Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Articles written as essays

I propose that we add a criterion for articles written as essays or blog posts rather than encyclopedia articles. I have seen a number of such articles get speedy deleted, most recently Prisionero En Argentina, but no criterion is available to justify this. I think the criterion should say something like "Articles that are written in violation of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTBLOG". Everymorning talk 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with speedy delete, as often there is a valid topic hidden away in there. A discussion or a prod should be able to deal with it, if no one is around to fix the problem. Your example was a pile of problems, not english, unreferenced, but was very close to being an article about Claudio A. Kussman. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if it doesn't qualify for any of the other criteria, I don't think we should flush something just because of the way it is written. I also don't think this happens frequently enough to merit a new criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking worse case scenario, the page gets moved to the "Draft:" namespace, then the leftover redirect deleted per criterion R2; most likely, regardless of the way the article is written in such cases, unless it qualifies for an existing criterion, there a valid subject present that can be expanded and the page rewritten. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support this!!! I was actually going to suggest the same thing. This article The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity is up for AfD. I don't know why essays, as long as everyone agrees it's an essay, don't qualify as speedy delete. Things like this that are clearly an essay ("The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity" is not close to an encyclopedic subject, but a combination of two subjects and how they interact) and seems to be written by some kind of program advocate or health educator, ("The author of this page wishes to inform young adults; whether they be in college or out of college, that the ACA is working to reduce the number of them that are obese and present them with innovative new strategies they can use to manage their battle with obesity.") —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That looks like advertising for a start... But how do you know that 'everyone' agrees it's an essay, unless it's been to a discussion? There are quite a few things that could easily be decided by speedy (but aren't), but essayness isn't one of them. Peridon (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Wikimandia:Define essay. That's the problem, there is no way for people to agree on what exactly it means to be an essay. And often essays can become decent articles simply by fixing the writing style. We shouldn't be letting a single person make that judgement, for good reason we limit speedy deletion to only the obvious cases. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: It should be for cases where there is no doubt that it was created as an essay, either personal or academic, and there is no one arguing the subject can be salvaged (eg "Cacophony and Alliteration in the Ottoman Empire"). Articles that have plausibility as an encyclopedic entry wouldn't qualify, even if they are essay-like. @Peridon: I thought it was some kind of advocate, because the only searches I found on this topic were health education articles. But it turns out it is an essay and is in fact created as a school assignment (as someone else posted on the AfD). The tag "this is essay-like" isn't strong enough when it's not essay-like, it is an essay. Obviously this will be deleted by the AfD, but it should qualify for speedy deletion instead of waiting seven more days. Since it's already been tagged as AfD, we can't move it to creator's userspace. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• "...and there is no one arguing the subject can be salvaged" And where exactly would people be arguing that if not at an articles for deletion discussion? Anything that requires an argument is totally outside the scope of speedy deletion. And there is no harm in having it be discussed for seven days - one bad article doesn't destroy Wikipedia. The only things that truly need to be removed immediately are copyright violations and attack pages, and pretty much everyone else doesn't pose enough risk of harm to the project to justify summarily deleting where there is any possibility doubt. I'll also note that you did not actually define essay as I asked above. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There are four basic rules for new criteria at the top of this page. I think this fails the first three. It is too subjective, thus making it highly contestable, and essay-like articles that do not otherwise qualify for speedy deletion are not a big, frequent problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speedy is for pretty much set things - advertising material is very easy to spot (except for the people who work in PR because they actually talk like that to each other...). and so on. I would have deleted this under G11 quite happily had it been tagged for that. (See my comments at the AfD.) Significance is abused to an extent, but is fairly clear cut. 'Joe Bloggs is a footballer. He was born in 2002.' - no significance shown or credibly claimed. 'Joe Bloggs is the CEO of BloggsCo Stores. He was born in 1955 in Swemple, AZ, the eldest son of the Fred Bloggs, the founder of the BloggsCo international chain of stores.' - that could be a credible claim to significance (not notability - that only comes into A9 at CSD, except that actual passing of a notability policy trumps the significance question at A7). And so on. CSD is at usually least two people looking - tagger and reviewing admin. The tagger may well be an admin too - we mostly tag things we find rather than ending them alone. (When it's a clear attack, we may execute summary justice.) 'Essay' takes too much judgement as it depends on style - and not an obvious style like PR jargon. Peridon (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, I thought that was a rhetorical question. I would define an essay as prose written about the author's interpretation and speculation on a particular topic or theme. I don't think that's a particularly controversial definition. If it were impossible to define, there would not be an essay tag. Pages tagged for speedy deletion are not automatically deleted as you know - people can contest them, or an administrator may disagree. To say "there's no harm" in it being discussed for seven days means nothing - there's also no harm in having a seven-day discussion about articles where there is no indication of importance, but those are eligible for speedy deletion. I would argue it's even more harmful to have a personal essay in which someone speculates about health care law and disease and how that affects young people, then it is to have an article about a web hosting company in Australia that existed from 1998 to 1999. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy is in the main for things that are either clear and urgent (copyvio, attack and blatant hoax) or clear and frequent (A7, G11, and no content, no context, author requested, etc). Speedy is a short cut that was introduced to take the strain off prod and AfD by eliminating the most obvious and frequent cases, with a fairly easy restoration request system. It was never intended to replace prod and AfD. It's a bit like a traffic warden booking illegally parked cars so that the police can concentrate on the more tricky issues like murder and arson. The essay in question here, to my mind, would be an easy G11, and quite a few that I've seen have been dealt with that way. But they're not common as a class of article. There's a few other things I'd think more useful at CSD than a criterion for essays. Peridon (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD can be quick at times - I see that SNOW has fallen on the essay already. Peridon (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes essays are copy and pasted from another site, and can be deleted per G12, but that's a red herring for this debate. As Peridon says, unless the existence of the article is a clear and obvious violation of the terms of services (which fits at least G3, G10 and G12), all speedy means is "less than 7 days, without discussion". Indeed, I've seen a few borderline A7s sit at CAT:CSD for a few days. A personal essay criticising health care law might be POV, it might be entirely negative in tone, but unless it contains obvious personal attacks on specific people, I don't think it can be speedied. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Centralise the notice talk pages too

I notice that almost all of the template talk pages of speedy deletion notices do not exist, have no content at all or just contain one or two revisions. Obviously, these should be redirected to a centralised talk page because they are not being used, just as we have centralised the template talk pages of CSD tags.

• Template talk:Db-nonsense-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-test-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-hoax-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-vandalism-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-repost-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-copypaste-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-attack-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-spam-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-copyvio-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-afc-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-nocontext-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-nocontent-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-transwiki-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-person-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Db-notwebhost-notice (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

and more... 103.6.156.167 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Template talk:Db-notice seems like an obvious candidate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Waited a week for other comments and have now implemented. I will place a notice at the top of the talk page so that redirected users are not confused and know to tell us (as they often don't at db-meta) what actual template they are talking about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Validity of WP:CSD#F7 for old files uploaded with non-templated FUR?

Is this a valid CSD for File:Al Lewis 01.jpg?

The root problem is that this is an old file (2006), uploaded with the obvious intention of a valid FUR, but before the current templates were created. It has not been updated since. It is true that the FUR is thus incomplete, however should the file then be deleted for that and no other reason? Note also that this is CSD (rapid, no public forum listing, almost invisible before deletion has taken place) rather than FfD.

We have many files in such a state. Ideally, good editors would rework them as they're encountered and simply fix the problem by formatting the FUR . However it's so much more adminish to tag them for deletion instead, and this is what is happening. We thus lose content unnecessarily.

Should CSD be permitted in such cases? Or should CSD be excluded when a FUR is only incomplete for this historical reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The spirit of the criterion clearly does not apply to files uploaded before the current FUR standard was implemented (for an ongoing definition of "current", in case the standard changes in future) where there has been no notice that the file's rationale is incomplete. I would personally decline deletion of any file in this situation unless there has been an FFD discussion and/or a notice on the talk page of the uploader AND a notice on the talk pages of all articles using the file. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the A7 subcriterion "Invalid fair-use claims..." conflates two ideas – (1) that it is incorrect to be regarding the image as fair use and (2) that the fair-use claim has not been made according to WP policy for an image properly being regarded as fair use. (1) involves copyright and (2) does not. When (2) applies there seems to be no requirement for a speedy and indeed, it does not meet the instruction "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion". The speedy nomination was incorrect and an administrator deleting the file would be making a mistake. An FFD would not be improper but an improved NFUR would be better still, as has now been done.Thincat (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Expand scope of A11?

I don't mean expand the definition, just where we can apply it. Currently it applies to articles only, but we are seeing increasing numbers of such pages in userspace, either in sandboxes or AFC submisssions on subpages. This is actually a good thing as at least they aren't in article space, and I for one am perfectly willing to WP:IAR delete them anyway, but it would be nice if this popped up on the drop-down menu for deletion reasons when in userspace. I guess what that would actually involve would be converting it to one of the general cirteria that can be used in various namespaces. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly think this would be a good idea.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason not to make the change. There is no reason why this sort of thing should be allowed just because it isn't in article space. A similar situation is a hoax, and G3 applies to pages anywhere: why not the same for "obviously invented"? Make it G14. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, what a splendid idea (although it might make more sense to expand the scope of G3 instead, so that we have a General criterion that encompasses this sort of thing). Yunshui ^雲_水 11:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of expanding this to G14. Userspace drafts that are obviously made up stuff can be speedied per U5, but a "catch all" clause would make things a little simpler, and stop people hiding things in draft space that will never be acceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In principle yes, but I'd want some sort of exclusion for things which are obviously not intended as articles - including (but not limited to) things explicitly marked as humerous, as essays or as user pages ({{user page}} and similar). Actually it may be easier to specify that it applies only to pages (a) in the article namespace, (b) intended to be moved to the article namespace, and/or (c) intended to be percevied as an article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is an excellent idea. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• No. On the simple grounds that deletion is almost never required in this instance. No to mention that made-up stuff on user pages is often testing, which is what user pages are for. If something made-up is genuinely a problem, it's easy to just blank it and send a polite message to the user, there is no need to delete. And all the exceptions that people have been coming up with above show that we might not be able to make something workable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• No A CSD must be "Objective, Uncontestable, Frequent, and Nonredundant" per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Header The proposed criterion fails Objective (requires people to make a judgmeent call on the content of the page), Uncontestable (one editor or admin will have differing thoughts as to what's eligible), Frequent (you have to show how these pages are overrunning MFD (and are being deleted the majority of the time when they do go to MFD) to justify a creation of new rules). You get a pass on nonredundant as there's a clear seperation from the existing CSDs. Furthermore I think this is a bad idea as semi-silently deleting things in "speedy" fashion is only going to flood WP:REFUND with more petitions for pages back. No objection to revising this proposed critera Beeblebrox, but I think we should have some precedent on the books before we try a land grab for more process. Also, you probably want to tag Article Rescue Squadron (or whatever it's calling itself today), the WT:Drafts, WT:Userspace, AN, etc. to this discussion as it has significant ranging implications. Hasteur (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Slightly off topic, but to those four mentioned, maybe we should add a fifth, "necessary", meaning that deletion is actually required to resolve the stated issue. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we do have precendent, in that if these drafts were moved to article space they could immediately be speedy deleted. I get that it may be preferable to go a little easier on stuff in the draft and user namespaces, but if users are creating WP:FAKEARTICLEs in those namespaces I don't see why we should hold off. In fact in userspace we already can delete them under U5. My feeling is more that the draft namespace is kind of new and CSD hasn't really caught up with it yet. Fake articles are in fact almost always deleted if brought to MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 15#Seth Goldman (businessman), Spartaz (talk · contribs) undeleted Seth Goldman (businessman) with the {{TempUndelete}} template. Spartaz and I disagreed about whether I am allowed to rewrite the article in mainspace before the DRV is closed. He reblanked the article with the edit summary "restore temp delete. Article hadn't been restored has it?". At the DRV, he further wrote:

There is long standing practice that we leave deleted articles under a temp undeletion template during the whole discussion. You should know this by, now given how much time you have spent at DRV.

I believe that my restoration is permissible because {{db-repost}} clearly no longer applies. The original article had no sources. The new article has nine reliable sources from reputable newspapers such as the Boston Herald, The Baltimore Sun, the Financial Times, and USA Today.

DGG (talk · contribs), the AfD nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Goldman (businessman), wrote, "I don't think we should salt, because there is a possibility of a properly written article by a NPOV editor." I therefore rewrote the article in mainspace. DRV closers will close as "keep deleted" if no one steps forward to do a rewrite, which is why I did one here.

During the DRV, I could have asked an admin to move the deleted article to draft space. I then could have rewritten the draft and moved it back to mainspace before the DRV was closed. I do not believe it would be blanked or deleted in that case. I do not believe the draft should be blanked or deleted in this case either.

My question: Is there any support in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion or elsewhere for the position that an article restored under {{TempUndelete}} cannot be rewritten in mainspace?

Cunard (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• 1) No direct discussion with me.
• 2) This isn't a CSD so your discussion should be at WT:DRV. Courtesy undeletion is a courtesy and you should consider the other editors who wanted the article gone.
• 3) You are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way and need to step back a bit and think about that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Temporary undeletion at DRV is done as a courtesy to non-admin participants in the discussion so that they can see the article in question and participate usefully in the discussion. These undeletions are not done for normal article development, which is what the DRV is supposed to be deciding. Nobody has claimed that any of the CSD criteria apply in this situation, and I agree that G4 doesn't, but that's beside the point - people shouldn't be trying to rewrite these articles and Spartaz could have protected the article to stop people doing so (see the protection policy). Hut 8.5 06:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Like Cunard I have sometimes felt utterly prevented from improving articles while their history has been temporarily undeleted. Also, except for things like copyright infringements and attacks, we may be being unnecessarily coy about undeleting. However, I am quite clear that improving articles in situ hinders the DRV process and makes it less likely that such undeletions will continue to be done. DRV should be reviewing the AFD/Speedy and the article as it was during the relevant time. "Improvements" should wait. Thincat (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Good faith improvements to a topic should be encouraged per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. Deletions are not permanently binding per WP:CCC and if a topic can be greatly improved by such work this is likely to help DRV reach a sensible conclusion. G4 does not apply in cases where such substantial improvements are made. Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, fixing problems should be encouraged, and we shouldn't be overly bureaucratic. On the other hand, we're trying to get things right in the long run - while the DRV is running, whether the article is blanked or not shouldn't be worth worrying about (in this case, anyhow. Actually problematic articles, that may vary). Yes, re-blanking is a bit bureaucratic, and a bit un-collaborative. But it's wiser to roll with the temporary situation, rather than escalate the confrontation. WilyD 07:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there is support in the WP:DRV procedure that you should not be changing the contents of the subject of an active DRV question that has been temporarily restored to review if the AFD was valid. Your storming around and trying to bypass the process is not doing you (or the subject) any favors. You could have requested a copy to work in Userspace or Draftspace with following a process like Articles for Creation to have an independent set of eyes review your improvements to determine if there was merit in restoring the biography to mainspace. The CSD:G4 (recreation of substantially same work as already deleted by AFD) was valid. Furthermore the AFD as it was when closed was justified. What I would suggest is that the "article" gets put into draft space and enrolled in AFC to ensure that it meets the standards before it gets back to mainspace. A clean restoration would be best Hasteur (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• As mentioned above by Hut 8.5 above and by me at WT:DRV, yes, there's explicit support for this position at Wikipedia:Protection policy#"History only" review. We don't, and shouldn't, require a rewrite to demonstrate that a deleted article should be restored; listing sources is sufficient, just like sources and not a rewrite are (or should be) sufficient to get a poor article on a notable subject kept at AFD. Rewriting in-place can also backfire: if the decision at DRV is to endorse, the article will be deleted again, and admins will likely use your rewrite as a basis for whether to G4 a subsequent re-creation. If you're going to rewrite, you're better off doing it in userspace or draftspace and getting a history merge. —Cryptic 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• listing sources is sufficient, just like sources and not a rewrite are (or should be) sufficient to get a poor article on a notable subject kept at AFD – Cryptic (talk · contribs), I used to share this view, but I no longer do. Listing sources not infrequently is insufficient to get a poor article on a notable subject kept at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 17#Array Networks, and my rewrite of the article. Of particular note at the DRV are DGG's comment and Thincat's comment:

  I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. I think this happens a lot. You know this, I know this and a lot of other people here do as well. However, pretending it doesn't happen is part of the game we play. I'm too old to be shocked. As it happens, in this case the "promotional" aspect has muddied the water.

  Cunard (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Purely in order to avoid confusion, I agree with Hasteur and Cryptic that it would be much better doing it in draft space or user space--it can be moved if that's what the DRV decides. It's not necessary to do this usually, but it can help to show that an improved article is possible. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Best thing to do - after reverting the rewritten article to the deletion review version, comment at the deletion review that the article was rewritten during discussion and provide a history link to the rewritten version. If the re-write is good, you can close it as either "moot" or "should have...", while keeping the re-write. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have reviewed my rewrite again, and I did not use any content from the deleted article Spartaz (talk · contribs) undeleted. I wrote a new draft without relying on the deleted revisions. The blanking of my fresh rewrite under {{TempUndelete}} or Wikipedia:Protection policy#"History only" review therefore inapplicable and has no grounding in policy.

  {{TempUndelete}} should not exist to prevent recreations that do not rely on the deleted content.

  Spartaz's comment You are becoming increasingly difficult if you don't get your way and need to step back a bit and think about that is a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" from WP:NPA#WHATIS) and should be withdrawn or substantiated with diffs.

  I most agree with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) about WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO applying in this situation. My recreation of a neutral, reliably sourced article about a notable topic benefits the encyclopedia. For years, I have done numerous rewrites of articles at DRV and until now have never had my work blanked and my getting criticized for "becoming increasingly difficult". Putting roadblocks in editors' way takes wastes their time and makes them less likely to do such work in the future. This is the message that Spartaz sent with his page blanking and hurtful words (diffs 1 and 2).

  I disagree with Thincat (talk · contribs)'s comment that "'Improvements' should wait". When I choose an article to rewrite, I rewrite it immediately. Otherwise, I might never get around to doing the rewrite. I forget or I don't have the time later. If a rewrite renders DRV's review of an inferior draft moot, then that is fine. Improving the encyclopedia should be the main goal of all Wikipedia processes, including DRV.

  I agree with WilyD (talk · contribs) that "it's wiser to roll with the temporary situation, rather than escalate the confrontation", so I did not edit war with Spartaz. I will follow WilyD's advice to minimize confrontation using Oiyarbepsy (talk · contribs)'s sound idea. I will do the following if I rewrite an article with a {{TempUndelete}} template on it in the future. I will either save the rewrite in mainspace and then immediately blank it myself, or I will recreate it in the draft namespace.

  Cunard (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)