Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

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

Proposed new criterion[edit]

REJECTED:

Either already covered by existing CSD, or too vague for other uses. King of ♠ 03:41, 12 January 2017 (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.

I propose the addition of G14: Material added in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use. This would cover spam added by undisclosed paid editors. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Amendment: The following has been proposed instead and I think will have the support of those who supported the original:
G14: Articles created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use
Obviously paid material added to existing articles can simply be removed. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
2nd Amendment by SmartSE: Given the further discussion which I think makes valid points, and that this is what we're actually proposing:
A12: Articles created in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use that prohibit undisclosed paid editing
SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to reliably tell such articles? Not all promotion is paid for, after all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
In a word no, but blatant promotion can already be G11d. This could provide a means to tidy up after editors who have been classified as undisclosed paid editors through community consensus. At the moment, if we can pin down a paid editor as a sock, they can be G5d, but if we can't then they need AFDs, heavy trimming, or all too often, no action other than a tag. SmartSE (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
And with the current example anything after April 7 when the master account was blocked is a G5, and anything before that isn't, despite the fact that the editor was abusing multiple accounts all the time. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
JzG I am confused about what you are talking about above. There is no example and what does G5 have to do with your proposed new criterion? - GB fan 16:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Earflaps - accusations of being an undisclosed paid editor and a sock puppet. Earflaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an undisclosed paid editor and also a sock of MusicLover650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry on April 7, 2012 (note to self: that year means more are eligible for G5, good thing too). Technically, anything after the block can be nuked under G5, and anything before, can't. That's the position we're in with that editor. In other cases there may be no proof of sockpuppetry, of course, it's just that the current rule introduces an inconsistency whereby some articles can be speedily ejected and others can't. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I presume that MusicLover's contributions are the issue? Earflaps made their account two days after MusicLover's block, so all of his contributions would be G5 eligible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I was confused, had not seen that ANI thread. Two questions; How often does a case like this happen? How many articles are we talking about in this case that are not G5 eligible? - GB fan 17:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Difficult to be precise, but certainly regularly enough for it to be used. In this instance, it would be used to delete those articles created by the master rather than the sock, although since it was back in 2012, the ToU did not prohibit undisclosed paid editing. @Brianhe: my mind's gone blank - can you think of some cases where this would apply? i.e. obvious paid editing but nothing to link any account to an SPI? SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive#13_September_2016 is a recent example. SmartSE (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BiH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) comes to mind. Give me a little bit and I could come up with a dozen. - Brianhe (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Smartse: I've tried to provide several sorts of cases from recent COIN archives that could be of use for the discussion.

Here are several editors blocked for ToU violations or WP:PROMO, no known SPIs.

Other cases that might be instructive include

Hope this discussion is successful as the current tools are clearly (from anybody who peruses COIN) inadequate. You might also want to have a look at User:Brianhe/COIask/log, especially the last six entries. - Brianhe (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I added EBY3221 to the list above. She may be an ideal case study for this discussion. This was an editor who was tied to an off-wiki editing service, denied connection, has a very long list of articles created/expanded. Never associated with socking, as far as I know, other than a single edit from 73.22.138.172. Started editing May 2008, probably promo from day one. First COIN case opened by me 8 July 2015 includes article list. Indeffed 13 July 2015. Denied being paid or contract editor on 26 July [1]. Linked to SEO company cluster by Chess at ANI here on 15 August 2015. - Brianhe (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support we need some way to deal with TOS violating editors/companies/cabals. As it stands we have tools to deal, more or less, with the one account per article and the really blatant new account writes promo crap type violations but more sophisticated/measured strategies means some of UPEs' work will stick. Simply put anything created in violation of the TOU should be nuked without having to spend volunteer time beyond proving the violation. JbhTalk 23:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Since we're on this subject, the only current way we have that I know of to enforce the ToU change – the sweeping mandatory requirement for paid editing disclosure (that is casually ignored all day, every day) – is by using {{uw-paid1}} through {{uw-paid4}}, and no one is using it. So, since we have some interested eyes here, I apologize for attempting to hijack this thread on this related tangent, but it would be really good if more people became aware of this facility. And it's really closely related, now that I'm thinking about it. The uw-paid series is the method to try to winnow out the disclosure when you only suspect paid editing; this proposed G14 is going to be really hard to apply in a lot of cases, without first seeking and getting confirmation that the editing you only suspect is paid, is actually paid.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: The template is nice but without admin/SPI guts to back it up, it's worthless. Did you look at the log I posted where I have asked editors if they are paid? Please do so and note how many of them just walk away and (presumably) start using a new account. Compare to the percentage that are blocked (hint, it's low). By the way, one of the leaders at SPI just told another editor that "nobody has enough time to train new clerks" because they are overwhelmed [2]. It's a well known HR downhill spiral from that point forward, if you don't have time to train people to offload you. - Brianhe (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey Brian. From your response, I'm not sure you looked at this template series in depth. It is self-encapsulated. It does not require some secondary process. It asks a person directly, are you being paid, explains how broad paid editing is interpreted under the ToU, tells them how to disclose, and tells them not to edit until they respond. If they don't respond and keep editing, you place higher levels. If they don't respond or comply after the fourth, then you seek a block at AIiV. Yes, it's true that some will just lie (we are not going to "get" the next Orangeoody through it), but it functions to i) inform many of the "lower grade" paid editors – "my boss told me to do a write-up" – of the mandatory disclosure requirements (where we have no facility right now to inform people of them); ii) it allows us to ask the question without needing some large scale investigation first, so it can be used broadly; iii) many people, once they are informed, will either disclose, or stop editing, but will not lie; and iv) once we get a disclosure, then our behavioral scrutiny for COI editing can kick in. Again, this will not stop the higher level paid editors who are already aware and intent on avoiding scrutiny and operating in bad faith, but it will go a long way to address lower level paid editing—if people started actually using it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support excellent suggestion. Some teeth to the TOU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stated WP:CSD refers to the deletion of pages whereas the ToU refer to contributions (edits). Is it proposed that any page is speedy-deletable if the ToU are infringed by (1) all of its edits, (2) most of its edits, (3) the first edit to a page, (4) any edit? Will these situations be the "most obvious cases" because, if not, CSD isn't going to apply anyway. Sorry to be raising a problem because I strongly support enforcing "no undisclosed paid editing". Thincat (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point. @JzG: I presume you only meant page creations? So it should be G14: Articles created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use
Fair, I'm happy to change the proposed wording. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
If you're going to limit it to articles, it needs to have an "A" prefix, not a "G" prefix. How about simplifying it to "Creations in violation...", which would also apply to templates, redirects, categories, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Naive question: If a COI editor manages, in violation of our TOU, to make an article that is good enough to avoid G11, and improvable enough to avoid AfD, what...exactly is the harm to the project? Haven't we, at that point, managed to trick a company into paying to improve the encyclopedia? (...and likely taught a new user how to edit in the process?) TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The harm to the project is that the ToU have been broken. That seems to me to be a problem somewhat like editing by an abusive sockpuppet and so a similar remedy might apply. Thincat (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) In the case of UPEs my very strong opinion is that it is much better for the project to be able to nuke their articles once they are proven to violate the TOU rather than have to spend the time and resources to debate whether each is 'acceptable'. Few if any articles created by UPEs are anything more than SEO and their incremental benefit is negligible. Also, as long as UPEs think they have a chance of having their articles stick, even if they are later found out, they have incentive to not disclose. If they know it will be deleted with no debate (personally, I'd like to see the titles salted too but meh) then that incentive is gone. In addition it will tend to force UPEs who do not disclose to avoid creating multiple articles under the same account. JbhTalk 13:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Timothyjosephwood: Agreeing with everything jbh just said, I have an essay addressing your question: User:brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing. I think one of the subtle things that gets overlooked is that ToU violations pull volunteer resources in the direction of improving/maintaining the corporate creations vice things of broader encyclopedic content. So one pernicious effect among many is that it tends to worsen the various systemic biases that have been identified. It also discourages volunteers who find out they have been duped into cooperating with undisclosed promoters, and volunteer goodwill is irreplaceable. - Brianhe (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Brianhe (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I may assume that most paid editing is generally of...a certain quality...where it's painfully obvious even if it's not disclosed, especially on AfC, and so most editors who are helping are not, in fact, being duped at all. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes but not always. They can go for years before being picked up on COI radar like EBY3221 and Borntodeal (see above). Brianhe (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. The terms of use are extensive and their application would often be quite debatable. If material is unambiguous promotion, then we already have G11. If a topic does not seem of credible importance, we already have A7. If there's some issue of law then that's best dealt with by the foundation using G9. We don't need some vague new criterion based on a subjective interpretation of the terms, without proper discussion at a forum like AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • If the evidence is solid enough for a ToU blocking then it ought to be just as good for speedy. Making these tough subjective calls is why we have admins. The solution is involved in exercising good judgment, not in defensively disempowering the admins. - Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Andrew D. The current case involved one account that created more articles than OrangeMoody and edited an undetermined number extensively as well. They must have made tens of thousands. If it wasn't for them slipping up right at the start, we'd have no grounds to delete them per G5. It's inconsistent for them to get away with it so long as they don't sock. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Why wait for the office to get round to doing something we as a community could do perfectly well ourselves? That makes no sense. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Andrew D, who has basically said everything I wanted to. I got "paid" a pizza and beer for creating Bullets and Daffodils, when I am I getting blocked and chucked off for that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a facile argument - as already discussed, it would only apply in cases where users have already been blocked after community discussion for violating the ToU against UPE. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
But if an article can't be covered by the existing criteria (particularly A7 and G11), it must be a genuine topic for an encyclopedia and can be fixed by normal editing. Why are people so terrified of paid editing? Linux and Wine wouldn't have got where they are today on volunteer efforts alone, and required major corporate backing and funding. Honestly, I really do think people have got this taboo arse backward. Just because the encyclopedia content is free, doesn't mean writing it has to be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While is seems reasonable without context, the intended use of the rule is redundant to existing rules, plus as Thincat pointed out, is also inconsistent with the ToU because this process factors pages and not individual revisions. Anything that violates the ToU and has to be removed without falling under any current criteria can already be removed by order of the WMF. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
While it could maybe be done via office actions, are there any examples where they have done so? SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too vague because the terms of use are too broad. If a proposal with wording based on specific violations of the terms of use that are not adequately covered by other criteria is put forth, I'd be happy to reconsider.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy: Fair point, I've amended the proposal accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as Carrite does below, but deeming something paid editing isn't tangible in most cases, making discussion due (as opposed to speedy deletion). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Will add teeth to the TOU and help curb paid editing mills and abuses. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is impossible to identify paid editors given anti-outing rules, which prohibit connection of real life name and real life employer with an anonymous account. Sorry, but that's show biz. Therefore, this ill-considered proposal would give a green light to mass deletion to a small group of crazed administrators on their white stallions to automatically delete anything they don't like, anything they think might smack of paid editing, without additional discussion or recourse. Not to mention the unintended consequences: company A's employee joe-jobs company B's page and WHAM!!! a crazed administrator on a white horse blows it away. Same for political campaigns taking on their opponents. This opens the door to a wild west wiki world that only a handful of fanatics want any part of... Carrite (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Carrite: There are errors in what you just said. It is not impossible, we do identify and block UPEs all the time. Is it always definitive, as in provable in court? Maybe not. Again this is why we trust admins wih powerful tools: they are expected to use sound judgment. Also, the off-wiki connections can't be published on-wiki due to OUTING, but that doesn't mean the connections can't be made. Brianhe (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No it's not impossible to identify them at all (see ANI and the links Brianhe has linked to). This would be for use in cases where the infringement of the ToU is so clear that the user has been blocked, but where other CSD criteria do not apply. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many potential TOU violations would require analysis and discussion, making speedy deletion inappropriate. Carrite's analysis is quite on target. The proposal also opens the door to deletion of improperly created articles which have since been improved by independent users. By the time this proposal is whittled down to the undebateable cases that speedy deletion should be reserved for, there will be next to nothing it would apply to. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Spam is spam, and successfully exploiting the goodwill of volunteers to improve your spam doesn't make it any less of a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times. We already have CSD G4 and salting to deal with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is too tricky to determine for it to be speedy delete. More useful would be to change the rules to permit outing of paid editors who have not practiced self disclosure. Deletion of contributions and pages could be the result of an investigation that finds undisclosed paid editing, but should not be a standalone speedy delete criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Right idea, wrong execution. Should be a criteria for deletion, not speedy deletion. Outright spam can be deleted as spam. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 00:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, or actually a question. Is the act of blocking an editor for violating the TOU not ipso facto also a determination that the user's contributions are in fact spam, and thus deletable under G11? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    • If an undisclosed paid editor gets their target article to FA status, they would still be violating the TOU. Good luck arguing that a FA is G11 deletable. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it's not eligible under G11 or A7, it's likely too complicated for a CSD criterion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)\
  • Oppose largely per the concerns of other editors that the proposal is too broad. Should there be a significant issue in a particular case, and there is consensus that all articles should be deleted, then a temporary criterion can be established. Appable (talk | contributions) 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose all witch hunts, regardless of whether or not they weigh more than a duck. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a CSD but I would strongly support as a criterion for deletion at AfD. I very strongly support deletion in such cases, but the difficulty is that it usually needs discussion. The ANI/I case that led to this required substantial discussion until it became obvious what the situation was. (And there is one additional factor even for AfD--we have so far been encouraging undeclared paid editors to come clean and declare retrospectively their earlier work. I consider this an essential practice in encouraging legitimate editing--legitimate in this case meaning editing with a paid COI declared as such, so people can take it into account in judging the article. I want to very highly commend Guy fro bringing this here--I've been looking for a suitable occasion to propose something--now is the time, but this is not quite the right place. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Adding an item about articles or pages created in violation of the terms of use to DEL-REASON to have such an item added to the deletion policy rather than the speedy deletion policy, as some people were suggesting this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The way it is written an article created by someone in violation of the terms of use that is edited by multiple editors and is now listed as a featured article would be eligible for deletion. A much more restricted version that only allows deletion of pages where all significant contributors are in violation of the terms of use, similar to G5 might be workable. - GB fan 11:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it's far too broad and complex for something as simple as a CSD criterion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It might work as an equivalent of G5 as suggested by GB fan Many cases of this would already be handled under G5 since the master editor would presumably be banned for promotionalism after the AfD. The difference would be that G5 is not applied retrospectively, and this would be. But this would be better discussed after we do the AfD criterion. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted by multiple editors, too complex to be dealt with by CSD, which needs to be straightforward for the deciding admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not seeing how this is overly complex at all. If an editor is determined to be a UPE and blocked for violating the TOU then all the articles created by them and not significantly modified by others (ie like G5) are eligible for deletion. All this does is effectivly make G5 reach back to the start of their editing. JbhTalk 14:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Paid editing is a severe issue and needs to be stopped. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 10:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment We have accounts such as User:FoCuSandLeArN who are good enough not get caught by CU. We have good evidence form their clients regarding who they are and that they are involved in undisclosed paid editing. They need to keep their articles alive for a year to get full payment. Thus if we really want to deal with this issue we need to delete all their articles, especially those from the last year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it's in violation of a ban, G5 applies. If it's straight-up advertising, we have G11. If the subject is completely insignificant, A7 can handle it. All other cases can be decided when investigating the user in question, including a mass-rollback of their edits. The ToU forbid undisclosed paid editing. They do not stipulate what we should do with content created by such editing. This is the decision of the project and we have tried several times to implement policies and guidelines handling paid editing. Afaik, there is no policy or guideline in place that forces us to delete contributions made in violation of the ToU without discussing the merit of the contributions themselves, is there? So this discussion should be placed at another venue entirely since it affects the whole project, not just this policy. IMHO, if someone is paid to write a neutrally worded and well-sourced article about a notable subject, we should be happy to have it. Regards SoWhy 11:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Spur Corporation was created by an editor recently banned for undisclosed paid editing (expanded from redirect [3]). The fact that the ban was enacted is proof by existence that "impossible to identify paid editors" is untrue. Also demonstration that such things aren't always immediately G11-able: whereas the original spammy prose was nuked by turning into a redirect, the new version has existed for 90 days or so without challenge. Presumably they hired somebody competent to do their advertising after the first attempt failed. There's vanishingly little constructive editing by anyone else on the article at this point. I've proposed it for G5 speedy but I fully expect that nomination to be shot down because it was created by the editor before he was banned. This is exactly what we need a new criterion for. Are we supposed to go through the AfD dance for every single instance like this one? - Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, partly solution looking for a problem and partly not obvious and clear. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2017 (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.

A12 - Articles with No Text[edit]

I would like to suggest that we need a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, for articles with no text. These are articles that consist of either a properly formed infobox or a malformed infobox. These are at least sometimes the work of clever spammers who know that they have posted something that isn't subject to A1, because there is just barely enough context to avoid A1, isn't subject to A3, and isn't subject to A7, either because it is a product rather than a person, or because the infobox makes what some administrators will consider a credible claim of significance. The encyclopedia definitely doesn't need articles with no text. These stupid no-text articles get indexed by Google during the seven days while the PROD is running. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:A1, WP:A3 and WP:A7 are sufficient to cover most incidences, and if someone (clever spammer or otherwise) provides enough content (infobox or otherwise) to avoid those then they deserve consideration beyond CSD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Under the new regime, a newly created article shouldn't be indexed by Google unless they get through new page patrol. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:A3 doesn't apply to an infobox-only article, because the infobox is content. WP:A1 doesn't apply if it is clear what the subject is. My concern had to do in particular with infobox-only drafts for commercial products. As it is, I PROD them. The only drawback is that the spammer may remove the PROD, and we have to go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Foreign Language Articles[edit]

Is there a historical reason why there is no speedy deletion criterion for articles in foreign languages? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is WP:A2 for foreign language articles already extant on other Wikipedias. For foreign language articles that do not have equivalents on other projects, there is "An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{Not English}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English" as per WP:CSD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If an article is listed at PNT, the author is given two weeks to get things sorted, and then a week's prod. Articles in Foreign are still subject to any speedy criteria that apply, such as A7, G11, and often G12. Quite a few go that way (but sometimes the deleting admin forgets to remove the entry at PNT...). Peridon (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that the current rule is to list the foreign language article at PNT, and that an article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. My question is why an article cannot be speedily deleted because it is not written in English. Alternatively, would it be appropriate to move an article that is not in English into draft space? (Sometimes I have tagged articles that are not in English with A7, although that involves my having to guess that the non-English isn't establishing a credible claim of significance. Is it reasonable to move non-English articles into draft space? And what is the historical reason why non-English is not a basis for speedy deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't actually know, but I suspect it's because a foreign language article can often be translated easily and give us new content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't here for the history of it, but I imagine it's because some of these article would be valuable additions if translated and, at least for some languages, there are enough people here willing and able to translate them (I enjoy doing it from time to time for worthy articles) that it's worthwhile to give them a chance. No harm is done by their short-term presence.
I understand your point about moving these articles to Draft space. But WP:PNT doesn't handle articles in Draft space. I suppose the process could be changed so that Draft space is where WP:PNT wants articles to be placed during the grace period. If we do that, though, then there's less chance someone will see them and notice that there's grounds to delete them speedily in the case of articles that really should be deleted (because they infringe copyright, carry negative BLP content, etc.) Also, even while in another language, they can be tagged appropriately with maintenance tags while in the main space, which I think is beneficial, whereas that wouldn't happen in Draft space. Largoplazo (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

G10 applies only to people?[edit]

I've just been told that a page whose only content was "This is a pants film" is not a G10 because the article was about a film, and therefore cannot be attacked. Also, although Wikipedia:Attack page, WP:G10, and {{Db-g10}} use the term "subject", the rest of the wording assumes that the subject is a person or people, and that the courtesy blanking the G10 tag does is intended only for people. Add that to the fact that G10 (originally A6) was enacted at the same time as (perhaps in response to) a serious BLP incident. I was told that all this means that strictly speaking, G10 only applies to pages about people, and not any other subject. Is this true? Does this mean that G10ing a page about some other subject is actually WP:IARing, and that we shouldn't tag such pages as G10? I always thought that G10 applies to any subject, but apparently the spirit never included other subjects (meaning G10 was only ever intended for people), and it's only the "subject" part of the letter that implies other subjects are covered by this criterion? Adam9007 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

G10 also applies to businesses and organizations, although its promary focus is on persons. It's not well suited for creative works. The pages you describe sound like they could be handled as vandalism or as no context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the assessment of the admin who left that on your talk page. G10 applies to all articles which disparage the subject or some other entity. It doesn't specify what that subject is and the fact that BLPs are common use cases doesn't mean it only applies to articles about people. The articles in question read "This is a pants film" and "Why would you wanna watch a piece of poo like this", both of which only exist to disparage the subject, so G10 does apply. G3 (vandalism) does also apply, and it's a better description of the problem with the pages, but I think you were right to tag it. Hut 8.5 19:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. G10 is broader than just biography articles. That said, attack articles about people are the most likely to cause damage, and so are the ones that most urgently need to be deleted.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the assessment that G10 covers creative works and I think @Writ Keeper:'s interpretation of G10 is correct. G10 is meant for pages where there is a real person that can be attacked, either directly (BLP) or indirectly (as part of a certain group). Calling a work of art names is (misguided) criticism of the work of art, not necessarily of those who made it. If it's the whole purpose of the page, G3 might reasonably be applied instead. As Adam writes, G10 was created in response to BLP articles, not creative works. It shouldn't be expanded beyond that. To put it another way: Calling a person garbage allows them to sue you. Calling a movie garbage is just criticism. Regards SoWhy 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
well, I'm glad I'm not totally crazy Writ Keeper  20:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Judging by my experience of G10 nominations and re-reading the wording of WP:G10, I would say it is clearly BLP based, and therefore intended to target pages that could be seen as attacking identifiable people - individuals, groups, whatever, but still people. I think interpreting it to cover negative opinions of artworks or other creative works is not justifiable, and I would certainly usually reject G10 nominations that do not clearly attack identifiable people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, thinking again, if an article is only an attack on a creative work, I can accept there is probably enough flexibility to cover it - but it would have to be an unambiguous attack-only article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that some creative works receive overwhelmingly negative reviews, and the reception of a crative work should be an essential part of its article. Assuming the content isn't vandalism, the speedy nom must be reviewed to see if the commentary is accurately presented -- and, in most cases, if it isn;t reflective of the overall reception, the response should be to add more commentary, not to delete. And the review required should take it out of speedy territory. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The way G10 is written is wider than BLPs or even people in general. If a page is created for the sole purpose of attacking a film, it can be deleted as G10 since the page does nothing more than attack its subject. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Although the focus of G10 is people, the "other entities" will include other things like organisations or creative works. So its use is acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Thanks. I deliberately waited before replying to see what sort of responses I get. So, basically, attacks on creative works can go under G10 or G3? Adam9007 (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A page speedily deleted is recreated[edit]

FIPP, which was deleted per G11, and then recreated, and then deleted per G12 (see log), was recreated. Is it necessary to add to the talk page that the article was speedily deleted? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean like using {{old afd}} or {{multidel}} for previous AFDs? Not really. Most, if not all, speedy deletion criteria are not about the subject but about the current shape of the page and thus there is no need to inform people about deletions that were based on previous iterations of the page. So if G11 no longer applies and it's no longer copyvio, there is no reason to mention those deletions anymore. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: A7 and tourist attractions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal to add tourist attractions to A7 is not needed, suggestion withdrawn Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As most editors think tourist attractions are organisations (They are not as far as I can tell. They are places; I checked the categories), unless there's something I'm missing (I didn't see anything in Category:Organizations that could have anything to do with tourist attractions), I'm proposing an extension of A7 to explicitly cover tourist attractions and similar places. This will certainly make life easier for everyone, especially editors like myself who go by the categories in determining what a subject is. If I am missing something, then I think an addition to the wording of the templates is necessary to make it clearer. Adam9007 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I withdraw this per WP:SNOW. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Even Stonehenge, despite its 5000 year history, has been turned into a business and there's no way of getting a good view without paying English Heritage. If somebody's charging an entry fee it's a business (organisation). Could you give some examples where there's confusion? Cabayi (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Correction: an organisation owns the attraction and charges for entry into it. That does not make the attraction itself an organisation. If you look at Category:Tourist attractions you'll see they are classed under places, not organisations. Adam9007 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not sure when WP:NPLACE was last checked for accuracy but if it's correct that attractions usually survive AfD, then tagging them A7 would be a mistake most of the time anyway. Per WP:GEOFEAT most attractions might be notable and if not, in 99 of 100 cases, there is another article (about the city/town/etc. they are in) which can serve as a target for redirecting/merging, so deletion would violate WP:ATD anyway. So IMHO there is no need for an amendment: The attraction itself will most likely be at least significant / important enough to survive A7's low bar and the company that runs it can be deleted as A7 anyway. Do you have any specific examples in mind where you felt A7 would be appropriate? Regards SoWhy 18:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The issue here is not whether there is a WP:CCS, but whether tourist attractions are within A7's scope. By what you said, they are not explicitly outside scope, but inherently have a WP:CCS, and I'm not sure if that actually answers the question... Adam9007 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose extending A7 to explicitly cover tourist attractions and similar places. Being an established "tourist attraction" infers enough notability to minimally qualify as a credible claim of significance and we certainly know of many such places that are notable without question. Such articles should continue being examined on a case by case basis with AFD being the recourse for articles that should be deleted.--John Cline (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It would appear that the community disagrees with you. If tourist attractions are organisations, they will be A7ed in the absence of a WP:CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      The RFC asks if CSD:A7 should be "extended to explicitly cover tourist attractions and similar places". I oppose such an extension and it seems this opposition is in keeping with the emerging consensus. I make no assertions whatsoever regarding organizations, nor the effect A7 has on claims about them, (it would initially seem out of scope).--John Cline (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding pointless bloat; everyone except you already understands what the concept of "business" is. For the benefit of confused observers, this is a tantrum being thrown in response to this thread regarding the deletion of a substub on a water park. (It read—in full—Pars Aqua Village is a privately owned indoor water park located in Tehran, the capital of Iran. It is housed in a 150,000-square-foot hangar. Pars Aqua Village includes water slides, water coasters, wave pools, a winding river, a restaurant shaped like a wooden sailboat, and several concession stands. The complex is decorated with artificial palm trees.) You shouldn't be paying the slightest attention to what an article is categorized as when determining notability, as categories are the decision of whoever happened to categorize them and are themselves original research in Wikipedia terms (although if you really care, the particular category line for the article in question was Service industriesEntertainmentEntertainment venuesAmusement parksWater parks). ‑ Iridescent 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • For the same article, line I'm getting is Category:Places - Category:Tourist attractions - Category:Amusement parks - Category:Water parks. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Which is why we dont rely on categories to determine eligibility for anything. As it is also ultimately in Category:Soft matter Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Then the categories have no real meaning do they? There's no way of determining what goes under where. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Yes they do. Categories have a meaning that is unrelated to speedy deletion criteria, and they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Something can be both an organisation and not? How does that work? Surely something is either an organisation or is not? If I want to see if something counts as an organisation, the logical thing to do would be to check the categories. And if I cannot find it under organisations, the logical conclusion would be that it is not, no? Adam9007 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
          • The only meaning they have is 'someone at some point has tagged this article with a category they feel is relevant and would help someone navigate to similar articles'. They have no bearing on defining the topic. Nor do parent categories which may be unrelated except via tenuous links. Some are even closed circular loops. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
            • I'm confused now. What's the purpose of categories if they don't categorise topics? Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
              • What's confusing about "Wikipedia categories are not related to Speedy deletion criteria"? This page is for discussing speedy deletion criteria. If you want to discuss Wikipedia's category system, you should take it elsewhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                • I see. Something can be a place under the category definition, but an organisation under the A7 definition? Adam9007 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                  • Yes. And a thing can be simultaneously under two or more non-exclusive categories under any categorization system you care to imagine. In this specific case, things can be validly considered to be under both places and businesses categories. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                    • But therein lies the problem: A7 does not go into details about what is and is not an organisation for its purposes. Thus, one can only assume that "organisations" cover what is defined as such by the central categorisation system. Thus, I still think clarification is needed if A7 goes by a separate categorisation system, especially if things fit in multiple categories under the "central" one. Adam9007 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                      • No, there is no formal categorization system for CSD criteria, neither in existence nor needed. (For one thing, most articles deleted under CSD criteria are new and often haven't been categorised yet.) For CSD purposes, you read the article and use your own judgment, and if you personally think it is valid to consider the subject an organization (or anything else covered by A7) and that there is not a sufficient claim to importance, then you can tag it as A7. If a reviewing admin agrees with your judgment, they will delete it. Alternatively, if another editor (not necessarily an admin, as long as it is not the article's creator) disagrees with your judgment, they can remove the tag. And that's really all there is to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                        • "Alternatively, if another editor (not necessarily an admin, as long as it is not the article's creator) disagrees with your judgment, they can remove the tag" - except that when I do that, all hell breaks loose. Adam9007 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                          • If that happens, you need to consider whether your own judgment is faulty. If you remove A7 tags from articles whose subjects can obviously be considered organizations and claim that they can not, you should expect to encounter problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                            • But can they obviously be considered organisations if the central categorisation system does not consider them as such? That's the crux isn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                              • I'm sorry, but I'm not going round this circle again. It's been explained very clearly to you, and if you still can not understand it then there's nothing more I can say that will help. If you do not possess sufficient judgment to understand and apply the CSD criteria, I recommend you simply avoid working in that area. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
                                • It's just that if I have to think about whether something is obvious or not, the answer is almost certainly no. But that's just my judgement. Others' may differ. Adam9007 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Then don't think about it. The bottom line here is that we are not going to rework the CSD rules just because you personally have trouble with them (where many thousands of editors don't have the same problem). If you find CSD so hard to understand, then you are probably not suited to it, so go do something else instead. And that really is the last I can offer on this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose (EC) There isnt any issue. A tourist attraction is not necessarily a business (a purely geographical one for example) but a business like a swimming pool or fun park is clearly not exempt from A7 regardless of it also being a tourist attraction. The category argument is irrelevant. A7 is based on the content not the category the article is tagged with. Adding 'tourist attractions' would clearly open up the geographic-based attractions for being speedied, which is clearly outside the intent of A7. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)But those sorts of articles are being speedied under A7 as organisations. That's my whole point. Adam9007 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If someone speedied as A7 an article consisting of 'Foo Rock Pile - the largest naturally occurring collection of Foo Rocks - attracts 15000 visitors a year' I would expect them to be trouted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If you see an article about a tourist attraction being deleted under A7 when you don't think it fits the category, take it to the deleting admin's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I did, and apparently I'm throwing a wobbler. This is a legitimate question/proposal. And, frankly, I'm tired of being treated like this (see the numerous threads on my talk page). No wonder I'm considering jumping ship :(. Adam9007 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes its not other people that are the problem. Look if multiple people (and after taking a look at your talkpage history thats an understatement) have taken issue with your treatment of contesting speedy deletions, perhaps you should listen to them. That some of them are correct is largely going to be forgotton. Its a fact of life people do not remember when you do something right. They only care when you do something wrong. Take a break from that sort of work for awhile and do something else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I was actually planning on getting this article up to scratch today, but I no longer have time for that, so it'll have to wait until the weekend. I suppose I could have just ignored this whole thing, but for some reason (probably my Asperger's) I have a desire to have things clarified and find out who's right and who's wrong. Even if this doesn't go through, it's something for my essay on the subject, so at least something good has come of it. Adam9007 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The specific one you're complaining about *is* a business, as has been explained to you. Now stop this disruptive whining(No, I'll withdraw that, and try to control my frustration over such timewasting). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no confusion between businesses and tourist attractions. The latter, tourist attractions, is way too nebulous to use as an A7 category, as it includes so many different types of things, many of which are utterly unrelated to businesses. And I don't see any need for such bloat anyway - we really do not seem to be snowed under with articles about tourist attractions that need any sort of accelerated deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary, mostly per Only in death does duty end. True, there are tourist attractions that are not organizations (Mt. Rushmore, Stonehenge, Angkor Wat, Taj Mahal), but being a tourist attraction does not exclude something from also being an organization. - MrX 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Elements of this RFC seem entirely pointed; it should be speedily closed. More appropriately, Adam9007 ought to retract the request before such a close is enacted; for the many things dropping this stick may signify.--John Cline (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Categorizing Deletion Criteria[edit]

One thing that has bothered me in the past about this page is that there is no way to distinguish different aliases for the same template with different templates corresponding to the same criterion. Since all the templates are currently in bullets, I propose putting materially different templates in separate bullets (under the same header). Rabbitflyer (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd try to mock something up to see how it looks. This doesn't seem like a substantive change, so be bold and try it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I tried it, and am also adding sub-explanations to special tags. Rabbitflyer (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the new layout is an improvement. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)