User talk:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey

Amalthea's Review

User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey This is a review of 25 CSD's tagged for G1. It is in rough draft form, but would like to get the opinion of those who watchlist my page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you also include the titles of the pages? --Amalthea 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

In my opinion it's only a borderline A7: There's no credible indication of significance, but it's a description of the building as much as of the people who live in it. I would have PRODded it. OK Not at all a G1! Key sentence there is "Which if you have ever played the game" - if you (excessively) played Diablo 2 you know what he's talking about, and it's not incoherent. Not sure if I'm a reasonable person per WP:PN though. It's also debatable wether this is really an A7, since it's really more a field report than it's about him, so I would PROD it. OK, unless the title gave context OK gnews: "Chuck Norris may be so tough he has a third fist under his beard". Knowing that it's a joke that is around I can make some sense of it, and (depending on the title) a redirect would have been appropriate. I wouldn't start splitting hairs here if it's deleted G1 though. OK OK OK OK It is blatantly unconstructive, but is it intentionally unconstructive? A7 wouldn't be, since it's about a fictional entity. In my opinion a PROD is the right answer, but G3 is OK. Obviously not a CSD. I'm not even seeing the hoax? a perfect example why halfway readable stuff *shouldn't* be speedied. I don't know Family Guy, I checked the first two URLs which didn't lead anywhere, so to me, it doesn't make sense. It's not patent nonense though, so it should get a wider audience through a PROD. OK OK OK OK, unless the title gave context PROD as WP:OR borderline G3, or PROD as an uncontroversial deletion (which is actually what WP:HOAX suggests) OK OK OK OK OK OK

Are you sure you haven't hand-picked those? I always thought that A1 is the most misapplied tag (and might be in absolute numbers), but G1 looks even worse in relative numbers. --Amalthea 13:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should use PROD in your review results more often, and maybe add alternatives to deletion where you find that AfD would have been the appropriate response: I think some of those should just have been tagged for cleanup or redirected. --Amalthea 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I hand picked these only insofar as I was looking for G1/Nonsense in my analysis. To me, G1 was always the most misapplied tag.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Made most of your changes as I agreed with them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG's Review

My view on these:

1 Agree, erroneous G1, not nonsense. On the other hand, i would be tempted to call in vandalism, or A7 non-notable group. I would not prod, because it's hopeless.

2 Agree, nonsense, good speedy.

3 Partially Agree. Not nonsense in one sense, but hopelessly non-encyclopedic. . Possible A1, as no context. Not prod--find the closest applicable speedy reason.

4 Disagree a little: Either no context or nonsense, makes little difference

5 Agree, but I would use G2, test page.

6 Agree, nonsense is pretty close. I'd look for other articles by same person, to see if there is a pattern--might be vandalism.

7 Partially agree, either no context if unclear who is meant, or G10. Also could be called G3, vandalism

8 Agree, vandalism is the closest.

9 Disagree, clear G10, since the person is real, a/c Google. But it does not matter, the point is to get rid of it.

10 Disagree, nonsense would do--otherwise vandalism. I might be friendly , and just call it test.

11 Partially agree, vandalism would do better, but it is meaningless enough to also count as nonsense. . This is not a hoax, not plausible enough.

12 I'm not clear what the article was titled. Can't have been "Peru", for that's a valid existing article. Peruvian holidays? It is not nonsense. Depending on the title, a redirect sometimes works for things like this.

13 Disagree. This is the sort of totally obvious fake that does qualify as nonsense. Or call it vandalism. this should not go to prod.

14 Agree G10, probably. Or just test page. or vandalism.

15 Agree. Very bad speedy. Unpredictable whether it would be kept at afd, but certainly its at least a redirect.\

16 this is a problem. G10 as probable BLP violation, since its unsourced. I'm reluctant to use BLP, but it fits here. If there were good sources, it might be an article, but we must remove it until that point. If sent to afd, someone wouldspeedy it from there.

17 Agree, Clear no context, but I really do not see how it matters.

18 Disagree. Do not prod. Delete as test page. It's just someone playing round with their computer.

19 Disagree. If nonsense means anything at all, this is nonsense. Imight call it test. Idislike keeping t hings this stupid around for 5 days.

20 Agree, but I don't think it makes much difference.

21 Agree. Rocket propelled chainsaws are imaginary weapons, a/c Google, so this is either G10 or plain vandalism. A7 I keep for real things that arent remotely notable.

22 Agree. valid G1.

23 Disagree. Nonsense, not hoax. A hoax is something that might possibly be real; this does not include "red flying hippopotamuses".

24 Agree, but there are quite a few suitable categories.

25 Agree Valid G1.

Comments

1. I differ from Balloonman in being less willing to send totally unacceptable articles to Prod, especially if they are somewhat nasty. If the intention is vandalism in the broad sense of not being a good faith attempt at an article, whatever speedy category fits closest should be used. Now, I'm relatively very narrow in interpretation of speedy, and I still say this, so I think about 75% of admins would also. This is one of the purposes of speedy.
2. As Amalthea commented, G1 is used less wrongly than A1. only one serious error, 15 and one likely one, 12.
3. In many cases of possible G1, it fits into so many possible categories that it does not matter which one is used--just minor differences in interpretation. There is thus some rationale to the suggestion that A1 and G1 be combined. However, the many incorrect A1s indicate to me that it might perhaps be strategic to have it separate to more easily spot the errors
4. I continue to support requiring the involvement of two people in all cases except G10. Even copyvio needs two people--I have seen quite a number of incorrect copyvio speedies, where either only a part was copyvio, or it was important enough to stubbify, or--worst of all--when the copyvio was the other direction, or was PD not recognized as such.
5. The real problem is not in the misuse of on speedy criterion for another for a clearly unacceptable article, but the muse of speedy for articles that should not be deleted at all. DGG (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviews from Seraphimblade

My own thoughts on these...

1

G10 if nothing else, with the "incest" bit. Also pretty nonsensical.

2

Agreed, G1 or G3. G1 seems the most fitting, it's just nonsense.

3

Not nonsense, but good use of IAR if nothing else. Certainly nothing salvageable there.

4

A1 rather than G1. Certainly a speedy in any case, not a huge deal.

5

Don't think there'll be much argument there.

6

Completely nonsensical gibberish, definitely G1.

7

A1 or G10 would probably make more sense here, but clearly needed speedied.

8

Certainly nonsensical, but I would agree G3 would make more sense than G1. Definitely needed speedied regardless.

9

A7 would probably be better.

10

G2 or G7 (the author pretty clearly seems to be requesting deletion and stating creation was accidental, and it's also pretty clearly a test page).

11

At least verging on nonsense. Either G3 or IAR, certainly needed to go regardless.

12

Very poor speedy. It's at least plausible, if the nom had reason to believe it not to be true it should've been handled through PROD, AfD, or getting some help to check it out. It's certainly not nonsensical.

13

Gibberish. Being barely legible and using one identifiable name doesn't invalidate G1. If G1 isn't valid here, IAR is.

14

Definitely G10. Also pretty confused and full of gibberish, not sure G1 wouldn't apply too.

15

No assertion of notability, plot summary only, but not nonsense. Redirecting to a parent fiction work generally is the best for these. Please tell me it wouldn't get kept.

16

G10 as it was, but that might actually be a valid article if significant references on the person could be found. Attack pages get shot first and recreated later though.

17

A1 rather than G1.

18

Totally valid IAR.

19

Again, vague comprehensibility doesn't mean it's not total nonsense. And if not G1, good IAR.

20

That's borderline gibberish, I didn't understand it until I read the explanation. A1 rather than G1 anyway, even given that.

21

G10 most likely, certainly A7 as well.

22

G1 easily, no argument there.

23

G1 or G3, a bare minimum of coherence doesn't mean it's not total nonsense. Definitely vandalism in any case, I would've likely used G3.

24

Either G1 or A1 would be fine.

25

No meaning, definitely G1.