Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.90.216.96 (talk) at 06:16, 19 January 2013 (→‎G5: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contradictory information about hoaxes

The G3 criteria is called Pure vandalism, and blatant hoaxes. Yet in the Non-criteria section, #2 is: Hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny... etc. I understand what this means vis-a-vis the policy, and the subjective difference between a hoax as framed in a G3 and one that would require an AFD and consensus. However, for a user coming here looking for answers on why their article was deleted, or (more importantly) an editor reading up on the policy to help with NPP, this can be confusing. Wouldn't it be better to simply omit the "and blatant hoaxes" part from the G3 criteria? Perhaps replace it with "... and blatantly misleading information". Semantics perhaps, but clearer from a policy standpoint. Just a thought. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest revising the non-criteria section to state that a hoax that's blatantly obvious can be speedy deleted, but most hoaxes can't. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's the terminology that's the issue; the use of the word "hoax" is misleading because it's used in two subtly different contexts that are not immediately apparent to people who are not familiar with the policy. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, I have nominated several articles at AfD as hoaxes, and rarely do they last more then a day or two, let alone the typical week for discussion. As a practical matter, as long as the deleting admin properly identifies it as a hoax, and doesn't delete a false positive, the quicker hoaxes are deleted the better. Monty845 06:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the subject area well enough then a hoax can be as blatant as a Libyan Armoured division participating in D Day. But the world is a very strange place, and not only do we have to deal with truth being stranger than fiction, but we also have to remember that some apparent hoaxes will be coverage of fictional topics that merit an "in-universe" tag rather than a hoax tag. I don't remember anyone disputing any of my deletions of blatant hoaxes, but I did get a tag wrong when I thought something was a hoax when it merely required a little amendment to clarify that someone was the creator of a notable fiction. So in my view both hoax and db-hoax serve valid purposes, and if you are correct in thinking that something is probably a hoax then there will be someone else who looks at it and knows it to be a blatant hoax. But db-hoax should only be used when you positively know something to be a hoax. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a criteria just for transwikis?

I propose eliminating A5 (transwikied articles) and instead cover it in G6 (housekeeping). Any objections? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Technical deletions" can cover many vague things, and when we can be specific , we should be. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A5 is actually the least-used article speedy deletion criterion. It accounts for about one deletion every three days. I suspect that if it was proposed now it would be shunted under housekeeping. Hut 8.5 10:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Hut 8.5 for his intervention ☺☺☺. Compressing a lot of things into WP:CSD#G6 is one of the worst things which one can do with CSD (IMHO next after its abolishing). G6 must be reserved for cases where content issues are absolutely irrelevant, and it should be made in from its text. Otherwise, any sysop would be allowed to "apply" G6 to suppress whatever they want. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added transwikied articles to the list of housekeeping tasks would not give an administrator any such authority. Speedy delete taggers would still use {{db-transwiki}}, its text would simply be revised to say G6 instead of A5. As is the case now, admins would be expected to verify that is was actually transwikied before deleting. Finally with a transwiki, content is totally irrelevant, since content has simply been moved elsewhere. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it causing any problems, or consuming any resources, to keep this as a separate criterion? In what sense is it beneficial to keep the list of 'things that we can CSD' exactly the same, but to express it in fewer less-clear subdivisions? The purpose of this policy is to clarify and explain when speedy deletion might be appropriate, not to be as concise as humanly possible. Happy‑melon 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A7

I suggest adding Events to this criteria, in absence of a formal organization name non notable events should also fail under this criterion. An example is Sacramento Ball Drop easily non notable even by it's own admission (happened twice then discontinued) but some wikilawyering and it's declined creating a waste of time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Events and products, same problem. However, I believe A7 should be expanded to any situation where the article actually asserts the LACK of importance of its topic, no matter what category the topic falls into. (But G11 already applies to many such situations.) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait a few more days until this is at least a week old but if there is no further objections I think we can update the criteria.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, an organised event has to have an organisation there, and unless this has a totally different name, A7 could already possibly be interpreted to include them. I see no objection to adding 'organised event' to A7. A non-organised event is a different matter. Riots are events, but they don't usually have a known committee planning things on a regular basis, although they do have instigators. I feel there has to be at least an intent of repetition for an event to come under A7. Intentionally one off organised events aren't common and, with the exception of things like Woodstock, can be prodded. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a Woodstock event or riot (LA RIOTS example) definitely wouldn't qualify but when you have the Sacromento Ball Drop, an article that admits it was an event that happened twice then dc and no assertion of notability and declined because it wasn't a organization per se just seemed like a wikilawyer move because it wasn't specifically in the criteria. It just seemed to me that it would be hand in hand with organizations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing i.e. http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/73849, http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=51768 and likely others for those who search well, even if A7 would apply to events, I'd say this is a bad poster child to champion a change. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it to champion anything, I'm just using it as an example. That in my opinion would be considered routine coverage, at least that's how I would view it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage should probably disqualify anything for A7. Where A7-person does apply to Timmy who lives down the street who has funny hair, but doesn't apply to Joe Blow who is Mayor of Smalltown Uzbekistan (whi is probably non-notable and the article should probably be deleted per PROD or AfD), I could see a possible future A7 event be when the roof of my house collapsed, but not the Sacramento Ball Drop. I haven't seen evidence yet that there is a problem with events of that first category that would warrant and extension of A7 to events. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that you've got to realise that routine local news coverage does indeed cover many, many, non-notable events - in fact nearly all of them are. For example, if I look at my local news source today (the Yorkshire Evening Post), the top stories include an upgrade of local rail services, a car accident in Leeds and a minor assault in a nightclub. In fact, bar possibly one, I can't see a news story about anything notable at all. And that's in a newspaper which covers a population of 5 million people, not just one town. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has non-notability become a speedy deletion criterion? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't, but the point is that where something actually doesn't make a claim to notability importance, an obviously WP:ROUTINE source shouldn't be taken as negating that. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A7 is actually says lacks a significant claim of importance not notability and has said so for years.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant to say "claim to importance" there. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm reading A7 differently than you are. Could you give an example of an article that does make a claim of significance or importance in your view of things, but isn't notable? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen numerous articles that made claims like "the largest manufacturer of..." or "the foremost advocate of ...". Those are claims of importance, but not notability. Depending on whether the claim has any credibility, the article can pass A7 but fail to be notable. For me, at least, it would only take a manufacturer's website link or a brief PR blurb for me to decline an A7 on the basis that the article made a credible claim of importance.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

those are non A7 NN's in my book too. How do you view those Back Kite? Also, Kww, if the article had read "The Sacremento ball drop was a newyears celebration in Sacremento, which happened in 2008 and 2009, and was cancelled the subsequent year for security concerns, as the size of the crowd that was attracted was found to be too large to be effectively controled by security forces", would you qualify that for a possible future A7-events? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd A7 that. "Conventional security forces" could be two bouncers and a rent-a-cop, so it doesn't get into the range of being a credible claim of importance. I cancelled an event at my old bar because it attracted too large of a crowd with too little in their pockets, and that certainly didn't make it important.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, while I strongly disagree this should be A7'ed - To me it is a large difference between a bar cancelling an event because it draws too large a crowd that spends to little, and a city cancelling an event because it draws a crowd that is so large it poses a security risk - it's probably best I acknowledge I'm a minority here, and drop the stick. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a consensus of adding events to A7? I would prefer an admin make this call since I have a dog in this "fight" and am definitely not neutral. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added organized events to the A7 criteria as there has not been any objections since my last posting. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the people who maintain Twinkle, the speedy deletion templates, and any other CSD tools so they can be updated to reflect the new criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated {{db-a7}} and {{db-notability-notice}} to reflect these changes, and suggest that a specific {{db-event}} template is also created. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 472 request to delete a document.

British Rail Class 472 request to delete a document.

Train is not actually planning to introduce.

Searching but can not on other sites.

Request to be removed is false information.

(* Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_472 *)

Speedy deletion is not the right venue for such a request: this doesn't fall under obvious hoaxes (criterion G3). WP:AFD explains the proper procedure, or, if you feel the deletion will be uncontroversial, you might want to go with the simpler procedure at WP:PROD.
For my part, since I don't have time to research this matter tonight, I won't initiate an AfD procedure without someone seconding the motion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a Proposed Deletion tag, and as I can find no independent reference to this Class 472, I don't doubt that it will disappear once the seven days are over. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's a hoax, as this would be almost certainly noticed by the media and online world. There's no mention of the proposal on the Internet, aside from Wikipedia ... but there's no need to hurry, as Peridon says. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slight revision to G4 and G6

Criteria G4 is "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". G6 includes {{db-xfd}}, which is "a consensus to delete this page has been reached at a deletion discussion, but it has not yet been deleted". In my view, this distinction is pointless, so I suggest revising G4 to state "A page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" - whether it's a re-creation or not is irrelevant. This wouldn't change which pages are deleted at all, but would simplify both G4 and G6. Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A CSD point cannot include a template, it includes reasons. If the text of G6 recommends {{db-xfd}}, then somebody made a mistake. Why not to fix it by removing both {{db-xfd}} from G6 and mentioning of CSD from the template? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a problem in search of a solution. Both have clear, distinct purposes, and I see no reason to lump them together. You use {{db-xfd}} if the closing admin just forgot to delete the page. {{db-g4}} is much more associated with long-term abuse and the like. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The G6 for an undeleted but should have been page is not nearly the same as G4. G6 is for tidying up a mistake. G4 needs checks to see if the page IS the same (and by the third repeat someone is likely to get blocked or SPIed depending on circumstances), and if not what it is. This is something only an admin can do properly. An article with the same title as a deleted one may be about a totally different subject, or it may be the same subject but with changes that render it a valid article (or even a different title for the same subject - good memory on the part of the tagger comes in here). What does need doing is to emphasise that G4 is ONLY for XfD deleted things. Prod and CSD do not come under G4, but occasionally things deleted those ways get tagged G4. Not often, IMO, but does happen. Otherwise, I feel G4 and G6 should stay as they are. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add a clarification, a G6 for XfD deletion omission requires an admin to look at the deletion history and the XfD result. It's a fact check. G4 requires a fact check (was it deleted?) and an evaluation (and sometimes enquiries about why it has been tagged when the tagger hasn't put on the talk page that the title has changed...). Peridon (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "G6 for XfD deletion omission" at all. Do not be confused by the occasion that somebody, being lazy to think about the problem properly, injected a link to WP:CSD#G6 into the {{db-xfd}} template. It is a "retarded deletion" (not a speedy deletion), it never was an accepted part of G6, and should not pose any of CSD in the deletion summary. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really having difficulty understanding your issue. An AFD closes as delete, but the closing admin forgets to actually hit the delete button for one of the candidates. This happens during bulk AFDs pretty regularly. Another editor comes across the should-have-been-deleted file later, and marks it with CSD-G6. What's the issue?—Kww(talk) 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two "problems":
  1. The wording equivalent to {{db-xfd}} never was an accepted part of G6;
  2. G6, to remain an intuitively clear condition, should cover namely technical issues, and should not become a sump for ever increasing number of miscellaneous cases.
Did the sysop "forget to actually hit the delete button" or no, but the deletion was (or will be) based on a discussion, anyway. Although {{db-xfd}} may place the page into category: Candidates for speedy deletion, it only for the ease of processing. The reason for the process is not covered by WP:CSD, hence its mention should be dropped from the template and, reciprocally, {{db-xfd}} should be expunged from CSD G6’s list of templates as irrelevant. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's for technical and housekeeping. Deleting after an xfd delete is a clear example of housekeeping. But it could also be argued as G4, "article with a consensus to delete" or similar wording. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If an XFD discussion has been closed with a delete result but the admin neglected to delete one or more pages included in the discussion it obviously is housekeeping, as already covered by the "obvious errors" clause of the existing language. Arguing over semantics is not going to change that and I have to wonder why anyone would be so worked up about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the G6 use is no different to any other deletion classed as housekeeping. In my (OK, not all that long) experience, the case doesn't arise often as the closing admins normally go straight to the article and deal with it. The direct reason for the tag is the omission, a housekeeping tidy up equivalent to deleting a dead redirect. Peridon (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the admin closing a deletion discussion as "delete" then fails to actually perform the deletion, they should be informed. If they then fail to act, another admin may perform the deletion.
To my mind, deletion by an admin who is not the closer of the discussion does not warrant selection of any WP:CSD reason - instead, use the same deletion reason that would have been used if the deletion had been carried out normally, perhaps with a few extra words for clarity: a summary such as per decision at [[WP:Articles for deletion/insert name here]] should be sufficient. G6 therefore does not encompass an admin failing to carry out the full XFD process. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For an admin, no. But if a non-admin discovers the page was never deleted, they need a speedy delete rationale to suggest. So, the editor nominates for speedy delete G6 (or G4 if you go with my idea), but when the admin closes, she doesn't need to mention the speedy delete. But just because it's not in the edit summary doesn't mean it's not a speedy delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may call it "speedy", "retarded", or something else. Both G4 (deletion of a recreated page which makes a separate log record) and G6 (a technical deletion) have nothing to do with the particular situation. Propose a new "Ω1" criterion if, for some reason, you insist that this situation has to be described in WP:CSD. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the editor does not "need" a specific CSD acronym to point to in order for the deletion to be processed. This is simple cleanup work, not a monolithic bureaucracy. Stop thinking about the process and think about the desired solution: that everyone can get on with editing articles, including mucking out those that should be deleted, with the minimum of fuss and effort. Happy‑melon 10:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a clear case where an admin would jhave closed a discussion as delete, but couldn't for technical issues - a template which is being used, a category which needs to be split manually, etc. Sometimes, non-admins are capable of doing the necessary cleanup needed before the deletion; we need some reasonable way for them to alert the admins that the deletion can take place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I've declined G4s for various reasons, including that half the new article related to television roles that were subsequent to the previous AFD. I see G6 as something very different especially if the AFD was not closed by an admin, or the admin chose to delete some of the articles mentioned in the AFDd but not to delete others. IMHO there is no benefit in merging them. ϢereSpielChequers 12:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G6 corrupted by users Ego White Tray, Kww, and Incnis Mrsi

Kindly either change the section header, Incnis, or start a new thread with a civil title. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If I mistake, then point me please to a discussion which attached something like "pages that were voted to be deleted in a deletion discussion but not actually deleted" to CSD G6. Alternatively, show me that such text was once present in G6 for a prolonged interval of time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced my handle with yours in the section edit. Don't put my handle in section headings. Especially don't do it when you are so obviously grasping. My edit fixed grammar. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Db-xfd}} has been uncontroversially in use for six years. This is clearly a G6 situation. I remember it as being explicitly called out in G6 in the past. It's certainly not some kind of nefarious recent invention.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object that the reason given in {{db-xfd}} is a valid one. I do not agree with people which try to pose it as a "speedy deletion". If there was a deletion discussion for the page, then a sysop has to cite the discussion, not to select something from CSD's menu. The latter is obviously detrimental to the accountability. Incnis Mrsi (talk)
I think the wording could have been better, but the intended meaning clearly meet the heading of technical or uncontroversial deletions. KTC (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expanding A-criteria to include fitting WP:AFC-submissions and others

Currently, the A-criteria only apply to pages in the article namespace. Yet, there are a number of WP:AFC-submissions for example that would fit those articles but are in the WT-namespace instead (because IPs can't create articles). I propose that we amend the policy to allow admins to delete pages under A[X]-criteria as well if the page would be deletable as such in the article-namespace (of course this only applies to pages that are clearly meant to be articles) This would of course exclude A1 and A3 because during AFC editors and submitters can amend proposed articles but A7, A9 and A10 would be useable to remove the high school classmates / -bands / -homepages etc. from AFC. Since such pages would already be deletable in the correct namespace, the change would only expand this to articles in the wrong namespace; otherwise, one would have to move them to article namespace, then delete them there. I propose a wording like this:

Criteria in this category also apply to articles that are in the wrong namespace; this does not cover pages that are not meant to be articles or not meant to be in the article namespace.

Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I hadn't seen that. While AFC is a prime example where this proposal could be applied, I merely thought of it as an example. That said, this is the place to discuss changing CSD, not WT:AFC, so thoughts? =) Regards SoWhy 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Its totally reasonable that a user space draft of an article may not meet Criteria A7 for instance. An A1 deletion would be pointless, as if the subject is unclear, whats the harm in leaving it. A10 would destroy the ability to use userspace to draft a revised or split version of an existing article. There may be some A criteria it would make sense for, but by and large I don't think it would be a good idea. As for AFC, I haven't followed the discussion there to know what the current feeling with regard to speedy deletion of AfC submissions is. As I understood it, the original goal of AfC was to avoid the biteyness of deletion whenever possible. If the consensus amongst amongst those at AfC is that they want to change it so that A criteria do apply, I would have no object, but I think its a question those involved in AfC need to answer first, and then bring the change here for broader approval. (Note: articles moved to AfC space from userspace by bots/reviewers would be problematic.) Monty845 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal explicitly excludes pages not meant for the main namespace, such as userspace drafts. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baffled If we want to start speedy deleting AFC submissions, then what is the point of AFC in the first place? We might as well dump those submissions into mainspace directly and let NPP handle it. Yoenit (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CSD A criteria appliying to WP:AFC pages when they reach 6 months with an edit. CSD A criteria are pretty tight, and 6 months is a pretty long time for something at that level. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original proposal, for the same reasons as Monty and Yoenit. However, SmokeyJoe's alternative could be workable. In fact, a specific deletion criterion for abandoned AFCs generally might be a good idea, quite outside of the A space (I guess it would have to be an extension of G6, which is already used for that purpose to some extent). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts AfC has to be subject to CSD for attack, blatant hoax or vandalism, and copyvio. Those are not permitted anywhere. There has to be some way of getting rid of abandoned submissions that don't fit the speedy criteria. They can't be userfied if created by an IP, and if an account holder isn't making any signs of editing there is little point in userfying them. They can't stay in AfC indefinitely. I feel three months without being touched is equivalent to a page blanking in announcing a wish to have no more to do with it. Possibly even one month would suffice. There could even be an addition to the PROD types for this instead of a speedy, and whichever is adopted, the author should be notified that leaving the thing untouched equals bye-bye. At present, abandoned AfC pages can be taken to MfD, which is a drag. Whatever the time limit set on the abandoned article, if the author does reappear later it can always be restored if thought worth the effort. Peridon (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfC submissions are fair game for the G criteria, most obviously G3 (drivel), G11 (spam) and G12 (copyvios) - I've used all three tags successfully on them in the past. I do like the idea of abandoned AfC submissions expiring after three months - I suspect there are plenty of pages that have been declined a few times, at which point the creator has given up and walked away from it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the necessity of the deletion of old abandoned AfC's. If we would do that we should set a very generous period in case the creator wants to come back in a few months to give it another stab. If such a thing would be in order, there should IMO be a few conditions, from the top of my head unconditional restoration on request, notification of the creator of deletion and how to request undeletion. I think the overhead alone to make such a decission (it would IMO need an RFC for starters) would outweigh the benefit (which is, what, exactly?) of deletion, not even talking about the overhead in case articles do have to be restored. In case we get a notification from ops with a request to delete some cruft to make space, I agree this is a candidate right behind deleting old deleted revisions from the database, but I don't forsee that event happening. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of deletion is the removal of material considered unsuitable. and I can't see an 'overhead' in restoration. It only involves a couple of clicks (and the correct title, for preference...). As to the material, if people find out that they can get their outfit onto Wikipedia through an AfC page without it being deletable, we are quite likely to see a great increase in AfCs for corner florists, groups working on their first song, software companies with one open source based program (in development), and all the other wannabe at the top of Google without notability brigade. If not deleted, there would have to be blanking (as with the current AfC deletables prior to the axe falling) to cancel this out. I work with a lot of spam, and the would-be advertisers are desperate to get their SEO fix. I can't see why stuff that fails A7 (for instance) should be left up just because it's an AfC failure. If they're not working on things in a month, we're unlikely to see them again (could be having a good holiday...). If nothing happens in two or three months, they've given it up for 99.95% certain. Exceptions can easily be restored if there is new evidence of notability to hand. As with current CSD deletions, deletion is not permanent if things change. Peridon (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the technical clicks that bother me in the process, but more the having a newish editor find the process. We already have so much process in place that a new editor couldn't possibly expected to know all of it. In the end, it's just WP:CREEPy. The Wikipedia Talk namespace these articles are in isn't indexed, so no google advantage: there is no SEO fix whatsoever, and backlinks are already no-follow. I don't think there would be much interest in the non-notable organisation world for a wikipedia draft that isn't googlable, with a large banner on top indicating that the submission has been declined. I personally see no problem whatsoever in holding on to content of material that is unsuitable. Obviously, this exludes spam, attack pages and copyvios, but those are dealed with in G criteria which apply equally well to AfC's. I'm absolutely happy to keep everything around just for those 0.05% of 'return customers'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no harm in keeping AfC submissions that were declined on A7/A9 grounds. Not only do their title contain a prefix that is so unwieldy that no one would type it in its entirety just to look at a friend's page, but they also have a prominently displayed tag explaining why Wikipedia has rejected the submission. As for G10 and G11, since they're Gxx criteria, they already apply. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I would support a G13 criterion that would take care of six-month-old declined AfC submissions that haven't been resubmitted. The criterion would also apply to redirects left behind by accepted AfC submissions that have been moved to mainspace. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFC is already in many respects a harsher environment for article creators than mainspace, and I don't see the point in making it harsher. I would however support merging AFC back into mainspace, that way such articles would be more likely to attract collaborative editors and if they do get deleted the deleted edits are easy to find. Now that we've set unpatrolled articles to NoIndex I see no reason to maintain AFC as a separate area. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, AFC is done in WT space because anon-editors have the ability to create talk pages, but not non-talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support So, I am on the fence about this. I have reviewed thousands of submissions, and I have seen stellar and utter crap submissions. I do not support deleting old submissions, as you never know if an editor is going to come along and fix up another's work a year later. There is no harm in having these submissions here, and they provide a good history of what has been done here. I do support changing the criteria so that it will include submissions that are utter crap, yet the user thinks they are notable. I generally aim to do this if the article has been declined three times via the same reason, and nothing substantial has been improved or changed. Oftentimes, the users will start fishing the process to see if someone else will take pity on their submission and accept, but oftentimes, it is the same user who has to review it, and it becomes burdensome. Overall, I do think we should be able to include AFC submissions in the criteria, but I do not agree with all of the above supporters. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it likely that old and abandoned (>6mo no edits) stuff that would fail the A criteria is worth fixing up? I think that it would better to start again. If the author is interested in keeping the for record, they should userfy it. Quite possibly, if the A-failing material were removed, it could improve old AfC material as a resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A CSD#A failing abandoned draft, yes, would fail WP:STALEDRAFT. STALEDRAFTs can be blanked, but I imagine that it would be very rare for someone to want to keep such a thing. Why doesn't WP:STALEDRAFT apply equally to AfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the deletion provision in that guideline is aimed at fake articles that are kept there to have a 'pretend article'. Reading that guideline, a move to WP:ABANDON (that I didn't know off before now) seems like the most reasonable target. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As there are suggestions that authors might come back after a year, or someone else might pick up a discarded attempt and get it to fly, I'm wondering anyone has ever come across any examples of this. To my mind, very few are going to decide to go through the dusty stacks of abandoned material to find the base for the article of their dreams (or the base of even a marginal stub). We don't leave unfinished stuff lying around in main article space waiting for the editor who faithfully promised (when it was CSD tagged) that they would expand it in a couple of days (and prove that the 13 year old kid really was the CEO of a billion dollar business and engaged to Emma Watson...). We don't even keep things that have a ring of truth but no whiff of significance or notability. Even user space gets trawled at intervals for 'fake articles', discarded drafts by authors who edited for a week and then sank without trace, and other such. Why should AfC be different? Junk is junk. The stuff we're talking about is stuff that probably wouldn't make the grade even with expert content creators weighing in, let alone waiting a year for an SPA or IP to reappear and produce a GA out of the sow's ear they left behind. It's like keeping a large warehouse full of typewriter parts, because some day someone who still uses one is going to need a new letter E. Assume good faith, yes. Also assume that if they ain't come back in three months, they've found something else to do that's more fun (or been jailed...). Peridon (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference with the warehouse analogy is that we can't actually run out of AfC space. Once ops indicate we need to recycle space by deleting articles I'm all for this, but since article deletion doesn't free up any space, why should we go through the trouble of throwing the parts out? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using the A criteria in general because articles at AfC are supposed to be there to be worked on. If they do not indicate importance, and they are rejected as they usually are for the reason that it needs better sources to show notability , which is what the closest prebuilt reason says, what is ideally supposed to happen is that they get added, and it does happen a good deal of the time. If we remove them before theycan be worked on, the process is meaningless.
but a way of removing articles after they both fall under an A* criterion and have sat there a year would I think be desirable--the likelihood of the user coming back would be small, and there almost never would be much material there to be used. The more important question is whether they should be deleted as FAKEARTICLE at MfD if they do not come under any speedy criterion, but are nonetheless hopeless. Again, I'd suggest a year. Cleaning up is not a matter of space on the server; it gives an amateurish feel unless the junk gets taken out eventually.
But what I think we really need is for the entire AfC process to be done over from scratch, and done properly. It gives so little specific help to the new users that it will continue to cause us problems. It's time someone else who could do the necessary programming were to boldly take over. (If I were able, I would have tried already) DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G8 vs. redirected material

Legobot task 20 is cleaning up (tagging G8) redirects without valid targets. (see discussion here). I think this creates a licensing problem in the case of merged content, in that if the destination article is ever deleted, all the source articles (since G8'ed by the bot and deleted by admins) will not be re-created, and thus attribution and licensing is broken. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Do we really want G8 to apply to merged material whose target is gone? Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA: WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 20. I think you mean, "if the destination article is ever undeleted". Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. If it's deleted, all the redirects from merged articles are deleted G8, and then it becomes undeleted, that would trigger the situation I'm concerned about. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the issue that it's deleting content if the redirect has a history, but if the material from x was merged to y, and then y was deleted, the material in x is now no longer used, and there's no licensing problem if it's deleted. If x was merged to y which was then merged to z, it's the deletion of y that causes the licensing problem, not the deletion of x. In a situation like that, the correct result is for the history of x to be retained, but the redirect to be repointed to z. If you wanted to propose that Legobot not delete redirects with history, but simply put them into a maintenance category, I could see the logic in that. Most redirects with history will still wind up being deleted.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't see a problem with attribution if the target of the redirect is where the content was merged to. If the target of the merge have been deleted, then the content have been deleted, and we don't need the attribution any longer. A problem could arise if the content was merged from A to B and then to C, while the A redirect to B and B gets deleted. However, an admin is already suppose to "check for possible targets before deleting". If an admin doesn't do that, then the problem is with the deleting admin, and not this criterion. KTC (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article that prompted this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons, which legitimately deleted List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. However, as one can see by going to that now-redlink, "what links here" is pretty extensive, but doesn't include EMS-05 Agg, which actually had content, which was redirected to MSM-04 Acguy before eventually being redirected into List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. Now, Legobot DOES keep User:Legobot/Broken_Redirects, but anyone undeleting an article wouldn't necessarily know that content in the deleted-and-then-restored article might have come from such a place... would they? Note that I'm not arguing that any of the deletions were improper, or for the restoration of any of the content now, just that if we were going to restore any of List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons (like if someone improved it), we would not have an easy way to put back the original articles reflecting the authorship and contribution of text and the attribution chain. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer would be for the bot to keep records that we can refer to when undeleting. I'm coming more and more to the belief that undeleting is a quagmire when it comes to licensing, and our happy-go-lucky attitude at WP:REFUND needs to come to an end.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So... for each redirect tagged G8 by Legobot, it should record both the redirect tagged, and the destination at the time it was tagged... and then we should add notes to the undeletion process, something to the effect that if there is any indication that content had previously been merged into an undeleted article, to check the Legobot log? It seems a bit of a kludge, but I'm not thinking up a better one. Of course, it does also suggest that articles to which other have been redirected (lists, for the most part) should themselves be redirected--like the list of weapons could have been redirected to Mobile Suit Gundam--rather than deleted, even if nothing is going to be directly kept in the target article, to make untangling such messes that much easier. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is supposed to be handled by {{Copied}}s or a {{Copied multi}} on the undeleted article's talk page. A WP:Copying within Wikipedia-compliant edit summary is the fallback. If the source cannot be deduced from distinctive text, identifying it becomes very difficult. Page histories hidden under redirects, re-targeted redirects, and deleted pages do not appear in Special:Search. Re-targeted redirects and deleted pages also do not appear in Special:WhatLinksHere to hint that their history should be examined. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So long as the merge-target is deleted there's no licensing on our part to worry about. Should the page be undeleted, the undeleting admin should be checking both in the article history and on the freshly-undeleted talk page to determine if there are other pages that need undeleting for attribution purposes. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note: if the source cannot be determined, the merged article is already non-compliant prior to any (un)deletions. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Copied}} also prevents accidental deletions when content has been copied to somewhere other than the redirect target. Consider MS-09 Dom, which was merged to the list as the result of WP:Articles for deletion/MS-09 Dom (November 2009). The content is also relevant to its ace pilots, the Black Tri-Stars (itself redirected to List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters#Black Tri-Stars in November 2009). If text were copied there, the {{Copied}}s on Talk:MS-09 Dom and Talk:Black Tri-Stars should warn against deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what we need is a bot which reviews all G* deletions, checks if they were redirects (through an admin account, obviously); if it is, then it lists them in some tracking page with the target. Should the target ever exist, and the redirect not, it should mleave a note in an aggreed-on place (WP:AN maybe?) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked for Legobot to perform this task, I created {{db-redirnonebot}} instead of using an existing template with situations like this in mind. Because it warns the admin to check for possible redirect targets before deleting, an admin who follows its instructions will notice that a redirect previously went somewhere else and will change the target there if he think it appropriate. I don't see why something other than deletion would happen if they were human-tagged, and either way, improper non-restoration is an error on the part of a non-restoring admin. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive logging seems excessive if these undeletions are rare. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F4 misuse?

I've seen several files nominated as "F4 unknown source",

  1. but the source is indicated directly in the images, since the image contains a banner with a source id (collection id #, and collection name). These seem innappropriately listed as "sourceless files" to me.
  2. several images with sources indicated but which don't use one of the file templates also seem to be placed for F4 deletion. Especially older files that predate the templates. This seems a lack of due diligence in using the F4 criterion.

-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note on the F4 description telling admins to check before deleting. Hopefully this will help. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G7 - Question

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 3#.EN an editor is trying a novel approach to do an end around to delete a redirect. He took a redirect that is up at WP:RFD and created an unsourced stub. Then put it up for WP:G7 as the only significant contributor. I have declined this as he is not the only significant contributor, the original creator of the redirect is also a significant contributor. Also the request is not in good faith, he has stated as much in that his only motivation for creating the article was to send it to CSD as a G7. He has also stated that he sees many redirects that he can do the same thing and get them deleted G7. My question is this a valid use of G7? GB fan 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you describe the situation, it is clearly not an apporiate use of G7. You should advise him to cut it out before someone less forgiving then yourself notices and drags him to AN/I where I would anticipate such behavior would result in a block. Monty845 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would just sternly warn them, as bringing something like this to AN/I is likely to get the admin slapped in the face, since it is a rather small issue to bring up on that page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can (and should) bring a concerning incident to WP:ANI, not just admins; and this kind of behavior is, in my experience, right on par with some of the things that are brought to that particular forum on a regular basis. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I think warning the editor, and then simply blocking the editor if they (or anyone else) ever do it again is more efficient than going to ANI. Gaming the system is clearly WP:DE and should not be tolerated; besides, any XfD process generally takes precedence over a speedy process. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As above, note that if there's monkey business afoot, you can decline any speedy request, even if it meets a criterion. If it's requested in bad faith, don't do it. (That said, don't deny legit G10 or G12, like, ever). WilyD 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pile on to make it really clear, this is blatant gaming the system conduct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G7, in such a situation, simply means revert to the redirect. Which can be performed by a non-admin. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article. I refute that it was in bad faith, I had genuine good faith that it would be deleted because that is what the rules say. As GB says, it is a "novel approach" (and I took that as a compliment): i.e. I saw a gap in the rules. I hope that it is clear from my history that I am a good faith editor, but obviously if there isa gap someone less faithful than I will slip through it: which is why I said "I can see a lot of other articles going that way...". As Alan Herbert has it, well one of his fictional judges, in Uncommon law, "The quickest way to end a stupid law is not to ignore it but to enforce it"-- so it was very much brought in the nature of a test case, in good faith. And I think I made that quite clear.
Not sure if I should copy the above onto the RfD because GB has cross referred it over to here already (thank you). Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder about gaming, but the point at WP:GAME is the words good faith and bad faith. The opening sentence says "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith (my emphasis). So it comes down, really, to whether other editors think I was doing it in bad faith. All I can do is assure you that I brought it in good faith, exactly so it would be discussed. What Gaming is really about, is the contentious edits you get on political or geographical arguments etc where you get edit wars of whether it is Poszony or Bratislava or Pressburg. To my mind at least, deliberately to show up a loophole (as I see it and am happy to have it said that it is not) in good faith, is not gaming the system. But I'm aware I have wasted other good faith editors' time, and for that I sincerely apologise. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A7s and reliable sources

Can I ask a question for the floor? If an article's subject has a brief mention in reliable sources, but the coverage is restricted to one or two sentences, can it still be CSDed per WP:CSD#A7, or should it go for a full AfD or prod? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if it's routine coverage or a one or two liner saying it's an expert or top of the line. I'd prefer to see those go to AFD personally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's any possibility that it might demonstrate notability then it needs to go through PROD or AfD, but if it really is an obvious trivial mention then I think it can be deleted per A7. Hut 8.5 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think A7s are for rather clearcut cases; if there is even a hint of a reliable source, it should go through AfD; but I'd decide that on a case by case basis. Do you have a particular article/case in mind? Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This version of JetNEXUS Solutions is a CSD I contested, that in my view had one reliable source. It's now at AfD. Tap for Tap is another one that was a submission at WP:AfC that was just good enough, but which I think another editor might have seen WP:VSCA and tagged it as {{db-corp}}. For an article I decided not to create, The Beatles vs. the Third Reich is sourced all over the place, but most of it's unreliable. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first JetNEXUS source is just a press release, which doesn't really count to notability. I think you'd be sensible to decline A7 on the basis of the second source alone anyhow. One good source is enough to reasonably imagine others may exist, necessitating a discussion. In particular, there's nothing wrong with declining speedies for articles that are subsequently deleted at AfD; indeed, this should happen often. The point of A7 isn't to guess whether an article meets WP:N or not, but to see whether it gives any indication it might. One decent source is typically not enough for WP:N, but it's enough to indicate it might meet WP:N. WilyD 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if an article has an even remotely valid source, regardless of the amount of information there, it is automatically disqualified for an A7. It's essentially the equivalent of a basic assertion of importance. I've come across new articles in NPP that have references, but they're either invalid or complete nonsense - in that case I tend to treat them as a G3 instead, since going to the trouble of providing bogus references is enough to qualify as a hoax, and it actually makes it easier since any claims of importance are outweighed by the attempt to mislead. Though admittedly those tend to be edge cases and it's always ultimately up to the reviewing sysop to agree or disagree. Still, if the CSD is declined, an article like that wouldn't last long at AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, a brief mention like "In 2012, BloggsCo were bought by Slippery Hamsters Ltd, who discontinued all products but the Model XD-C909, which they rebranded as the 'B-Hive 21'." is an indication of nothing but existence. Existence does not equal significance. I look for a paragraph ABOUT the subject at minimum, and not a press release or profile that's obviously supplied by the subject. One good one can stave off CSD, but but if the first three or four (I go to five) pages of Ghits (adjusted search to remove the inconveniently named rapper and MMA fighter or whatever else is getting in the way) only produces Facebook, Twitter, AboutUs, and so on, there's not much likelihood of anything better - and a PR campaign is to be suspected. Really, our standards for inclusion aren't all that high. Any that get better references later can come back. A CSD deletion isn't an eternal ban. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't go by any rules: three or four words can be as good as a paragraph if they indicate some plausible importance. I agree the sentence you quoted does not show any indication of importance for either Bloggs or Hamsters, except that if some news source reported it, it might indicate that one or another of the firms was notable enough to be worth reporting. I consider our standards for notability of companies quite high, and I think there's a large space there between the possibility of some plausible significance & notability. But since I think both Peridon and I try to use some degree of common sense, it's likely that both of us would make the same calls 90% of the time at least, and that's as good consistence as can be expected. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 exists to allow admins to deal with really blatant cases where the subject of the article has literally no valid claims of importance at all: "Jim Jones is a high school english teacher. He's the best teacher at Anytown High" and things like that. Where the article makes claims which would require investigation to determine their validity, or which require someone to make a judgement on the reliability or depth of coverage of sources, the meaningfulness of claims (such as awards won, etc.), or anything like that, the article is ineligible for A7 deletion, and the article should be PRODed or sent to AFD. Speedy deletion should be speedy enough to require essentially no work to figure out. As just one example, if an article says that such-and-such a band won such-and-such an award, or had singles which charted on such-and-such a chart, or contains references to reviews by putative "music critics", we shouldn't delete the article under A7, as those claims need to be vetted and researched; AFD is where that happens. The simplest way to put this is that A7 speedy deletions are not supposed to be used to evaluate notability claims. They're only used in cases where absolutely no such claim at all is made by the text of the article. --Jayron32 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Jayron32. A7 is for cases where there's no credible assertion at all that indicates the article could be appropriate. ("John Doe is a student at Somewhereville Middle School and is a really cool guy," "Jane Doe is the coolest girl in the world!!!") If the article text indicates significance, or some decent sources are cited (but not enough to sustain the article), best to get more eyes on it. These aren't attack pages or copyvios, they won't hurt us by hanging around for a week if there's a reasonable question as to whether they should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clarification needed on musical recording criteria

Since when do you need to make a talk page section for a simple clarification needed tag? Anyway, this is regarding this sentence:

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true).

First problem - conditions cannot be "true". They can be "met" or "satisfied" or "not met" or "not satisfied", but "true" and "false" simply do not apply.

I should probably have just fixed that ^ and then added the tag for this problem (below), but whatever.

Second problem - what is "does not indicate...where the artist's article does not exist" supposed to mean? If it doesn't exist, then obviously you can't indicate where it is. Think about it - that sentence is basically saying "indicate where this article isn't". What???????? My best guess is that it should say "does not indicate...where the artist's article [does] exists". But since I don't know, I tagged it. So what's the deal here? Charles35 (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a problem with your parsing--you're not a computer programmer, are you? First, yes, logically, conditions are either true or not true. "met" is another way of saying true, and probably more in line with common English usage, but there's nothing unambiguous about conditions being true or not true. Second, you're splitting up the two clauses badly: "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is the first, and "where the artist's article does not exist" is the second. Trying to distribute the "does not indicate" amongst both clauses rather than applying it to the first clause only is what led you astray there. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never experienced a problem with the wording of this, but possibly the insertion of a comma after 'significant' would prevent the misreading that "does not indicate" applies to both clauses. Peridon (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the clauses: okay, well in that case, some clarification is probably needed because it's totally confusing. I didn't say it doesn't make technical sense, I just said that it should be made clearer.
Regarding "true": maybe in the technical jargon of computer programming this makes sense, but in plain old English, it doesn't. Since this article is not in any way shape or form about computer programming, we should probably not use technical jargon (we shouldn't use technical jargon anyway as it is discouraged by WP:TONE. I understand that you dispute that it is invalid in plain English, but I disagree with you. Either way, it sounds a lot more normal to say satisfied or met to your average person, so I think we should change it to one of those. Charles35 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason {{db-a9}} exists is to fix the situation where somebody in a non-notable garage band creates an unreferenced article about it, and also creates articles for all their self-pressed CDs. Once the main article gets deleted per {{db-band}}, the orphaned articles can also be cleaned up - since db-band only applies to the band, not its releases or other artefacts, we can't use that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use what? The "true" thing or the rephrasing of the sentence? How does this have anything to do with the sentence structure and/or the use of "true" instead of "satisfied"? I don't see how the reason behind the typical scenario in which {{db-a9}} occurs is in any way relevant to these issues. Charles35 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you can't use tag albums for speedy deletion via {{db-band}}, as the parent clause ({{db-a7}}) only applies to living people, animals, organisations, companies and web content. (And now, it seems, events). Anything else is off-limits. Since editors get mightily pissed off when their work is deleted without so much as a how-d'ya-do, we need to make sure we follow the criteria accurately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see your point or how any of this is relevant. Rephrasing and changing "true" to satisfied would not change the meaning or the function of this criterion. Charles35 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm explaining to you what {{db-a9}} means. Either you're confused by what it means or want to nitpick the wording - in either case, simply go with what common sense tells you it means. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find quite often that people use A7 when an article is about a record, and less often A9 for a band. Sometimes an A9 that is actually on a recording doesn't take account of the band being blue-linked (and correctly so, going to an article about the band). To get things absolutely clear: A7 is for bands that have no significance shown (disregarding its other uses for now); A9 is for recordings that are not of themselves significant AND are by a band or artiste that doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That the name of the band isn't linked doesn't matter - it should be checked anyway. That it is mis-spelt or incorrectly linked also doesn't matter. A band called Hamster may have that as the link, instead of Hamster so don't be fooled by a either a blue-link or its absence. If it's a compilation, I decline A9 so long as at least one of the listed performers has an article. I would think that recordings that are of significance where no performer has an article are very rare. The only sort I can think of offhand would be a number one 'sung' by an unarticled football supporters club - and that would probably lead to their getting an article. CSD is a short cut to lessen the number of things waiting for PROD to finish, or AfD to call for deletion. (Or sometimes for the seven days to see a rescue mounted...) If it doesn't look encyclopaedic but doesn't fit CSD, there's still PROD and AfD. Peridon (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the revision made by Charles35. IMO it clarifies things and I hope it will stop some of the mistaken use of A9 that goes on at present. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it was almost unintelligible and very poor use of the word "where". It's also a sentence fragment, so that makes it more challenging to properly word. Charles35 (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G5

G5 says:

Creations by banned or blocked users. Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates.

It says nothing about when a particular editor was banned or blocked. Let's say User A created article X, then User B gets indef-blocked for vandalism (i.e. a vandalism-only account), then it is discovered that User A and User B are sockpuppets of the same user.

In my judgment this means article X can be deleted under G5, since the block of User A/User B is for being a vandalism-only account and therefore any edits made by User A or User B can be treated as vandalism.

Is my interpretation correct? --71.90.216.96 (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to make it easy to delete copyright infringements or hoaxes. If article X was vandalism it could be deleted as G3, but if not there does not seem to be any reason to delete. Remember these rules are here to improve Wikipedia so if a potential G5 is deleting something good, then don't nominate it, decline it, or don't delete it. In your case user A would likely get a temporary block, and B permanent. Hopefully the person behind these accounts would go back to good behaviour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks. from past discussion on this page I was under the impression that WP:DENY was one of the things to be considered in that those who are banned or blocked are to be denied recognition for their edits and therefore G5 is to be applied to their created pages. I see that that was not the intent of the criterion and I suggest that it should be noted that the principle of WP:DENY does not apply to G5. See this discussion, where someone notes "G5 aims to deny banned users recognition, so [allowing the page to remain] will leave entries of their editing and thus some kind of recognition while deleting the [page] will not." --71.90.216.96 (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=533807359"