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 DESiegel (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 10 January 2020 (→A7: "a lower standard than notability": my error). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Is being deleted on another language's Wikipedia grounds for speedy deletion?

If an article was deleted on the English wikipedia, but has been (I assume more-or-less directly) translated into multiple other languages, is it legitimate to speedily delete those translations on the other language's sites? To be specific about my reason for asking, I recently flagged a page on the English wikipedia for deletion, on the grounds that it clearly did not satisfy WP:PROF. It was deleted, but the article's author (perhaps an autobiographer) has translated it into several other languages. For example, here's the German translation of the deleted page, which I attempted to flag for deletion using the normal process there: de: Giovanni Leone (Wissenschaftler). Wikkist (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, each project has their own separate notability guidelines, and what may be notable here may not be on the German-language wiki, and vice-versa. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikkist short answer: no. Different language Wikipedias are self-governed by their respective community's consensus, and our policies do not have any direct bearing on theirs or vice versa. Notability guidelines may vary, so an article deemed worth keeping on enWiki may not be kept on other projects. However, spammers may attempt to preserve their spam across multiple projects, so in some cases it may be prudent to chase an article across several different language projects (I once chased a promotional biography for a Brazilian actor into the Latin and Indonesian Wikipedias of all places). That having been said, the ultimate deletion rationale for that article is not that it was deleted here, but rather that it doesn't comply with notability guidelines there. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. But reasons for deletion on one are likely to be the same reasons on another. When considering deletion of a non-English topic, I take very seriously the quality of the native language Wikipedia article, or the reasons for its deletion there. WP:PROF-failing “academic” biographies often do appear as WP:Orphan articles on multiple Wikipedia’s, eg for a job hunting recent postgrad graduate, and collectively it may be obvious that all are promotion/spam. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As others have stated, different Wikipedias have different standards for what should be kept and what should not. Glades12 (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CSD deletion without tagging

I would like to understand whether, in terms of the current policy, if it is allowed for an admin to CSD delete an article, say on A7 grounds, without this article being CSD tagged by anyone first. (And correspondingly without anyone being notified about the article being nominated for CSD deletion, and having a chance to contest such a nomination prior to the article being deleted.) Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only in edge cases like G3, G10 through G13, U5, etc should can this be done. An admin should never delete an article under A7 or similar without someone else tagging it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 15:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC) (minor ce: 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
By policy, it is definitely not required, although deleting admins "should" notify the creator and any substantial contributors. Whether it's a good idea ... depends. WilyD 16:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin here. Depends on the CSD. If it's really blatant, or if it's a recreation of an AFDed article or something, then sure, kill it immediately. But in most cases, I prefer not to just zap articles, but to tag them for someone else to zap. But I'm not sure I'd make that mandatory in policy - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it being best practice in general is not to act on your own tagging. I would support language to that effect but not for reasons outlined by David making it required by policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes do it when cleaning up junk filetalk pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And now that you mention this, it occurs to me I G8 talk pages of pages I'm deleting all the time without warning or notice. But I think that makes perfectly sense, and notifying would be obviously stupid in almost every case. WilyD 05:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is allowed and should stay allowed. For some CSDs it is not good practice (especially A7), but things like cleaning up after vandals or blocked NOTHERE editors do not require a second admin. —Kusma (t·c) 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's allowed, admins can delete any page which meets the CSD criteria. I have spent a fair amount of time reviewing G12 nominations only to find when I checked the history that the page was tagged by one of our best copyright admins, which always strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. Speedy deletion is supposed to be speedy and doesn't necessarily give any time for the creator to contest it, that's what AfD and PROD are for. Hut 8.5 19:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I am still not getting much clarity from the responses above. I feel that some kind of a clarification on this point in the language of the policy is needed. The specific situation I was referring to is where an admin deletes an article with a deletion log summary "notability not asserted" (which I read to mean as invoking A7) without the article having been CSD tagged at all, by anyone, including by the deleting admin. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging is not necessary. Some form of notification about the deletion is nice. But there are cases when an admin can just delete A7's without further comment. For example, assume I am on speedy patrol, find a tagged A7 non-notable band, delete it and then check the creator's other edits. If they are about the even less notable guitar player of that band, I'll go ahead and delete without further interaction. As a general point, I think admins on New Page Patrol should usually tag instead of deleting, but that is more a matter of best practices for NPP than for the CSD policy. —Kusma (t·c) 19:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anarchyte: I'll admit I'm not an expert on every nuance of CSD policy, but I've never seen anything that supports, An admin should never delete an article under A7 or similar without someone else tagging it. Can you provide a specific citation? I'll sometimes tag articles if I have any doubt, and want another set of eyes to confirm, but usually I'll just go ahead and delete stuff that I see which clearly meets some CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've always considered it to be the unspoken rule, that deletions that could possibly be refuted on the talk page, should not be done only by one admin. A7 isn't about notability (and Nsk92 mentioned a log summary with "notability not asserted"), it's about a claim of significance. No sources are required and the claim could be as basic as the member count or being the first to do something, so giving the author the chance to say "oh wait, I forgot this bit of info" will help the article out a lot more than an admin reading it and then immediately deleting it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, as has been said above, no policy requiring admins to tag pages before deleting them, if one or more of the CSD apply. When I went though RfA, I pledged, as did quite a few admins at that time, to use "tag and bag", meaning that I would not delete pages not already tagged by another editor, with a few exceptions. I will delete copyvios and attack pages promptly, without waiting for another admin. I will delete talk pages as part of the deletion of other pages tagged by someone else, without waiting for a separate tag. I will do some housekeeping (G6) deletions without a tag, where i am convinced that they are truly uncontroversial, such as old redirects holding up a move, with no useful history. Otherwise I will tag for CSD like any other editor, and only delete pages tagged by someone else, after reviewing the page to be sure that the criterion applies. I wish that all admins followed similar practices, but some do not. Some routinely delete any page that they think fits one of the CSD, and as long as their judgements seem largely correct, there is no policy to require them to act differently. However, if I noticed an article deleted with the reason of "does not assert notability" I would review it, and might well bring it up at WP:DRV. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on both the criterion and the severity. I'd consider an admin who tagged a G3 (for vandalism, not for a hoax) or G10 instead of deleting it immediately as negligent - if you think you need a second opinion on these, they're probably not speedies. At the other end of the spectrum are G11s, A7s, and G12s, which should almost always be tagged due to the potential for error (of judgment for the first two, of fact for G12). "Always" is a strong word though, and I have no issue with an admin who deletes them in the most unambiguous cases - articles like User:Uchenna578 (sample for nonadmins: "We pride ourselves in great work ethic, integrity, and end-results."); the stereotypical article about a middle-school "singer-songwriter" who just released his first single on Youtube, that A7 was originally aimed at and that we still see in mainspace occasionally; or a full-page cut-and-paste from a major website like CNN or the BBC where there's zero chance of it ultimately being a reverse infringement of Wikipedia or some other freely-licensed source. In between are criteria like G13, which are unambiguous - either the page has been edited in the last six months or it hasn't - but still benefit from a second pair of eyes, on the off chance a page was improperly declined at AFC or moved out of the main namespace, or can otherwise be turned into a viable article. —Cryptic 10:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does histmerge invalidate G5?

An interesting situation arose at Kamerfer Kadın: the page was created by a user who was later blocked for socking, and subsequently moved to draft. It was later re-created in mainspace by a sock of the same editor, after which the revision history of the earlier version (the draft) was histmerged to that page, with the result that the master rather than the sock showed as creator.

Question: is such a page eligible for deletion as WP:G5? Always, under certain conditions, or never? Question 2: is this already covered by policy somewhere? – in which case please direct me there and ignore question 1. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. And already covered imho. Longer answer: Per policy, a page is only eligible of deletion if all revisions are eligible. If somehow revisions from a page that is not eligible are mixed in with a page that is eligible, the resulting page is no longer eligible since you can restore the non-eligible revision. Anything else would logically lead to a page becoming eligible for G5 because a user was later banned which G5 does not allow. Regards SoWhy 20:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with that assessment. WP:G5 is an extension of WP:BANREVERT, so if an otherwise G5 eligible page has previously deleted edits restored, BANREVERT would have us revert to last restored edit. In that state, the reason for the previous deletion (or other removal) will often sill apply. If the previous deletion was an AfD, it becomes a very clear cut G4 deletion, most of the speedy deletion criteria would continue to apply, etc. PROD is the main exception here, where the restore invalidates the previous deletion. While such a page would likely not be eligible for deletion per G5 only, deletion will often be the correct course of action. That being said, in this particular case, moving the page to the draftspace is probably the best option. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, SoWhy. Could you clarify whether your interpretation of our policy applies only in those cases where a history merge has been done, or in all cases where a sock has re-created an article that had previously been deleted, regardless of whether the previous revisions have been restored or histmerged? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Sputnik: The question was about G5 eligibility only. If another criterion applies to the non-G5-eligible parts, then that's okay and that criterion can be used.
@Justlettersandnumbers: "My" interpretation is merely quoting the policy that says "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible." For G5, a histmerge is the only time I can think of when only parts of the revisions are G5-eligible. If the original page has been deleted for another reason and a sock recreates it, then the recreation is eligible for G5 (if the other requirements are met). Regards SoWhy 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is way beyond me. May I suggest that since speedy deletion is only for "the most obvious cases" it does not and cannot apply in this case? Thincat (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the original page was created before the user was banned then G5 does not apply. As SoWhy explains, if a page has some revisions that are eligible for speedy deletion (under any criterion) and some that are not then the page is not eligible for speed deletion. As Thincat says if there is any doubt about whether speedy deletion applies it does not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time limits on G4?

Should the threat of a potential G4 deletion remain hanging over an article forever?

See List of Hello world program examples. This was AfDed in 2015. Since then, the article had come back (I don't know when). Today it vanished. That appears to have been one of those "delete as G4" drive-bys with no prior tagging or attempt at discussion.

G4 is already specific that it's not here for, It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. Now surely most versions, years down the line, are going to be substantially different anyway? But should we codify this with some time limit? What we really don't need is the current situation, where an article can have several years of existence (and whatever editing effort went into it) and then still gets rubbed out instantly by one drive-by from a single admin.

At the very least, G4 deletions long after an original AfD should be tagged and discussed, maybe a week, rather than simply actioned immediately, without notice. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem I see is that the new article was substantially identical to the deleted version. I know that G4 taggings often are done w/o checking whether the new version is the same as the new one, but this doesn't appear to be the case here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not only "substantially identical" in that it was still a list of code snippets that still had the same problems cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hello world program examples, but also the specific text was so close that it seems very likely it was copied (without attribution) from somewhere else that had originally copied our article. Upon further investigation, I find the recreation was nearly identical to the version of the article from 2015-04-09 00:21:41 UTC, with the only difference being the lack of the <!-- comment --> at the top with instruction for additions. Anomie⚔ 14:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, it was recreated 2019-11-16 04:46:17 UTC. So a bit over a month of existence, not years. There were three edits after the recreation before it was tagged for G4 (much less than the 99 revisions between the April 2015 version copied for the recreation and the version deleted in September 2015). Anomie⚔ 14:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need for a time limit. The important thing is sufficiently/substantially identical. The reason for a deletion may no longer be valid, and in those cases, we want to allow the subject to be covered without the need for any heavy process. But, in those cases, whatever has changed in the world should be reflected in changes in the article. Simply plopping down a saved copy of the old text doesn't fix anything. Not to mention the attribution issues mentioned above. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the similarity to the deleted versions (which I noted, though not that it was actually identical to the April version - I'd assumed it had been edited in the meantime on whatever mirror it was re-copied from), it was created it one edit by a very inexperienced user, who blanked the {{old AFD multi}} notice on the talk page placed by AnomieBOT. This struck me not as a test to see whether the very solid consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hello world program examples had changed, but as a very deliberate attempt to evade that prior consensus.
    Your suggestion that G4s be tagged and discussed for a week would be, in essence, requiring a new afd, no matter the similarity to the prior version. That's not a reasonable use of volunteer time, not in an era where the average afd discussion has to be relisted for two or three weeks in order to secure consensus either way, rather than the five days that used to be the norm. —Cryptic 21:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that every time "efficiency" is raised as a problem, it's to favour admins pressing one button rather than two - but the rather lengthier process of content creation: we're always happy to bin that. They're only volunteers: serves 'em right. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I'm guessing this wasn't the response you'd been hoping for when you posted your question. However, did you see the section two above where multiple sysops say that best practice is that, for many (most?) speedy deletion tags for sysops to place the tag and let another delete rather than just press the button themselves, or the split among sysops (if anything leaning negative) to the proposed revision of G8 - a proposal made in the name of efficiency? As someone who thinks my best work on wiki has been my content work and is also gravely concerned about the number of editor hours available to support all of our processes and tasks I don't think it's accurate to paint such a broad picture. It is more nuanced than that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping for? The most I'd ever hope for from WP is that the revenge deletions and the abuse remain slower than I can type responses to - I'm realistic. As this article is said to have been substantially identical to that deleted, then at least not much has been wasted. I couldn't describe that AfD as "firm consensus" though, when the nominations were "too many reasons" and "certainly not notable" and the closer didn't even bother giving a reason.
I would hope that admins would use a tag-and-bag approach to such things, but it's pretty rare. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I add a deletion tag to that page before it was deleted? * Pppery * it has begun... 20:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did Pppery. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Clarification

Am I correct in assuming that if a sock of a blocked master creates an article after the master was blocked, but before the individual sock was blocked, that G5 could apply (assuming all other criteria are met)? This is an example of what I mean at Russell Books (although not a G5 as others edited, and it even went to AfD and was a Keep). In this case, the sock UncleScrooze, created the article on Dec 12 before they were blocked on 31 Dec; however, the master, AuthorWiki99, was blocked earlier on July 8. Should we clarify this by adding a bullet under G5? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:G5 clearly says that it “applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block and that have no substantial edits by others.” In your scenario of an article created by a sock of a blocked editor, the page would thus be eligible for CSD:G5 so long as there are no substantial edits by others. That seems clear enough to me and I do not think an extra bullet point is necessary. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but you are experienced in SPIs etc. There are plenty of editors applying CSD tags who have never done an SPI, and who look at the block log of the blocked editor creating the article, but don't realise that they should check the date the master was blocked? I thought it might be helpful for non-SPI experienced editors to know this? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sock has to have been unblocked to create an article, no? Because blocked editors cannot create articles. So it would actually be more confusing that way. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the case where the master was blocked months ago, but new socks of the master are creating new articles and then getting blocked. An editor looking at G5 and not familiar with masters/SPI, might just assume that as the sock was not blocked when the article was created, G5 doesn’t apply; but a more experienced editor knows better. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Britishfinance that is almost the only use case for G5 that actuality comes up at all frequently. A blocked editor cannot create any articles while blocked, so the only way for such an editor to create an article is to use a sock puppet account (or to edit while logged out, and go through AfC). In theory a topic-banned (but not blocked) editor could create an article in violation of such a topic-ban, but I can't recall the last time I notice an instance of that. G5s are pretty much always actually created by sock-puppet accounts after the master or original account is blocked, and the consensus to delete in such cases is clear. I don't really like G5, but it is policy. It is, IMO good practice to link to the SPI, or to the blocked account that the creating account is a sock of, or to a block log that in turn so links. That helps make things clearer for others. But no policy requires such a link when tagging for G5. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As a current example, Hopeful2014 (talk · contribs) was blocked just over a year ago, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopeful2014 indicates that Lordrenthefirst (talk · contribs) has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Hopeful2014. Therefore, any pages created by Lordrenthefirst either before or after they were blocked (such as Category:Lewisham, Category:Ladywell, Category:Royal Docks) become subject to G5. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So how about adding a sentence (or line in brackets) at the end of the first bullet of G5 saying something like: "By definition, therefore, these blocked users will be sockpuppets of already blocked users (called "masters"), whose block was in place before the article was created". I think this would clarify things for non-SPI experienced editors on the relevant block date to check? Britishfinance (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence of a real problem here or is it a hypothetical or perceived problem? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is just clarification (or communication). We have many editors applying CSDs with only a few thousand edits who have never gone near SPI that I think would find this clarification helpful. The clarifications above are helpful, and were well made - why not include in the G5 text? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems reasonable, so I just boldly added When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sock-puppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the block or ban of the primary account qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others). Indeed this is the most common case for applying G5. to the CSD page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to the addition. I remember when I first got into this, looking at the G5 wording and being confused: If somebody is blocked, how could they create a new page? To those who are saying, "this is so obvious it doesn't need explanation", consider that you've been doing this for so long, it's obvious to you, but may not be obvious to others. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 as well - looks good to me DESiegel, and thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A7: "a lower standard than notability"

This...isn't really true though. A7 is neither higher nor lower taken as a whole; it's merely qualitatively different, as A7 concerns both the state of the article as well as the state of the subject, whereas notability only concerns the latter. In as much as the both concern the latter, yes, credible significance is a lower standard, but because A7 concerns both, it's perfectly possible to write an article on a notable subject that qualifies for A7. Consider a new article:

Dave was born in Isleworth and loves animals.

That's easily A7. But the subject of the article happens to be David Attenborough, who is clearly notable (A1/A10 aside for the sake of the hypothetical scenario, just as a thought experiment). I'm not entirely settled on how to better clarify the difference, but again, like AfC, A7 is often just different from simple notability, as it concerns a proxy measure of a lower standard of existential notability, as indicated by the state of the article, rather than simply the existential state of the subject, apart from their representation on Wikipedia. GMGtalk 13:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. I have seen editors at AfD confuse it with A7 (obviously, at AfD, the issue is the state of the subject and not the state of the article). I have also seen editors at RfAs criticize a candidate because they had "blue links" in their CSD log (i.e. and thus a sign of an incorrect A7), however, it is not uncommon to see a valid A7, return as a non-valid A7/or proper article. It would be worth clarifying this point (and that valid A7s can return as non-valid A7s once any kind of potential claim of notability (either in the text or the refs), has been added). Britishfinance (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is more a topic for WT:RFA than here, but anyone criticizing a candidate merely for having bluelinks in their CSD log without looking at the state of the pages when they were declined or deleted isn't doing due diligence. I'm no fan of arguing with oppose voters, but this is the sort of case where it's merited. —Cryptic 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might do that as well Cryptic, however, per comments above and below, I think it is worth clarifying here that previous valid A7s, can return to become non-valid A7s due to an improved status of article via better referencing and/or claims in content, even though they may still not have have the notability to pass AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that speedy deletion criteria concern themselves primarily with the present state of an article and its older revisions, not about what it could be. So an article about a notable subject that doesn't bother to explain why the topic is important or significant - say by presenting multiple dedicated sources - and otherwise satisfies the A7 criteria is eligible for A7 deletion, notable or not. Yes, one can rewrite such an article rather than delete it, but deletion is allowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about deleting the clause "a lower standard of notability", and replacing with a sentence that says

Unlike at WP:AfD, where the notability of the subject is debated (irrespective of whether the article establishes this notability), A7 is only focused on whether the article makes any credible claim of notability (either in the references, and/or body text); thus valid A7s, can return as non-valid A7s due to improved referencing and/or body text, even though these improved claims of notability could still fail at AfD.

Britishfinance (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Avoid instruction creep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would agree, but A7 is complex and one of the most misused/abused of the CSDs; there are several editors even from the past few weeks, who have messages on their talk pages from admins warning them of blocks if they continue to abuse A7. This one is worth getting right, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You expect newer editors read and understand that wall of text though? History has shown that they rarely do. Glades12 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is a sentence a "wall of text" (notwithstanding others might write a better sentence); we effectively have an upcoming ArbCom case that effectively revolves around an admins actions on A7 (e.g. it is not just new users)? When people can get blocked from A7, they will probably make a better attempt to read A7, imho? Britishfinance (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that changing it to "any credible claim of notability" would increase A7's barrier tremendously? The current policy does not require claims of notability for good reasons. A7 is supposed to keep out articles from people writing about their hobby band, their local soccer fan club, their 10-subscriber-YouTube channel etc.. Anything that can clear this barrier should be taken to the community to discuss, not be decided by a single admin. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, you are misreading me (hence why clarifying A7 is so important). If someone writes a new article that says "Peter was considered the most important artist of Denmark in the 21st century" but without providing a reference than that can be validly declined for A7 (unless you can prove the statement is bogus) – that is a key test of A7.
Also, A7 is not AfD; while I always do a quick WP:BEFORE myself pre any A7 tagging (my own standard is that a declined A7 tag, should be a clear-cut AfD delete), that is not required by the A7 rules. Again, hence why we should get this area clarified, even if it means adding more text.
You are facing an ArbCom case on issues of A7, and I am not sure that all our interpretations are aligned? Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was only quoting from your suggestion. You used the words "claim of notability" instead of the current "claims of significance or importance". Your example would probably be A7able because claims need to be credible and "was considered the most important artist of Denmark in the 21st century" is not credible for a century that is only 20 years old at this point. As for BEFORE, as I said below, policy already limits deletions to the "most obvious cases". I don't think any article where significance can be established within seconds counts as "most obvious", do you? Regards SoWhy 17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not sure the argument from CREEP is super compelling, given the most misunderstood criteria, among what is probably the single most lawyerly complicated, and least understood policy page on the project already. At any rate, I wasn't necessarily advocating for providing substantive additional guidance, but rather for seeing if there was a better way to word the existing guidance to be more clear. GMGtalk 15:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, a notable subject can only be A7ed by mistake. If the subject's notability is determinable, WP:ARTN already forbids deletion (in combination with WP:PRESERVE), no matter how bad the article is. In your hypothetical scenario, if someone started an article named David Attenborough with the content Dave was born in Isleworth and loves animals., you think it should be eligible for A7? That does not sound right to me. Yes, A7 is mostly about the claims made in the article but speedy deletion is part of the overall deletion policy and it, along with the editing policy, instruct us to fix problems by editing if possible. Doing a quick Google search whether the subject is potentially important or significant (or indeed notable) is imho part of that approach. Regards SoWhy 16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the hypothetical Dave article should qualify for A7 I think is fairly uncontroversial. As it pretty clearly would also qualify for A1, there wouldn't be very much any of us could do about that on our end. I agree that PRESERVE means we should make a good faith effort not do delete or remove content when it can be fixed or improved. But the idea that ARTN forbids deleting content outright "no matter how bad the article is" is simply wrong. G11, G12, A1, A10, G5, A2, and yes, even A7 in the right circumstances, are all among the criteria that preempt ARTN. If someone wants or can rewrite such articles, then they are perfectly able to do so. That does not mean they are compelled to do so, and while a quick good search for A7 nominations is probably a good idea, there is no burden of BEFORE in these circumstances. GMGtalk 17:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A1 would not be applicable if the context can be inferred from the article's title. G12 requires deletion for legal reasons. G5 is WP:BMB, discouraging banned editors to game the system. G11 allows deletion when there is nothing to save and nothing to fix. A10 and A2 both require the subject to be present somewhere else already. The whole point of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia filled with information about notable subjects, so deleting a notable subject's article under A7 runs counter to this goal. Even if technically A7 does not require a BEFORE. It makes no sense that for AFD you have to do a BEFORE but for a criterion that is supposed to be stricter you don't, so I think it's safe to say that the community thinks it's implied when the policy says Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Regards SoWhy 17:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's ever a good idea to presume what the "community" will think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Are you disagreeing? I think we both fairly well understand the rationale why, for example, a G12 would be deleted even if it were on a notable topic. That doesn't change the fact that there are several circumstances, based on article content, under which we would delete articles even if they were on notable topics. GMGtalk 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could go into a great big rant about A7, but I won't. I will say this though: A7 is nigh-on impossible to "understand" as it's currently written (believe me, I've tried), for it's far far too subjective and open to interpretation (speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be objective). It's no use just moaning that "A7 abuse" is so rampant (I was once branded an abuser for trying to stop the abuse, just so you know); we should instead be asking why it's so. I'll tell you why; it's because policy doesn't give enough instruction about what things like "lower than notability" are supposed to mean, leaving editors to their own interpretations. It's all well and good having essays such as Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, but they really need to be more than just essays is they are to have the desired effect. I'm quite sure that those who are abusing/misusing A7 do not consider it abuse/misuse. The way to solve that is to make policy more specific. That's why so many think significance is a synonym for notability; because policy is as clear as mud on what it's actually supposed to mean. Adam9007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to any change to A7, especially the one proposed by Britishfinance (for the same reasons as SoWhy). I also disagree that all the criteria are objective. G11 is hardly objective. Even criteria like A1, G1, G3 (vandalism and hoax) are not black and white. We will not be able to stop abusive tagging or admins who apply criteria incorrectly. All we can do is educate...or sanction when appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if my wording is not right – then clarify the wording that is absolutely right (because there is not alignment even on this thread on the definition). Think about it, you are talking about sanctioning people for a rule that is not clear to make them understand it better? How does that make sense? Britishfinance (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A7 is so widely misunderstood in WP, that it is even worth having clear examples of what are, and what are not, A7s. If this thread shows nothing else, it is that there is even confusion over the David Attenborough example above (which I believe GreenMeansGo has the correct current operating interpretation of what an A7 is). Britishfinance (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there's a list of claims that (supposedly; I sometimes think it contradicts consensus, given my experience) have been identified as significant, if you haven't already read it. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clear issue/non-alignment from the above discussion is whether an A7 should explicitly meet the test of a WP:BEFORE; I think we should answer this, because if it doesn't, AND, there is essential disagreement on the substance of my wording, then we are not in a great place regarding the definition of an A7? Britishfinance (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hypothetical David Attenborough article would qualify for A7, assuming it's unsourced. A7 isn't intended to be an instant AfD or anything like that and is purely judged on the current state of the article. Yes this would lead to an article on a very notable person being deleted here but that's because it's a terrible article. If the article made any attempt to summarise why people should care about David Attenborough (e.g. "David Attenborough is an acclaimed natural history broadcaster") then it wouldn't qualify for A7. "a lower standard than notablilty" just means that evidence of notability is automatically evidence of significance, it doesn't turn A7 into a notability test. Hut 8.5 07:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: I totally disagree with this. On this example, if I could find three Google News hits on "David Attenborough", it would take approximately 15 seconds to add those references and disqualify it from A7. "I was lazy" is a terrible excuse for an administrator. Or is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect because I've done a fair bit of article writing (even if I do say so myself) I find adding references to just about any biography a trivial exercise? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is supposed to be a quick process for simple, uncontroversial cases. If something requires research then it isn't suitable for speedy deletion. A7 is explicitly intended to get rid of articles which aren't worth putting through AfD or PROD, in order to lighten the load on those processes. If you insist on people putting in the same work to nominate something for A7 as for AfD or PROD then there's very little point in having it at all. Getting rid of it would massively increase the AfD/PROD workload and lead to some very silly outcomes (e.g. "Fred Bloggs is a 14 year old student from Nowhereville" surviving for at least a week). Hut 8.5 19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I think there is a difference between doing a 15 seconds Google search and a full BEFORE, isn't there? Regards SoWhy 19:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think this discussion is at cross-purposes; in this example, if I came across a mainspace article saying "Fred Bloggs is a 14 year old student from Nowhereville" and a Google News search for "fred bloggs nowhereville" returned nothing significant whatsoever, then of course it should be deleted per A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the Google search isn't required and shouldn't be required. If there is something in the article which suggests to you that a Google search is likely to turn up evidence of notability or good references then it probably isn't a good A7. If not then the Google search isn't necessary. The idea of insisting on it in this very obvious case strikes me as rather silly. If Fred Bloggs really has done something important enough to justify having a Wikipedia article then the author should have put it in the Wikipedia article. Hut 8.5 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly object to the proposal as written above, for several reasons. While significance is not always a lower standard than notability, it normally is. Yes a really poorly-written article about a notable person might be validly deleted under A7, that is not the common case. And I will add that if an editor knows that a person or subject is notable, or probably notable, it is abusive to tag for A7 even if claims that could and should have been made in the article were not made. Instead, add them. And similarly, if an admin knows that a topic is notable or probably notable, it is abusive to delete it, instead of improving it. Notability is largely about coverage, what independent sources have written about a topic. It therefore requires sourcing. Significance is about accomplishments, and may be accepted provisionally in good faith without sources. A significant accomplishment is one that, in some non-trivial fraction of cases, will lead to the sort of coverage that confers notability. For example "John is the CEO of Company X, that had $10 million in sales in 2018" That deos not prove that John is notable. A fair number of such CEOs are not. But a significant number are notable. That fact is enough that speedy deletion is not appropriate, we need an AfD to look at the specific case in detail and see if John is notable or not, which means that a WP:BEFORE search should be done. Significance is not what results from a BEFORE search, it means that there is a sufficient chance that a search will uncover no0tability that it is wrong to delete without doing the search and discussing the results. It might, just barely, be possible for there to be a notable person with no claims of significance that could properly be put in an article, but I dot recall ever seeing one in practice, not can I thing of a plausible hypothetical example. It may be that we can improve the wording of A7, but this isn't how. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a more plausible example of a poorly written article that might have been delete3d under A7, consider this version of the article 500 Miles High There is really no claim of significance there. (It was actually tagged for WP:CSD#A3, which was obviously wrong.) But a very little research using the info already in the article was enough to clearly establish notability, and indeed to get a later version accepted by DYK. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/500 Miles High where discussion lasted less than 6 hours. (yes I know a song is in scope for A9, not A7, and this failed the clause about an article bout the writer, but its a good example anyway, I think.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One major reason why I think the "lower standard" language must stay is that people even now all too often tag an article with A7 using summaries such as "does not assert notability" or even "is not notable". Notability is far too complex and situation dependent to be a speedy deletion criterion, and this language reminds editors of that, and can be pointed to when people forget that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the above discussion shows the need to clarify the wording of A7 given the non-alignment; how about a wording like this to "bridge" the gap, and give clarity:

An A7 should meet two tests:

1. The references AND/OR the text in the body should not contain a credible claim of notability per WP:N; and
2. A brief, but not exhaustive, WP:BEFORE, should not throw up any other easily accessible references that could show notability per WP:N.

The rationale for A7 is to avoid clogging up WP:AfD with cases that would be obvious fails of notability and thus almost unanimous deletes at AfD; in this regard, the nominator for an A7 should be confident that should their A7 be declined by a perceived failure to meet either of these two tests, the article should still be highly likely fail at AfD. There will be valid A7s that a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have shown to be notable (e.g. sources not available online), however, A7 is not designed to fully replicate AfD, and there is an onus on the author to better demonstrate notability in such cases.

Britishfinance (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still using "notability" as the standard the claim must meet. It's not what A7 is about and never has been. A7 was - from the day it was added to the policy 15 years ago - always about "importance or significance" (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 for the details on the discussion that led to the creation of A7). Regards SoWhy 12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except, of course, since WP:N is the standard inclusion criterion, and if you ignore that when you've evaluating importance or significance, it becomes a lot more personal an arbitrary, and you get in the obviously broken situation where articles that pass, or give indications they may pass WP:N are still eligible for A7 deletion. For instance, see the DRV for Lera Loeb Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_4, where several admins who are well versed in deletion policy still endorsed A7-ing an article that showed clear reasons to believe the subject might meet WP:N (and indeed, it was subsequently kept at an AfD). It makes no sense to have an A7 that isn't tied to AfD, or it becomes an end-run around subjects that are notable, but individual admins don't think are important. WilyD 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes happen, even by admins who frequently deal with deletion requests. Having a full article in a notable magazine dedicated to your life's story is not something ordinary and the deleting admin should have noticed that. Nothing that could conceivably survive AFD should ever be deleted as A7 but that does not mean A7 should have the same requirements as AFD. Regards SoWhy 14:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but from the discussion I linked, you'll see it's clear a lot of people don't, so I think it's clear it's important that A7 articles something along the lines of the idea that A7 is a lower standard than WP:N - it's for articles that give you no reason to think the subject might meet WP:N. Sources that go some way to it are one way, a short "Libby is a former ambulance driver who now works as the Queen of Canada, Belize, and a dozen or so other countries" also does, because that makes it likely there are good sources. WilyD 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, keeping Lera Loeb at AfD was a clear mistake. Single worst AfD I've ever been a part of, none of the sources are at all independent of the subject and the subject IMO should still qualify for WP:A7 (except for the fact it doesn't, since it passed an AfD.) I probably screwed up by assuming the lack of notability was obvious on its face in the nom, but here we are. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And so yeah, this is a pretty clear indication of why A7 needs to be tied to WP:N. This kind of use of "independent" is highly idiosyncratic to Wikipedia, that comes from trying to fight spam without any real understand of what's going on. (and really, per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, the sources are fairly but not completely independent - they're not self-published, they're third party, but they're a mix of primary and secondary with more of the former. But a lot of people, even people who're well familiar with deletion policy, argued for A7 deletion because mail order brides aren't something they think should be important. WilyD 14:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks SoWhy, I had never seen that, and helps explains your (and DESiegel's concerns. I am not sure many contemporany editors (and admins), make the distinction between "importance or significance" and "notability" (and have knowledge of the original !vote)? Part of me wonders if this is a flaw in the original proposal to introduce non-defined terms (in a WP sense), as lower hurdles of WP-defined term, "notability"? For example, there are BLP subjects that pass at AfD via WP:N, but which the wider world would not consider to be "significant or important" people (i.e. it can imply a higher standard of "notability")? I see editors in the original proposal !vote noted the ambiguity. However, these terms were !voted on by the community? Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, I am not sure many contemporany editors (and admins), make the distinction between "importance or significance" and "notability" Which is why I think we should do away with the "importance or significance" terminology, and call it something else (I'm open to suggestions). It may have made sense when A7 was first enacted, but these days it's far, far, far too easily (and often!) confused with notability. Adam9007 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. As SoWhy rightly points out, and as I tried to say above, the standard is and has been "importance or significance". To change that would require a wide and clear consensus, probably a rather stronger one than would be needed to adopt a new CSD, and I for one would be opposed. While I am very much a fan of BEFORE in AfDs, and it is certainly better for taggers or deleting admins to do a quick search before taggign or deleting, WP:BEFORE as it is curntly written describes more than just a web search, and is not suitable for referencing in a CSD. I would be willing to discuss some mention of a web search, but there would need to be more discussion of whether to include such a mention at all, before trying to draft language, in my view. CSD's generally depend on what is in the article, althoguh G12 is a spacial case. Note that A1 already mentions a web search, saying: If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. However, the CSD does not require such a search for most uses of A1. Even G12 does not require a further search once a source for the copyvio is identified, although it may well require checking past versions of the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any sort of WP:BEFORE Based on my work at NPP, I'm of the opinion A7s should be relatively rare in practice, and they should be obvious on their face. Adding a WP:BEFORE element doesn't really make any sense. I generally agree CSDs should be based on the state of the article (with exceptions) but A7 shouldn't need to be an exception. The thing about A7 is, if you're not sure, or it might be at all notable, it's not an A7. SportingFlyer T·C 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have addressed this issue in User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7, but to summarise, talking about subjective terms like "notability" and "significance" leads to confusion and disagreement, and a better way of dealing with it is "could anybody in the world possibly turn this into a non-stub decent article?" If it's blatantly obvious nobody could, it's an A7; if you're not sure, it's an AfD; if you can't be bothered to improve it and think nobody else can either, PROD. This procedure would work for DESiegel's example of 500 Miles High; the "could anybody possibly improve this?" question was an obvious "yes" in that instance. Another good example from my own experience is The White Mandingos, which on first inspection looks superficially rubbish but was clearly improvable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not an exhaustive BEFORE, but my own test is that any declined A7 (without the decliner showing sources that I did not see), should be a strong AfD delete candidate. I can't see any other way to protect myself from the ambiguity regarding the definition (and be fair to authors), and I think Ritchie333's essay makes the same point? Britishfinance (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another point hinted at in the essay, is that we are generally clued up on what policy is (or at least know where to educate ourselves), but the history of why a policy was created tends to be lost in the midst of time, leading to people acting on policy "because it's policy" - which I might describe as cargo cult encyclopedia writing ;-) In this case, A7 exists because we had too many articles on high school teachers, and that's what the policy was created for. If an article's not in the same ballpark as a high school teacher, it might not be what A7 was trying to get rid of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is a lot of words. To be honest, I was just thinking along the lines of something like This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability, as indicated by the article. This would make the second sentence more in line with the first, which specifies any article...that does not indicate, putting the onus on the article itself. GMGtalk 20:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is a lot of verbiage; anyway, I did a bit more spelunking into Wikipedia history and I think the trigger action for bringing A7 into existence can be found here - essentially an IP went round and created an article (this was pre Seigenthaler) about every teacher at his school, and was blocked for it. Since WP:ACPERM, the number of genuine A7s has dropped to a trickle. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that A7 incorporated (or soon came to incorporate I don't recall the exact sequence, although I participated in the RfC) the formerly separate criterion in place to delete a flood of articles about garage bands and bar bands. These were almost never notable, and often included no indications of significance by anyone's standards. I think the separate concept of "significance" arose first in that context. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. There was no previous criterion for bands, and A7 was not expanded beyond use for single persons for nearly five months (diff, discussion). —Cryptic 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Cryptic. My memory was in error. I should have double checked before posting a comment on the matter here. Comment struck DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=935112175"