As for misapplication (as opposed to your misinterpretation) as you're talking about in the latter half of your post, that does happen, but every CSD is sometimes misapplied. The language is already clear that G4 does not apply to sufficiently rewritten material. Maybe we could make it clearer but it's off topic; a complete tangent to the issue you raised in this thread.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me play Devil's Advocate here (not that I'm calling you The Devil, Jclemens!) because while I don't agree with Jclemens I think that I get what his point is. He suggests that speedily deleting an article that has been recreated isn't necessary, and may be bite-y. He's also suggesting that if recreation of an article is such a problem, it makes more sense to salt it rather than to keep deleting it over and over per G4. There's some sense to that, I'll admit.

However, I still disagree. First of all, the concept of "unilateral administrator deletion" is somewhat flawed. G4 is probably the least "unilateral" CSD criterion. You could say that most every other CSD criterion is unilateral, except perhaps for U1 or G7 which require that the user or page author respectively is requesting deletion explicitly. Most any other CSD criteria can be applied if an administrator simply sees a page and thinks the criterion is relevant (generally), as the policy states, "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media." Alone among all of the criteria, G4 actually requires that a consensus be reached in a deletion discussion that supports the administrator's deletion. So again, it's the least unilateral form of speedy deletion.

And there is one thing that Jclemens has stated that is simply wrong; I'm not saying it's an opinion I disagree with, I'm saying it's factually incorrect. He has stated that, "Speedy only applies when there's no controversy". That's incorrect, and our policy makes that clear. It lists the differences between speedy and the other three deletion methods (proposed deletions, deletion discussions, and office actions) and defines proposed deletions as "nominating pages for uncontroversial deletion". If speedy deletions needed to be uncontroversial, there would really be nothing to differentiate them from proposed deletions. I can say that in practice, controversial speedy deletions happen all the time. Otherwise we wouldn't have discussions at DRV about how appropriate a deletion was, we would just restore a page if someone objected to it (which is how proposed deletions actually do work). If they had to be uncontroversial, then we'd allow article authors to remove CSD tags. We'd disallow deletion of articles where someone has protested the deletion on the article's talk page. None of that is the case. The only CSD criterion that can't be applied with controversy is G6. So I agree with Fuhghettaboutit when they say that "prior survival is utterly irrelevant". -- Atama頭 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A good summary Atama. One quibble. If by "RFPP" what was being referred to was salting, then it still makes no sense. In order to salt, one needs to delete first. So the G4 deletion would still need to be carried out. Whether to salt thereafter is a different question. It think we generally should not. By salting, we foreclose the possibility of a person posting a new version that is not sufficiently similar to the deleted content—one that addresses the deletion bases by, for example, including sufficient sources to meet the GNG that was identified as the problem in the AfD. There may be particular, sui generis situations where (long term) salting is warranted, but I think they are rare.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, Jclemens is proposing that recreation should lead to a new AfD, and if that AfD concludes as "delete", that it should be salted at that time. And I agree with you, salting seems to bite even more than just deleting by G4, because if we don't salt then we open up the possibility of recreating the page properly (in other words, substantially different and resolving the concerns that led to deletion at the AfD). I personally have kind of a "three strikes and you're out" rule for salting; if a page is recreated 3 times or more and speedily deleted each time (for whatever reason) then I protect it after deleting it one final time. -- Atama頭 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily the second AfD--it would depend on how firm the consensus was, how much good faith was demonstrated by the re-creator, etc. If it was re-created the day after an AfD closed as delete, with no new info, I expect that might cause salting... (at which point RFPP or DRV can each host a discussion if someone else comes along and wants to recreate it properly) Which is an entirely different situation from a good-faith but inadequate attempt six months or a year after the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The "survived a prior deletion discussion" sentence in the lead

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.

Is this sentence general guidance that allows for unstated exceptions or a rule that must be interpreted rigidly? I agree with Fuhghettaboutit's comment (diff) that there are a few exceptions in addition to the explicitly stated copyright violations (G12). For example, an exception involving U1 is easy to describe:

U1 User request: User:Example's user page includes content that another user believes to be a violation of WP:User pages. That user nominates it at MfD, but the page is not found to be an egregious violation and is kept. Example later retires and tags his/her user page with U1.

Is it necessary to expand the list of exceptions to be exhaustive? Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer we enumerated the list of things to which this doesn't apply, while keeping the general rule and scope of speedy deletion intact. Sure, U1 is a good example of something where the prior deletion discussion probably doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about the fact that you seem to be supporting this, given the discussion above. Anyway, I didn't think we needed an exhaustive list but given that discussion, I do think we need the change something. I was not thinking of IAR as you suggested, but in addition to G4: U1, G9 and possibly undiscovered and confirmed hoaxes under G3 (i.e., the creator admits). We also have to hope that "page" is not interpreted more broadly, or F1, F5, F8 and C1 would also need to be included in any list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're getting into a list longer than about 3 entries then I think that it would be good to link instead to a separate "Exceptions" section where exceptions to the general rule of 'XfD Keep = not speediable' are listed with a brief explanation why (copyvio is obvious, U1 isn't necessarily). Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a footnote?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's just change the wording from "survived a prior deletion discussion" to "survived the most recent deletion discussion". Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No. If it's ever been kept once, there's a question that makes it unsuitable for a speedy deletion discussion. U1 and G12 have very different reasons why the new request should trump the XfD requirement, G4 does not. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That addition doesn't fix U1, among others. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Is CSD G4 applicable or inapplicable to a previously kept page whose most recent discussion ended in deletion?

Once a page has previously been kept at an XfD discussion as "keep" or "no consensus", some users believe {{db-repost}} (CSD G4) is never applicable, even if the most recent XfD was closed as "delete". Others hold that the most recent discussion is what invokes the applicability of CSD G4. 06:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Notifications

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines (tag) (list)
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (list) | (delist) (archive)

Most recent discussion

1. The common sense interpretation of the policy. Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) comment here aptly sums up my position on the matter. NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)'s comment here demonstrates why the "never applicable" position lacks common sense. Cunard (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. I agree with Cunard. G4 is a maintenance criterion, created to enforce the community's decision at AFD against recreations. Since the second AFD "overrides" the first one completely (e.g. if the result in the second one is "keep", it's irrelevant that the first one ended in "delete"), the first AFD cannot be important later for purposes of G4. As such, if the most recent AFD ended in "keep", G4 can't be applied since it would override the community's decision but if it ended in "delete", G4 only serves to enforce that decision and thus is applicable. Regards SoWhy 06:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. I also agree with the above. Quite simply, If a page's most recent xfd results in delete (or rename or merge to another target, for that matter) or the most recent discussion was a deletion review resulting in endorse deletion, G4 is always applicable (assuming the reasons to delete are the same as in the discussion). If the most recent xfd was no consensus or keep, or the most recent discussion was a deletion review resulting in overturn deletion, G4 is never applicable. That's how I've always treated it at least, it's a common sense application of the rule, and it reflects what I believe is common practice amongst administrators. I would support changing the wording to better clarify this. VegaDark (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. The point of G4 is to make sure deletion discussions are actually binding and cannot be overturned by an individual editor. Preventing pages which have been kept at some point from ever being deleted under it therefore violates the spirit of G4. Hut 8.5 10:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Per above, as the most recent deletion discussion would represent the current consensus. However, if the subject becomes eligible for inclusion in the future and a similar article is recreated, then G4 would no longer apply, despite the AfD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Hut 8.5 has it right. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
7. It should be clear from my comments in the section above what my opinion is, but just to reiterate, I agree that G4 (and other CSDs) should be based on the most recent XfA result. I don't want to take up too much space here so I'll add my own section below outlining my thoughts. -- Atama頭 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
8. As explained by others above, this is the option that makes sense. There are too many ways to game the system in the short term and serious problems other than copyright. Just because a elaborate hoax from a banned user escapes deletion in one AfD does not mean that once its nature it proven each recreation should require another full AfD to clean up. The same principle applies to WP:COATRACKs that attract enough WP:SPAs to block consensus during an initial deletion discussion. --Allen3 ^talk 22:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
9. Per everyone who has explained why this common sense interpretation is the most obvious and best for the encyclopaedia. I have no doubt that this was the original intention of the criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
10. All the arguments I would have used have been covered. I agree with User:Mkativerata's past reference to Generalia specialibus non derogant: the individual criteria should override the general sentence in the lead ("survived a prior deletion discussion") when they conflict. If the sentence were meant as a hard rule, it would be bolded or otherwise emphasized. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
11. Just because it was kept years ago doesn't make it ineligible if the 'delete' consensus is current. WikiPuppies! (bark) 07:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
12. I agree that the most recent discussion should, in general, take precedence. I would caveat that, however, that a years-old discussion should be a matter for sober consideration by the (possibly) deleting admin, especially if there is (for example) acknowledgement of it on the article talk page, especially giving some argument as to why consensus may have changed. Basically amounts to WP:COMMONSENSE, though. SamBC(talk) 13:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (re G4 applicability)

• It depends upon the circumstances and timescale. If something is immediately recreated after deletion then this is edit warring and so G4 would be appropriate. But consider the case where an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion and kept on many occasions. Then, for once, a delete result is obtained. If G4 could apply thereafter then that singular result would be binding in perpetuity and this would be manifestly unfair. Per WP:SAUCE, if an article can be repeatedly nominated for deletion on the grounds that consensus can change, then it should be allowed to be recreated on the same grounds. In such cases, common sense requires that a reasonable interval of time should elapse between each testing of consensus - a year or so, say. Warden (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would disagree with this. I would say G4 is applicable even after the delete result is finally obtained in your example. I would say the proper venue to contest this would be deletion review, not recreating the article in protest. I would also support speedy closes of renominations too soon from a previous xfd resulting in keep or no consensus, if renominating something was becoming an issue in order to try and admin shop for one that will get a result to their liking. VegaDark (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Nyttend

Why aren't there any "View by ___" sections for actual users? I'd like to endorse SoWhy and VegaDark, with the added comment (in response to Warden) that a page only qualifies for G4 if it's a repost; i.e., virtually identical to the original content. If you create a page about a trivial school and object to a prod, the page can't be A7 deleted (as it's a school) or prodded (as you objected), but it can definitely be deleted at AFD. Let's say that the school begins to attract the attention of scholars; articles are published about its education-leading practices in the Elementary School Journal and about its influence on colleges in The Journal of Higher Education, and a thorough account of its history appears in The American Historical Review: the school now is clearly notable, and a thoroughly new article that uses those articles as sources will definitely not be subject to AFD — it's substantially different from the deleted page. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Atama

I didn't want to take up too much space above but I have given this more thought and think that we should be changing the policy in regards to all CSDs, not just G4. In other words, we should use the most recent deletion discussion to determine eligibility of speedy deletion no matter which criterion is used. Let me give a hypothetical example. Someone creates an article about a company that makes bicycles and uses nothing but self-published sources. It is taken to AfD, and it is kept, perhaps because someone finds a couple of press releases that talk about the company and convinces enough people to form a rough consensus to keep it. A year later, another AfD comes about, where someone points out that press releases are essentially self-published sources anyway and aren't reliable, and nobody can find significant coverage anywhere else, so the article is deleted as being non-notable due to lack of coverage from reliable sources. A month after that, the article is recreated but simply says that the company makes bicycles (without elaborating), and then has a list of current models and prices. The article bears practically no resemblance to the form it was in when the previous AfD concluded, so G4 wouldn't necessarily apply, but it definitely qualifies for A7 and maybe G11 deletion. So because the article was once kept a couple of years ago, is yet another AfD necessary? I'd hope not. I don't see how that first AfD should get in the way of a valid speedy deletion no matter which criteria you use. -- Atama頭 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Although this deviates from the core question, I agree that a third AfD should not be necessary. Rather than needing to use A7 or G11, I hope that G4 would cover obviously worse recreations, but no changes came of WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 41#Proposed rewrite to G4 (January 2011), where they were discussed briefly. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Jclemens

Contra Nyttend, G4 is applied far more liberally than "just a repost". Several editors have opined that if one admin thinks that the cause for deletion, as outlined in a previous AfD, hasn't been sufficiently or adequately addressed, then G4 is applicable. I would have a lot less heartburn about the change if the "identical or virtually identical" were actually determined to be consensus, and that good-faith recreations which were NOT identical but did NOT address the previous XfD would be routed ONLY through XfD (...until such time as the community's patience is exhausted and create protection is applied).

The way it's written now makes sense. G4 is mostly applied to things that were never kept in the first place, so routing kept-deleted-recreated articles back through XfD is not an unreasonable burden on XfD. Remember, the default for all processes is "full discussion", and I think the fact that we're even having this discussion demonstrates that G4'ing previously kept material does not have the sufficiently high level of community consensus necessary for a CSD criterion. Thus, I see no problem with the status quo and prefer it be kept until and unless someone can demonstrate that sending a previously-kept page to XfD, even if it had been deleted in the mean time, creates a problem other than "But I want it gone without having to wait!" Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I largely support this view. If an article is deleted at AfD, and then an identical or virtually identically article is re-created, obviously consensus has already stated that that article should be deleted (in fact, it already was!) It doesn't matter what its past is like. The trouble arises when we encounter a situation in which the new article has a number of changes (perhaps small) and the deleting admin still believes it "doesn't address" the concerns raised in the AfD. Should an admin be making this decision unilaterally, especially for an article with a contentious history? I believe the answer is no, there should be discussion around it. If the only result of the AfD is a snowball delete and a trout to the face of the re-creator, so be it - it's not like this happens all the time. Dcoetzee 20:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

View by User:VegaDark

Contrary to Jclemens' assertion above, I would contend the actual status quo is to treat it how everyone else participating here so far has agreed the system should be, that being the most recent deletion discussion is controlling. Despite the actual wording of the criteria, I believe it is standard practice to only go off of the most recent discussion and not decline G4's for ones that happen to have a keep result from 5 years ago where it was later deleted.

I would also disagree that the recreated content needs to be substantially identical in order to apply G4. The content could be 100% different so long as the original concerns of the xfd have not been satisfied in the new version. I would agree that an admin should err on the side of not applying G4 if they are in doubt, but other than that I have no qualms leaving it up to admin discretion whether something satisfies the concerns of the previous deletion discussion or not. If an editor disagrees they can take it up with the admin in question or go to deletion review if necessary.

The very goal of creating the G4 speedy deletion criterion was to avoid discussions on things where consensus has already been reached. If an editor wishes to recreate content that has been deleted in its most recent deletion discussion, the proper venue to determine if consensus has changed regarding that content is deletion review. If the current wording were enforced to the letter, any content that had a past xfd resulting in no consensus or keep would not have to go through deletion review to be recreated. This creates a number of problems which I have outlined here. Let's change the wording to reflect what I believe is the standard practice, common sense approach. VegaDark (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Endorse almost all of this. An old survival at AfD has no bearing on whether the latest recreation is "sufficiently identical and unimproved" when compared to the last deleted version. I might be a little more restrictive on G4 use than VegaDark, but I agree on the broad point that it should be looser than "identical". DRV can be skipped if the recreation is obviously fixed (e.g. completely unsourced → significant coverage in several excellent reliable sources), per WP:BURO. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Endorse this view. The most recent discussion is the best representation of current consensus. Requiring a textual match for a G4 is also excessive: if a reviewing admin determines that the new article has done nothing to address the original concern, and the motivation behind that original concern is still valid, G4 is applicable. There's obviously a bias towards believing that new text and new sources render a new article worthy of discussion, but if it's the fifth recreation of "Famous Singer's Twelfth Studio Album" and it still doesn't satisfy the concerns of the original deletion discussion, it's still a G4, even if the editor and text are completely unrelated to the original.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Monty845

As I see it, there are two issues at play, which AfD should be controlling, and how binding a delete decision should be. As to the first issue, I think that the most recent AfD should be controlling, as others have noted, if a past keep decision forever forbids future G4 deletions, then the deletion result would be essentially unenforceable. In regards to the second issue, I support a standard between that of User:Jclemens and User:VegaDark. G4 should be applicable to recreations if the recreation is either virtually identical to the deleted version OR if the recreation is as bad or worse then the deleted version in regards to what ever issue resulted in the deletion. That way a good faith recreation that has at least improved on the deletion issue over the deleted version can receive another AfD, and we can avoid filling AfD with recreations that have the exact same problem. Under this standard, reviewing admins should err on the side of rejecting the G4 if there they have any question whether the article is an improvement over the deleted version. Monty₈₄₅ 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Endorse. While I think that borderline recreations should require consensus to be restored (they benefit from no consensus at AfD), I would be satisfied with the line drawn here. Flatscan (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

View by User:TransporterMan

G4 ought not to become an alternative to deletion review. If any sysop other than the sysop who closed the XfD evaluates the G4 nom, then they're second-guessing the closing sysop's judgment. That should only happen if the XfD closer fails or is unavailable to review the G4. G4 ought to remain as a criteria but the procedure for making and reviewing G4s ought to change. A person making a G4 nom ought to have an obligation to also put a note on the talk page of the sysop who closed the XfD saying that the article has been restored and nominated for G4. (And it must be remembered that G4 noms can be made by non-sysops who cannot see the deleted version of the article.) No other sysop ought to either remove the g4 nom or delete the article unless the XfD closer fails to review the G4 nom and keep or delete the article within a set period of time (to be determined by consensus, but 3 days/96 hours sounds about right). If that happens, then the G4 reviewer ought to delete the article unless it has clearly been improved enough to substantially cure the problems which were raised in the XfD and should notify the restorer that deletion review is available to review whether or not the article should now be kept. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

View by User:Herostratus

The last XfD should control, but G4 should have an expiration date of X amount of time. Otherwise we are ruled by the dead hand of the past.

For instance, the article Echo Helstrom. It was deleted -- but more than three years ago, with four editors advocating "Delete". Of those four, one remains active (if you consider five edits since June 2011 as active), one is marginally active (two edits since June 2011) and two are inactive. Thus is probably typical, and I'm sure in other deletion discussions, all of the Delete advocates have moved on. How much control should people who aren't even active Wikipedians anymore have over what does or does not appear in the Wikipedia?

The article cited is probably not acceptable because the subject is a private person and BLP concerns and rules have strengthened in the intervening time, but leaving that aside and just taking it as an example, I think it would be justifiable to re-post this article into Wikispace (perhaps with an advisory AfD).

Times change, the Wikipedia population changes, de facto standards change. If an article on an entity is deleted, and five years later the de facto standards have changed such that similar articles are routinely kept, what sense does it make to say that that article can't be recreated, even with very similar content.

Granted, this means a bit of extra work, as some articles would have to be wack-a-moled again. But this probably won't happen much, and the upside gain is some acceptable articles. But the sell-by date of an XfD delete decision shouldn't be too short. So how much time should "X" be? I don't know. Surely at least 1 year, but surely not more than 5 years, I would say. Two years sounds about right. Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a hard time limit would work, rather an advisory note along the lines of "If the XfD was more than about 1-2 years ago, and particularly if the consensus was weak or participation was low, then it is recommended to check whether the discussion reflects current community standards. Also check whether the situation regarding the subject has changed significantly in the intervening period such that an article may now be sustainable. Unless it is clear that a discussion today would stand no chance of reaching a different conclusion then it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion."

The specific wording is crap, but the sentiment I'm trying to give is that a "reasonable doubt"-standard test should be applied - i.e. if there is reasonable doubt that an XfD today would come to the same conclusion about the article then speedy deletion is not appropriate. This should always be the case when evaluating a G4, but the factors highlighted are specific things that make reasonable doubt more likely (but obviously don't guarantee it). Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, and an alternative to my suggestion would be something like that, or to simplify: "If an article is taken to DRV with the argument that the deletion was more than X years ago, this alone should be sufficient to restore the article, even of the deletion was in order, absent some other compelling argument not to". This has both the advantage and disadvantage of allowing some leeway, so that common sense can to come into play. However, this would likely tend of turn the DRV into an AfD, e.g. "There is a compelling argument not to, mainly that article is crap and/or has no chance of surviving an AfD". Much simpler to add a clause not subject to interpretation to the G4 criteria: "G4 does not apply to articles reposted X or more years after deletion". The article would of course be subject to a new AfD. Better to argue its merits there than at DRV. Herostratus (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That is crucially different to what I'm suggesting in that an XfD being old is, on it's own, a reason to undelete unless there are reasons not to. I oppose that and strongly think that an XfD-deleted page should remain deleted unless there are reasons to undelete, with the XfD being old being just one possible contributing factor and not a reason on it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

G4: Moving forward

The 30-day RfC tag will expire in a few days, and there haven't been any new comments in nearly two weeks. The consensus seems obvious to me, so we can start discussing implementation before the formal close. Does the text of CSD need to be modified? Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposition: A11: not for an encyclopedia

Explanation: criteria for an article whose thematic or/and content are unsuitable for Wikipedia (unencyclopedic). Issues that might also occur complying this criteria:

• Unencyclopedically worded,
• Non-encyclopedic style, etc. Alex ^{discussion ★} 19:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This proposed criteria would provide far too much room for individual interpretation. CSD Criteria need to be unambiguous, the application of a CSD tag should require no discussion or explanation, either the article is eligible or it is not. What is and is not suitable for Wikipedia is a constant area of discussion, and deciding if a particular article fits often requires a discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Unencyclopedic" was proposed and rejected multiple times as a criterion already for those and other reasons. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so that means "if I think a new article is 'unencyclopedic', then I should propose it for deletion". Am I right? Alex ^{discussion ★} 19:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:PROD or WP:AFD are the ways to deal with unecyclopedic articles. Monty₈₄₅ 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Once we are outside the realm of the carve outs for speedy deletion, generally, and especially at AfD, we look to the merits of the topic rather than the current text in deciding whether to delete an article. Your post refers to content that is "unencyclopedically worded" and does not bear an "encyclopedic style". These seem addressed to the text only and are not typically seen as proper bases for deletion. A common way of way of seeing it is "If [an] article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD"—see WP:BEFORE. These concerns are, however, excellent bases to fix the material yourself, to ruthlessly prune down poor and unsourced content, and to affix maintenance tags addressing issues you find.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. An article can be "unencylopedically worded" or use a "non-encyclopedic style," and yet form an excellent basis for an article with a little bit of cleanup. Dcoetzee 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Above discussions (such as the one at the top) may contain more detail about the proposal of a new criterion. →Στc. 23:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

All right $\sum$ if you insist I would like to make a reference to WP:NOT by adding this criteria. I believe this reasoning is convincing enough at its value. (Page deleted because: CSD A11: article unsuitable for encyclopedia, see What Wikipedia is not; stuff I presented at the top can often occur, and only comply this criteria). Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been many, many discussions about WP:NOT and the consensus every time has been that it's far too broad and far too subjective to make a good CSD criterion. There is (or was) a discussion further up this page about a specific individual part of NOT that might make a good CSD criterion, but as a whole it has been rightly rejected time and time again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Unencyclopedically worded, Non-encyclopedic style" are things that can be fixed through normal editing, deletion is not appropriate here, let alone speedy deletion. We need to remember that newbies will make Newbie mistakes, or in the case of not writing in Wikipedia style or not using Wiki format Newbies will display some ignorance of things that experienced editors have picked up. But "Written by a probable newbie" really shouldn't be a deletion criteria. This is something very different from the issue of articles where the subject clearly doesn't belong here or elsewhere in Wikimedia, we have speedy deletion criteria for many types of articles that don't belong here, if someone can identify another subset of articles that clearly don't belong and propose an unambiguous test that relatively inexperienced patrollers are unlikely to misinterpret then yes it would be good if we could define a subset of articles that we can all agree merit summary deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New Criterion - Unsourced WP:BLPs (Article)

As I've started clerking on WP:Requests for undeletion, it appears some of the speedies being contested there are out-of-process A7s for biographies of living people that have no sources whatsoever. As this seems to be a very reasonable IAR speedy (and one that appears, to me, to be growing more frequent), I'm proposing a new criterion:

A##. Unsourced biography of a living person.
An article about a living person that does not include any reliable sources to prove the subject's notability. This criterion does not apply to articles that have at least one reliable source, even if that source is not enough to establish a subject's notability.

Thoughts/opinions? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Barack Obama is the President of the United States from 2008 to 2012" can be deleted under this proposed A11. →Στc. 05:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal can be found at WP:BLPPROD. Alex ^{discussion ★} 09:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is almost identical to BLPPROD, except that it doesn't allow interested editors any time to find sources. Hut 8.5 09:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - unsourced biographies are already dealt with reasonably well by BLPPROD. This would duplicate that process, except without allowing any timeframe at all for article creators to add sources. New unsourced biographies are not such an urgent problem that they must be deleted in the thirty seconds between the newbie editor's first save ("Bob Smithson is a famous nuclear physicist who won a Nobel Prize") and their second save when they (hopefully) add a source - but your proposed criteria would permit that to happen. Out of process A7s have always been a problem, since many administrators have only a vague notion of what it actually permits them to do, but the solution to that is challenging the deletions and educating the administrators. Thparkth (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm wondering if unsourced BLPs that include negative material shouldn't have a CSD time frame instead of PROD. Might this be part of the answer to WP:DOLT situations? Just a thought that if editors responding to page blanking had a CSD criteria, or a template with CSD instructions for a complaintant, it could stop some of these situations in their tracks. Like I said, it's just a thought. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) A BLP which is negative in tone and unsourced can be speedied under G10 already. If only part of the article is negative and unsourced then current BLP rules allow the material to be removed immediately. Hut 8.5 12:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose When WP:BLPPROD was created, it was the result of a very very very long discussion that started exactly with the same proposal. In the end, most of us agreed that BLPs without sourced need to be removable fast but with time to allow people to fix them. If admins use A7 for this instead, I recommend a healthy usage of {{whale}} because that's one of the most flagrant abuses of IAR one can imagine: The community explicitly rejected using speedy deletion for such articles, so there is no justification whatsoever to ignore this. If it really does include negative material, use WP:BLP and remove those parts. If it's only negative material, WP:G10 already covers that. But A7 does not cover stuff that's just unsourced and neither it nor any other criterion should do so. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This already falls under existing criteria, namely A7 if the article is hopeless, G10 if it's negative in tone, and there are a few cases where G11 applies. WP:BLPPROD already handles the rest quite well and gives the creator a chance to look for references. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I fear you are right that these sort of incorrect deletions are becoming more common. But the answer is to trout the admin who deletes an article per A7 when it has a plausible assertion of significance or importance and should have gone to BLPprod, not to legitimise the mistake. ϢereSpielChequers 19:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am one of the people that will reverse the out of process A7s. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Since we're voting, oppose. We already have a process for dealing with unreferenced BLPs which is perfectly adequate. BLP PROD, while it probably does result in the deletion of articles on notable subjects, does at least allow interested parties some time to find sources for the article. This proposal also allows for the deletion of well-sourced articles if the deleting administrator doesn't feel they meet the notability guidelines. These decisions are always left to processes such as PROD or AFD, and for good reason since they are inherently subjective. Speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be objective in that people should be able to agree whether some article meets the criterion and uncontestable in that articles which meet them should always or almost always be deleted. It is perfectly possible (indeed quite frequent) for people to argue over whether the subject of an article meets the notability guidelines and as noted above some articles on highly encyclopedic subjects could be deleted under this criterion. The only case in which unsourced BLPs should be removed as quickly as possible is where the entire article is a BLP violation, but current rules already allow such things to be summarily deleted. If people are using A7 on such articles then that is a severe misuse of the deletion process and those deletions should be overturned. Hut 8.5 11:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose BLPPROD was an excellent solution and was developed by a huge community participation. It only still remains for the criteria of allowable links/refs to be decided - and that's another issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Adjusting F2 and F8 to NOT delete non-blank image description pages of images on Commons

I'm tired of having Admins delete my images that I have categorized on en.wiki. These categories are for wikiproject usage for further subdividing photos that are in a broader category on commons. In addition, the bot and users that copy images to commons have no accountability to correctly categorize an image. This combined with over-zealous ignorance when it comes to generous photographers and OTRS is the reason I have boycotted commons. I refuse to upload my images there, and have tagged every image I have on en wiki since then with KeepLocal.

However, I have no issue with somebody else copying the image and description to commons, and maintaining just the categorization on en.wiki. The remainder of the description page from commons will still show through when an image description page is tagged only with a category.

So, for these reasons, I would like F2 and F8 to be made more clearer:

F2. Corrupt or empty image.

Files that are corrupt, empty, or that contain superfluous and blatant non-metadata information.[7] This also includes blank image description pages for Commons images. Description pages tagged with {{Keep local}} should not be deleted.

And be sure to provide evidence and a good reason before a bunch of people pile of with "that's against the rules". As I stated, this doesn't disturb the Commons description from showing through. Categorization by wikiprojects on en wiki is far more appropriate than over categorization on Commons anyways. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion here that resulted in consensus that categorization should be done at Commons, not here, which is why F2 and F8 were changed to cover those pages in the first place. See also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#Description pages for Commons images - F2, unfortunately I couldn't find the discussion that prompted it. Regards SoWhy 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A discussion here or a centralized discussion? Wikiproject categorization is more appropriate here, and a blanket ban on any categorization of Commons images on en.wiki should have some pretty darn good reasons for prohibiting it, as it could be very useful. A discussion here wouldn't be appropriate for deciding the community consensus for implementing that ban. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Projects are allowed to operate on commons too. If the categories on commons are not good enough then change them on commons! Talk pages can still be used for projects to make a statement about images on en.wikipedia. In my opinion the option to add a category to a non existent page should not be given, it should take you straight to the commons to do it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Overly specific categories are deleted, just as they are here. A category to specifically lay out types of photos of roads in Ontario for the sole purpose of pulling them out quickly by the Ontario Roads wikiproject. In addition, there is a precedent that I've noticed from the discussions that I have found that "users should not be forced to use Commons if they do not wish to". I don't use commons, and I upload my photos here, as I said, with {{Keep local}} because I find the entire Commons operation to defy common sense and logic in most cases. If bots or editors cannot properly copy images over with all the categorization intact, then I should be able to add it here. Again, since it doesn't effect the description page from Commons showing through, I do not see how it has come to pass that we speedily delete these pages. If it is controversial, in any case, it should go to XfD. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a parameter to {{db-copyvio}}

Given the comments stated above in #Suggestion: inclusion of paragraphs of the importance of correct nomination, it has occurred to me that the vast majority of article submissions that meet the G12 speedy criterion also meet some other criteria as well, usually G11, A7, or both. I'm wondering if, instead of asking patrollers to use the {{db-multiple}} template in such situations, we shouldn't be incorporating the possibility of adding other criteria right into the {{db-copyvio}} template.

If so, I believe it should be done in a way that lists the article as a copyvio, yet the article creator would see more emphasis being put on the other criteria, given that to the vast majority of them it's the other criteria that are the bigger concern. Because if they see G12 being stated as the bigger concern they'll just file a request at WP:PERMISSION only to see their donated text being deleted as A7 or G11, or rewritten from scratch. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with using {{db-multiple}}? Regards SoWhy 16:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. However, given that if nominations were done correctly the {{db-multiple}} would be used about 10 times more often than {{db-copyvio}}, editing the latter to include additional criteria would simplify the nomination procedure, IMO. It would eliminate a parameter in the template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with the tools New Page Patrollers use and how. For example, while Twinkle allows {{db-multiple}} to be used, it's pretty complicated to do so, with multiple windows opening etc. And even if they can do so, they often won't because they don't consider those things that you mention in your post. As such, it's imho nonsense to modify {{db-g12}} in this way, since that won't make people start using those changed features and if you plan on educating them to do so, you can just as well educate them to use {{db-multiple}}, can't you? Regards SoWhy 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: I asked at WT:TW if Twinkle can be changed to make multi-tagging easier. Regards SoWhy 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of db-g8 redirects

The high use {{db-talk}} and a bunch of other db-g8 redirects such as {{db-redirnone}} have been deleted for reasons that are not clear to me. I have asked why this was done at the deleting administrator's talk page, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. They're all been restored.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hangons

White-T Death Squad, which I just deleted, was the first use of a hangon that I've seen since we implemented the new "Click here to contest" links; I had mistakenly thought that we'd deleted the hangon template. I understand the problems with the hangon system (e.g. people removing the CSD template) and the more intuitive nature of the new one, but I'd like to ask — would it work to code the CSD templates so that they automatically display the hangon when the talk page has been edited? For someone like me that's been an admin since well before the new system was implemented, it's easy to think "no hangon, so there's no dispute", and the "Note to administrators: this page has content on its talk page which should be checked prior to deletion." is significantly easier to miss than a hangon template is. Please note that I'm not trying to return to the old system; I'm simply interested in using the template automatically within the current system. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As a non-admin often reviewing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I often find pages marked for speedy deletion that have some content on the talk page. I usually consult these talk pages, but in about 30% of cases the only content I find is a Wikiproject banner. And in many more cases what I find is the tagger's detailled rationale for speedying, not the creator's rationale for keeping. Despite that, I think the new system works well, and the fact you had to wait for so long to find one misuse of the old template shows that we're on the right track.

Actually, ever since the new system was implemented, I've seen the hangon template more often on AfD candidates than on speedy candidates. Presumably, it was inserted by occasional editors who had an article speedied back when the old system was still in place. Give it time, and you'll see the hangon template less often.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the hangon template has been discussed at TfD with a decision to keep. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And is back at TfD. See the log for 15 October 2011. →Στc. 04:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanchard, I'm confused about your reasoning — how is what you said related to my idea to use the hangon template as an automatic reminder to the admin to check the talk page? Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't focusing on that part, actually. But now that you mention it, I don't think that's necessary, some text on the db- template changes color whenever there's something - anything - on the talk page. That serves the purpose you're talking about, IMO, but perhaps we should make it a bit more obvious, but not to the point of overwhelming the template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Having done a bunch of CSDs recently, I agree with Nyttend that I never even noticed the litle note about there being content on the talkpage. However, I make a point of always reading the talkpage if there is one, and I noticed in several cases the hangon argument was "please replace this text with why you think the article should be kept" (or whatever the actual text is that the template uses.)Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the "hangon" rationales are (in 90% of my experience) along the lines of "because he's an up-and-coming rapper who is going to make a big splash." With most articles getting tagged, there is very rarely anything that the creator could say that would prevent us from deleting it. Not to stir the pot, but I find that these "hangon" procedures are more like a simulation of bureaucratic responsiveness where there is none; "our decision has been made but if you want you can fill out this complaint form and put it in the locked box over there (which we automatically empty into the trash every Friday)." It's all mildly Kafkaesque, but I suppose it serves a purpose in 1% of cases. causa sui (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about other admins, but I've declined plenty of speedies because of an argument made by the creator on the talk page. Per Blanchardb, I'm not talking about overwhelming the template: when a message is on the talk page (e.g. this diff), the hangon is less than 1/3 the size of the deletion template. Colors often aren't helpful for many people, including me, and even if your eyes are fine in that way, at first glance a second template is more obvious than a different color and slightly different amount of relatively small text. Let's say that we implement my idea: how possibly will Wikipedia be made worse off by a more prominent reminder to admins to check the talk page? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I do a lot of page patrol and a lot of re-checking articles that have been CSD'd by patrollers. In several thousand patrolls and hundreds of deletions over the last few weeks I have not come across one single use of the Hang On template. Perthaps we should run some regex and compare: 1) the number of pages that have been tagged for CSD, 2) the number of CSD that have been contested 'Hang On' tags have been applied in the last six months, and 3) how many 'hang ons were successful at contesting the deletion. However, I believe this to be a superflous exercise - the big new button is really big enough. The result would most likely be erronious tagging by inexperienced patrollers and we're already working on a brand new NPP system to change all that. It's time for the hang on tpl to be deleted as deprecated and move on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of things.

• Accompanying db-meta's reworking, I created Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages which appears at CAT:CSD as "possibly contested" to replace the prior category that hangon placed: Contested candidates for speedy deletion (the reason its possibly contested is that the best we could do with the new system is recognize talk pages that have content, but there was no way to winnow out talk pages with other material, such as project tags). Keeping an eye on this category is one way to monitor contested pages.
• I had hoped that admins who do reviewing would quickly learn to recognize the stark difference between the CSD tag with the green notice that the article has talk page content and the red notice when there is no talk page. We could bump up the size or otherwise make it a bit more noticeable. The relevant place to do this is {{Hang on/notice3}}. I have just created {{Hang on/notice3 sandbox}} for testing a more prominent notice, if someone wants to take a stab.
• There was quite a bit of discussion of automatic placement of hangon. Technically, this presented quite a challenge; I was told by some of our best template coders that it was impossible. Then Fetchcomms started working up a way to do this, originating I think from a Wikinews template that does some magical placement of a template upon a button click, like what we would want. The code is at User:Fetchcomms/hangon.js but implementation stalled. I think it would be a great if we got this working—upon the button being clicked the hangon template magically appears above the CSD template. Losing hangon's functionality (as opposed to the bollixed system of getting new users to place it) was my one minor regret in the implementation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who is savvy enough to be an admin, should be able to see the green text before deleting. In any case, they should be doing more checks before deleting anything and not accepting the judgement of the tagger on face value. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. In fact, I think all admins should know to check the talk page without any prompting at all. However, I also see no harm in making the notice a little more prominent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm Just when I opened my big mouth... causa sui (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Does A7 apply to a tribe / family / surname ?

The criterion for A7 say "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions),[4] or web content ...". At the bottom of that paragraph, {{db-club}} is described as "for clubs, societies, groups, and organizations".

It's not clear to me what "group" is supposed to mean, and why it's in the second place but not the first. Is a family or tribe an "organisation" eligible for A7, or not? This has arisen around Al-Hussouna, a page whose newbie editor has now blanked it after it was nominated A7, un-speedied, prodded (see User talk:Hamidalhussona). 85.211.13.188 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

if it is a specific group of people, such as a particular family group consisting of a usually small finite number of named people, it falls under A7; if it is a continuously changing group, such as a tribe or a surname, or an extended family over time, it does not fall under A7. Or at least, such I think is the obvious intention. Anything potentially complicated or hard to define does not fall under speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Mostly because, as you say, it could get a bit vague and CSD is only for obvious cases. I don't think CSD was ever intended to apply to any ethnic subdivision, no matter how small, surnames would be a case-by-case situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Time limit?

Is there a limit to how long an article has been in existence as to when you can nominate it for a speedy deletion? For example, can only newly created articles be nominated, or can an article that fills one or more CSD, but is several years old, be nominated? – Richard BB 14:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Most speedies don't have a time factor, though one of the ones for redirects does say "recently created". Also I'd suggest that in some cases if an article has been around for years but you feel that A7 applies a prod is a more diplomatic way to go. Articles that have been around for several years and look like they merit speedy deletion are often recently vandalised, so checking the history is more important than usual. But it wouldn't surprise me if amongst our 3.7 million there are still a few hoaxes that would merit speedy deletion once they are discovered. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only hoaxes, also lots of copyright violations where the violating text has been around for years. Some G10 negative unsourced pages were around for years as well, bu with the BLP cleanup done these should be very rare now. Fram (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, remember that if an article has been around for a long time, it will most likely have been edited by a number of experienced editors who did not think it worthy of speedy deletion and thus it would be most likely controversial to delete it without discussion (unless the criterion allows the page to be deleted even if it is controversial, like G12). Regards SoWhy 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Righto, thanks very much for that info, guys. – Richard BB 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A public company listed on NASDAQ is speedily deleted from Wikipedia?

Are there any guidelines anywhere? I am surprised to see a publicly listed company Mellanox Technologies being speedily removed with no discussion whatsoever for: (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): ) Ottawahitech (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The process for situations such as this is as follows:

1. Leave a note on the deleting admin's talk page providing a policy and fact based explanation of why you believe the speedy was inappropriate and asking for the article to be restored.
2. If the deleting admin does not provide a satisfactory response or is unable to respond in a reasonable period of time (Remember, admins are people with lives outside of Wikipedia so it can take a day or two) then the next step is to contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Personally I consider a company being listed on a major stock exchange as de facto proof of the subject's significance. You should also be aware it is common practice for articles restored via deletion review to undergo procedural listings at WP:AFD. If this occurs you should be prepared to add a couple of third party sources to the article to clearly establish the subject's notability (A quick search engine test should provide you a couple of news stories. If a search engine fails to locate any suitable news stories for a currently active corporation then that should also tell you something important). --Allen3 ^talk 02:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• This article was not written by me, I was just a witness to its speedy deletion. What I did, which proved to be a waste of my time though, was to look for the term "Mellanox" on Wikipedia itself and found plenty (try a wiki search if you don't believe me). Ottawahitech (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CORP simply being listed does not make a company notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This article wasn't deleted for being non-notable, it was deleted under A7. A7 is a much lower bar to meet than notability. Personally I would consider a statement that a company is listed on a stock exchange as being an assertion of significance, especially as WP:CORP says that there is a "very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion". Hut 8.5 10:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hut 8.5 and it's sad to see that some admins still confuse A7 with notability. That said, I don't think DGG (talk · contribs) who deleted it thinks so, so I guess he just made a mistake, which anyone can make; admins are only human, too. Just leave him a message at his talk page and ask for the page to be restored since it didn't meet A7. As for notability, I think somewhere in the 2000+ GNews hits are probably many reliable sources to establish it. Regards SoWhy 11:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite strange that anyone would think that being publicly listed is an automatic indication of passing CSD A7. Anyone with a moderate amount of money can set up a business, and anyone who wants to get funding for their business can try to do so by floating it as a public company. It is no indication whatsoever of importance or significance. "It's a publicly listed company, so it must be important" is about equivalent for a business to "they've actually released a recording on a well known label, so they must be important" for a band. There a vast numbers of companies listed at NASDAQ, and only a small minority of them are particularly significant. I am aware that some Wikipedians have a different view, but another, more clear cut, point is that CSD A7 is for "An article about a ... or company ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". (My emphasis.) Even if one takes the (to me strange) view that being listed on a stock exchange automatically indicates importance or significance, the article has to mention the fact, otherwise it does not "indicate why its subject is important or significant". In this case the article did not do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with that notorious deletionist DGG. There are some shockingly obscure firms still technically listed on the NYSE and AMEX, much less NASDAQ; mere possession of a ticker symbol is neither assertion nor evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, even if the specific market is a "closed" system requiring specific requirements for entry - most of those can be met if you just throw money at it. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A7 has nothing to do with notability. Hut 8.5 22:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never considered NASDAQ as sufficient indication of importance. That's different than NYSE, which I think shows actual notability , and AMEX, which is enough to pass A7. I associate these with first, second, and lower rank sports teams. I would never say that an assertion that someone is on a local football club as passing A7. I may possibly be in error here about NASDAQ, and would be very willing to be convinced of it. ( However, certainly I am quite sure that merely being a public company is not enough to indicate any good faith encyclopedic significance or importance at all, and I think it would be extremely difficult to convince me or other Wikipedians otherwise--I don't want to say impossible, for even here I might be wrong, but I consider asserting a public company like asserting a self-published book.) I would not say A7 has nothing to do with notable -- anything which might reasonably indicate actual notability certainly passes A7. In the other direction, I will usually restore my organizational A7s for which a good faith case is made on request, though I usually warn the requestor: "Unless you have references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, there will really be no point in trying to get an article here, for it will surely be deleted. Better to wait until you do have such sources. " I'll of course let people to do whatever the rules permit, but if it is going to be a hopeless waste of effort, I certainly won't advise them to do it. (I have seen that about 3/4 of the time, my advice to this effect is followed).

Accordingly, I take Ottawahitech's comment as a request to undelete, and I therefore have restored the article; I'd of course rather have been asked on my talk p., but I do check here a few times a week. It had been tagged for G11, which I think was clearly wrong--it was entirely descriptive and factual, unlike earlier versions. Except for the possible BASDAQ listing, it certainly does not otherwise indicate importance, (and , tho it is not a speedy criterion but did affect be opinion a little, is the sort of infrastructure company which rightly or wrongly is very difficult to keep from deletion without strong evidence. I urge the concerned user to try to find it. I'm not immediately sending for AfD, but I'm sure somebody will if they are not added promptly.

And more generally, I need to say that the recent sharp increase in spam for both commercial and non-commerical organizations has made me a little readier to delete in this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have punted it straight to AFD. Yoenit (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

F5 and deletion of revisions of an image still in use in articles

Is F5 applicable as a reason for deleting revisions of an image? Especially where the revisions are derived from the original image(s)? I'm not a lawyer, and not making any kind of threat, but I was under the impression that GFDL/CC compliance required maintaining the history of not just the text of articles, but the images as well? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We only delete the history of non-free images and these are by definition not GFDL/CC-BY licensed. Yoenit (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If the image is in use anywhere, F5 wouldn't apply anyway. It's pretty clearly for unused non-free images only. Although i would add that creating a new image based directly off of content that is not free is probably a problem all its own. We shouldn't have derivative works like that at all, so whatever rationale was used, deleting them was probably the right move. Although I could be wrong, rules for non-free files are a bit murky in places. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD C1 removal by category creator

CSD C1 = Empty Category. Technically, speedy deletion templates may not be removed by the page creator, so my action here was a mistake. However, in the case of "empty category", the only rule should be: is the category actually empty or not, and not whether I created the cat or not. Can the rule (and then the bot application, which was correct) be changed to avoid this? Or is this such a rare occurrence that changing the rules for it isn't worth the effort? Fram (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the {{policy}} tag has the correct wording for this example: "This page documents [...] a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. [...]". Since it links to WP:COMMON, a common sense edit, like the removal of a tag from a page where it clearly doesn't apply, is not forbidden by the policy. For example, if someone slapped an A7 tag on a clearly notable person like Barack Obama and the person who created the page 9 years ago removed it, it would also violate the letter of the policy but noone would object. I don't think we need to change the wording though; cases where it's really crystal-clear that the tag is misapplied are rare and if we wrote "the page creator may only remove the tag if the tagging was clearly erroneous", people will probably remove them claiming "Of course the tagging was erroneous, my favorite person/band/webpage is clearly hyper-mega-super-important!". Regards SoWhy 09:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy. I've added a check to the bot so as it shouldn't replace C1s when the category is populated. This kind of thing isn't really anything new for the bot, since it already has a few other common sense checks. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Allright, that's good enough for me as well. Fram (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete of some templates redirected to user space

Here's a situation that occurred recently which I think might merit discussion (though the original problem has been resolved by a different route).

Criterion R2 covers "Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." I applied this to a page in template space that was a redirect to user space, but this request was denied on the grounds that template space isn't the main namespace. Fair enough, but my point was that if a main namespace page contains a reference to a template and this template is redirected to user space then this is functionally similar to a direct user space redirect and should therefore be covered as well.

There are many legitimate examples of pages in template space that are redirects to user space, but they are intended to be used in user space pages so no problem arises. It's only if the template is used (or intended to be used) in the main namespace that it should be a candidate for speedy deletion. Jontyla (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)