Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


RfC: Should unambiguous essays be added to the criteria for speedy deletion?[edit]

No, by an overwhelming consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Should essays be added to the criteria for speedy deletion? As A14: Pages that are purely an essay, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. (In this case, this would only apply to articles that are unambiguous essays that would eventually be deleted as WP:SNOW ie that an administrator would agree is an essay, and not to essays about Wikipedia guidelines). МандичкаYO 😜 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Votes
  • Green tickY Support as nominator. Essays regularly appear at AfD, and a simple: "Delete - WP:NOTESSAY" is frequently a quick !vote. Many state outright they are essays ("in this essay, I will be discussing..."), or give some clue to this being a class assignment. Some end with the name of the submitter or course. Some are obvious because of their obscure essayish content and title (eg "Transgressing class: Nietzsche and the Disenfranchised in 20th-century animation") or attempts to persuade, such as this one on "The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity". I feel these essays should be easily tagged with a {{db-essay}} template, instead of having to go through the steps in the AfD process and requiring other editors to weigh in, search for sources or hopelessly try to fix the article. Obviously, like any other speedy deletion criteria, an admin can decline speedy and suggest AfD – this would only apply to articles that are clearly essays. МандичкаYO 😜 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • needs an "in mainspace" qualifier, or moved to an "A" rather than a "G", because essays ON Wikipedia should not be treated the same as essays IN Wikipedia... Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, thanks. МандичкаYO 😜 02:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No Not only bringing up this bad idea, but as an RFC? Seriously, this is no good. Everyone will have a different opinion, and even a pure essay often has valuable material that can be worked in elsewhere. Speedy deletion is only for the obvious cases, and essays rarely fall in that category. You would need to figure something out that identifies what, exactly, makes particular essays no good without deleting good ones, and this proposal is far far from this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It was discussed here a few months ago, and we only got a few people participating. I asked the editor who started that discussion about RfC to get more feedback and editor supported idea. Thus the purpose of the RfCs, and I fail to see why it's a "bad idea." Yes, pure essays do regularly fall in the category of OBVIOUS cases as I stated above. МандичкаYO 😜 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No essays often have the elements or information for an article. Really they do need time to sort out and will often be rescuable, and or controversial. So a debate is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: OK, can you tell me what encyclopedic content would be available for the example article, "The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity"? Unfortunately you cannot see the article because it was deleted within a day or so as SNOW (but only after someone had to waste time creating an AfD for it, my point here), but it was a persuasive article intended to advise young adults about what they should do with their health and how they could and should take advantage of ObamaCare to do that. This kind of article is more harmful to Wikipedia than pure promotion, in my opinion. If I recall correctly I tagged it as Speedy for unambiguous advertising (it seemed to be written by someone in PR for the ACA) but it was declined because it was not unambiguous advertising. These are the cases I am talking about, and why people get sick of this: AfD should be for actual discussion in cases where discussion is needed. For some of these essays, there is no discussion needed. МандичкаYO 😜 15:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think he could see it as he's an admin... Peridon (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Having a look at that page suggests to me that it is not suitable for speedy delete. The content would have to be completely read and compared to the affordable care act page to see if there was anything worth merging or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it is at least plausible that an "essay" could be converted to a proper article, which means this isn't the kind of bright-line uncontroversial situation needed for a speedy deletion criterion. Moreover, the nominator says "Essays regularly appear at AfD". Just how regularly? I'd like some numbers. I'd also like links to some examples, as I don't recall noticing any -- but I'm not as often on AfD as I used to be. In particualr if anyone knows of a page nominted at AfD as an essay that would up being kept, i'd like to know of it. DES (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I have now looked at the example The Affordable Care Act and Young Adult Obesity and its AfC debate, linked above. I quite agree that this wasn't appropriate for mainspace as it stood. But it was actually fairly well sourced, and it could have been turned into a spin-out from the current Affordable Care Act article, or some of its information might well have been merged there, with due attention to WP:NPOV and avoidance of WP:UNDUE. None of the participants in the AfD choose to do that, but one might well have. I don't think that speedy deleting things like this is a good idea. (I will provide the text in draft or user space temporarily if anyone who does not have admin rights wants to read it for purposes of this discussion. Ask at my user talk page and mention this RFC, please.) DES (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
      • If I recall correctly, it was all linked to primary sources, or third-party sources that discussed the ACA in general but lacked third-party sources about "obesity in young adults and the ACA". The Affordable Care Act is about providing insurance to those who can't afford it, including young adults - I'm not aware of anything specific to obesity and young people in the ACA, other than it would fall under preventative medicine. So I don't see how it would even be worthy of a merge; additionally, it was advocating the advantages of the ACA, yet it did not qualify as advertising. (PS: I really was appalled at this article but this is not political, personally I support the ACA, but not on WP. Here I support WP:NOTESSAY.) МандичкаYO 😜 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In my experience, essaylike articles are sometimes not that hard to turn into something keepable at AfD.Brustopher (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A perennial nonstarter. This parallels G11, and my impression has been that more than half the G11 nominations I've seen are well-taken -- either the articles are copyvios, or aren't irreparably promotional. I'd expect the signal-to-noise ratio under this proposal would be even worse. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, do you mean that more than half of G11 tags you see are on pages that should be deleted, or on pages that should not be deleted? In any case, if even close to half of all G11 tags are placed in error, we have an even bigger problem with taggers than i had thought. DES (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I would say that over half of G11 tags are in error. The text may be slightly promotional, but with a small amount of editing an acceptable page could be recovered. G11 has a fair amount of opinion involved too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope. Fails the rules for new CSD, specifically "uncontestable" but probably "frequent" as well. That, and we're talking about deleting a page ecause of how it is written. that's fine for spam, attack pages or copyvios, but that's about it. This is a problem that requires editing, not deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Essay-like" is too much of a judgement call. VQuakr (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
I seem to recall there is some glitch (or deliberate software feature?) that will not let you ping more than 7 users with one edit, or something like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It won't happen Nice idea, but like so many, there are drawbacks. How do you separate the unsalvageable Original Research that I think is the real target here from the scientific or philosophical article that has been written in an academic style rather than an encyclopaedic style? In terms of a criterion that is understandable by a wide range of abilities at patrol level, I mean. I wouldn't like to draw it up. PROD allows the rescuers a week to sift out the wheat from the chaff, and we're not exactly overwhelmed with essays so far as I can see. BTW I do frequent this page, so I'm not sure how I got into that list. I must have not commented on anything for a few days... Peridon (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8#Jim Vejvoda[edit]

The speedy deleted article Jim Vejvoda says:

Jim Vejvoda is a film critic for the entertainment website IGN, and is also the Executive Editor of its Movies channel. ...

Does being a film critic at IGN pass the {{db-a7}} bar? Does being the executive editor of IGN's movies channel pass the {{db-a7}} bar? I'm unsure. There is a discussion about the speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8#Jim Vejvoda. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Was R2 ever discussed for redirects to the "Draft:" namespace?[edit]

I know that the "Draft:" namespace has been around for a little whole now, but I was wondering: was there ever any discussion to allow redirects from the article space to the draft namespace be deleted per criterion R2? I was just wondering since it doesn't seem as though any major updates have been made to the criterion since the draft namespace was introduced, so I'm not sure if there was ever a discussion to establish consensus on this. I mean, the most applicable case of this would be when a page is moved out of the article space and into the draft namespace, and then the leftover redirect is then nominated for R2. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall any formal discussion of this, but I see no reason to make an exception here. If a page is moved to draft space, that is (or should be) because it is not yet ready for the main article space. One of the significant aspects of draft space is that the site robots.txt file is set to request that draft not be indexed by search engines, and i understand that all major ones comply. Therefore, a redirect that is searchable defeats at least part of the point of a move to draft. Beyond that, all the usually reasons not to have cross-namespace redirects seem to me to apply in this case. I can tell you that whenever I move a page from article space to draft, I suppress the redir, or promptly delete the redir if I forget to prevent its creation. (Normally I would notify the creator and any significant contributors on their talk pages, so they know where the draft is to be found, and need not search logs, which new editors may not find obvious.) I can also tell you that I have routinely deleted such redirs as G6 housekeeping. If the community wants to make a clear consensus on this one way or the other, i will of course comply. DES (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've frequently used R2 to delete them (and also G6). I agree with DESiegel about the rationale. I think it was assumed in the discussions of Draft space that this would be the case. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Moving an article which isn't ready yet to the draft namespace isn't significantly different from moving a article which isn't ready yet to the user namespace, which is a longstanding case where R2 is used. Hut 8.5 06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
CSD:R2 reads (on face value) to apply to Redirects from mainspace to Draftspace. Having draftspace doesn't change the reading of the CSD because draftspace isn't specifically called out as one of the exceptions. Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't mean that this detail wasn't overlooked after the "Draft:" namespace was created, but then deletions were approved by default due to its current wording, leaving some to think that this precedent was made "official" somewhere. (Either way, it looks as though there is support to keep the current practice in place, per above.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Permission for copyright[edit]

http://www.bartolomejstankovic.com/eng/permission-for-copyright/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faris Garib (talkcontribs) 18:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place to post such a permission, Faris Garib, but it doesn't matter, because that permission is of no use on Wikipedia. The permission must be granted not just to you, but to everyone in the world, and must include use on any site or in any manner, not just on Wikipedia. It must include permission to create modified copies and derivative works for any purpose, including commercial purposes, with no restrictions except for proper attribution. The grant must be irrevocable. In short it must be CC-BY, or something quite similar in effect. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details. DES (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Self-published books[edit]

I think adding a criterion for self-published books with no credible claim of significance would be a good idea as a fair number of such articles are created that clearly do not meet WP:NBOOK, but can't be speedied under current guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to oppose this, pending further debate. Given current trends in publishing, self-publishing no longer implies vanity publishing automatically, as it once did. I tend to think that articles about creative works are too prone to false positives to make good speedy deletion criteria. I would be interested in seeing some numbers: how many such articles are in fact being nominated at AfD, and how many of them are deleted? A7 and A9, that use the "claim of significance" concept, are some of the most debated and frequently mis-used of the current criteria, IMO. I'm not sure that we should add another. If we were to add such a new criterion, i would suggest that it have the same conditional clause as A9, if the author has a current Wikipedia article, the criterion would not apply. I think we would also need a clearer definition of "self-published". DES (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
There are 22 entries in my PROD log (User:Everymorning/PROD log) that cite NBOOK in their rationales. Most of them seem to have been deleted. With respect to AFD, Kittens are Assholes was PRODed by me, deproded by the author (if I remember correctly), and then nominated for deletion by me at AFD. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this for the following reasons:
  • I think a lot of articles on self-published books may already be speedy-deletable under other criteria, i.e. advertising, obviously invented, etc
  • Everymorning's personal experience notwithsatnding, I don't think it is all that common
  • We already have too many criteria, I think any new ones should be very, very compelling, with lots of evidence that we should always delete them, and lots of evidence that it is a daily problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with the above comment with a minor quibble: if a book actually exists and has been published, even if only self-published, then WP:CSD#A11 does not apply. That is not the sort of thing that the "obviously invented" criterion was designed for. DES (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine cases where it could apply. Last week I deleted an article on an event some people made up. I have no doubt that the event actually existed, but it was just some event attentded by this person and their friends who were in on the joke it was named after. A book could be real, but could describe a load of nonsense made up by the author. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Such a book would pretty clearly be non-notable, but it wouldn't be an A11 speedy. I am even rather dubious about the event, based on your description. A11 was designed for things that pretty much exist only in the minds of the creator and a small group of associates. The canonical example is a drinking game. I suppose an "event" that is really just a private party might qualify, but I don't think "made up" includes writing a book of any sort (or composing a song, or any creative work). Still this is really only a side note on the proposal above, which we agree in opposing. DES (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Come to think of it, a number of actually notable books I would describe as "a load of nonsense made up by the author". The Tao of Physics comes to mind, as does Worlds in Collision and Dianetics. DES (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)