Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

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

Speedy deletion criteria for books[edit]

I know that there has been talk about creating a speedy deletion criteria for books, but there's never really been any true consensus on this. I think I might have come up with something that could potentially be doable. My thought is that this would fall under WP:A9 for the most part, as that one of the main things I drew from, but it could potentially be a new criteria on its own.

The basic gist of this criteria is that it would only apply to books that are published through vanity or self-publishing outlets like AuthorHouse, Smashwords, and CreateSpace, where the books do not make a credible assertion of notability and the author/contributor(s) do not have an article. This would allow us to quickly get rid of the obviously non-notable stuff like some random self-published book by a non-notable author without having to go through a full AfD. There are too many articles that have to go through a full AfD, despite being so obviously non-notable that there's not even a question that they'll be deleted. This criteria would also apply to fanfiction posted to places like FanFiction.net, so that we don't have to have to bring something like this to AfD because fanfiction doesn't always cleanly fit into web content. I've included podcast novels in this since that's sort of akin to self-publishing, but I'm fine with that portion being removed since it's a bit of a grey area publication-wise.

The criteria would not cover any book that is published through a large, indie, academic, or small press. It would also not cover the deletion of any book where the author has an article, nor where any credible assertion of notability is made. This assertion would be considered to be things such as coverage in a RS (a trivial mention would suffice as long as the source is a RS), assertion of bestselling status, the book being adapted into a film/TV show/game, or a major award - the typical type of stuff that admins consider when judging A7 deletions. I am thinking about making the age of the book part of this criteria - if the book was published prior to 2000, it would not qualify under this criteria. People could self or vanity publish prior to this point of time, of course, but it was harder to do so and slightly more rare than it is nowadays. That would keep us from instantly deleting a book from say, the early 1900s or earlier, as there's the possibility that the book could be notable. I chose 2000 based on the date in the self-publishing article that stated that the 2000s were kind of a turning point as far as self-publishing goes. We could probably go later if anyone wanted, but I think that 2000 is a decent option that would cover the majority of self-published and vanity works without being too inclusive or exclusive.

Here's my mockup of the basic guideline, but feel free to suggest tweaks and alterations.

No indication of importance (books).
This criteria applies to any book that is either self-published or a vanity printing after 2000 and does not give any indication where the work is important or significant and where the author or contributors' article does not exist (all criteria must be true). Fanfiction and podcast novels would qualify under this criteria if there is no assertion of notability and the author does not have an article. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
With new changes suggested by Graeme and Kevin (Updated again - and again, removing the podcast novel mention since that's a little loose and would likely fall under A7 criteria.)
This criterion applies to any book that is published to the self-publishers or vanity publishers CreateSpace, AuthorHouse, Smashwords, Lulu, Leadstart Publishing, or the publisher is the same name as the author after the year 2000 and does not give any indication where the work is important or significant and where the author or contributors' article does not exist (all criterion must be true). Fanfiction would qualify under this criterion if there is no assertion of significance and the author does not have an article. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

My basic thought is that this is kind of overdue, given that anyone and their mother can put out a work through a vanity or self publisher nowadays. Again, this wouldn't cover anything put out through regular publishing arms or anything with even a remotely viable claim of assertion.

I'm going to ping the following editors, who were active during the bestseller as notability conversation at WP:NBOOK, are still reasonably active, and are editors that I'm fairly familiar with. @AngusWOOF, DGG, Coolabahapple, James500, Piotrus, and Dream Focus: I figure that you all run the gamut on how you approach articles, so we'd get a nice variety of input from all of you. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I know that this might be a long shot to get this approved, but I figure that it'd be worth opening it up for discussion again. Also pinging I JethroBT to weigh in here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like this was brought up a little bit ago, but my proposal is a bit more specific than the prior proposal and likely more so than any of the others that were previously brought up. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Also to reference the last proposal by Largoplazo, the book discovered by Frimley (brought up by Peridon) would not presumably fall under this criteria because while the book itself was found and presumably published for the first time post 2015, the original work itself would obviously predate 2000 and the idea of an old manuscript being discovered in this manner would be something that would have a valid assertion of notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My basic thing with this is that we've had a sharp increase in people trying to add self-published and vanity works to Wikipedia in the last few years and it's inevitable that we'll have at least 3-4 of them a week at AfD, possibly more. Sometimes we're able to slightly justify speedying them under criteria that doesn't really fit (like obvious promotion), but by large we have to take them to other outlets and the number of these is only increasing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
For this to get up, there must be a very well defined way to tell if a publisher is a vanity publisher or not. Otherwise there will be too much room for argument. If we can stick with publisher = " AuthorHouse, Smashwords, or CreateSpace" or the publisher name = author name, then this could get my support. Otherwise you could have a list somewhere of vanity publishers. But Category:Vanity publishers is empty. There is however Vanity_press#Examples and Category:Self-publishing companies to get a handle on something definite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: Quick question-- what differentiates a vanity publisher from a self-publishing company, and how do we identify vanity publishers? I'm pretty new to that term, so I'm just seeking some clarification. For now, I think I'm more or less in agreement with Graeme Bartlett; I think because the criteria depends on editors knowing what publishers are self-publishing or not, we probably should build a Category or a Wikipedia: namespace page enumerating the usual suspects. I think it is also OK to note on that page or category that "this is not an exhaustive list", but care needs to be taken about what publishers are added. The language of the mockup seems pretty good to me, but I'll come back to this next week to provide any suggestions I might have on phrasing tweaks. (Sorry, busy week at the WMF for me...) I JethroBT drop me a line 08:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There's not a huge amount of difference, but the main one is that authors pay up front for vanity publishing whereas they do not for self-publishing. The reason for this is that vanity publishers require the authors to name a specific amount of books they want printed up front and the author pays for these books. They're also typically expected to sell the books themselves after this point in time. With self-publishing they aren't asked to specify print amounts, as the publisher will print the book after a customer requests the work in question. Self-publishing companies also tend to offer store fronts (like Amazon with CreateSpace or Smashwords with their website) to sell the works. Many vanity publishers don't really offer this, at least not to the extent that you see with self-publishing. This is pretty much why most authors have eschewed vanity publishers as a whole. They're on the decline, but still exist enough to warrant mentioning here. You typically see them in other countries - I know that there are quite a few in other countries, like Leadstart Publishing. There's a better description of the differences here from the SFWA. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with limiting this to specific publishers for the time being - that's probably a good limiter to add as well. I'll add this to the criteria. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't forget Xlibris and PublishAmerica (and its variants for outside the USA). I'm in favour of this as it gives a bit more definition. Self-publishing outfits are fairly easy to identify - just drop their name and "self-publish" into your search engine of choice. The basic search is the book title and Amazon - you can get the 'publisher' by scrolling down the Amazon page for the book. If it's new, is from the Western world, and isn't on Amazon, it ain't notable. If it looks like a regular publishing house, a search will quickly reveal whether only that book or that author come from that 'house'. If you can't find the 'publisher' at all, it's the author masking self-pub through CreateSpace. A Category would save repeated searching, though. The vanity publishers often have something like 'a different approach to publishing' in their intro. (It's interesting looking at their charges - why the heck anyone does business with them is beyond me when it can be done at the new-style on-demand places. Sometimes they do include proof-reading in their services, though.) For the benefit of those who can't see what's wrong with self-pub (from the Wikipedia point of view), being published by a regular house doesn't mean instant notability. It does mean a proofed, editor checked and advised, and well setup product with a publicity machine and press reviews behind it. Self-pub means you have to do all your own publicity (apart from the self-pub site), get reviews (Goodreads and Amazon reviews don't count for tuppence) and get the book onto shelves (as the browsing market is still alive). One other point about self-pub and notability: if a self-pub book looks like it's getting sales, a regular house will snap it up. I can think of one case here (but can't quote it). Peridon (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I can think of a few cases like in Peridon's last sentence, too, and it's not an argument in favor of this criterion. This criterion as worded relies on the tagger and deleting admin both doing their own research into who published the book, and if the self-published version was doing well and it was picked up by a small press with little marketing clout, it's the initial version that's going to dominate google results. The situation's worse if it's expanded to all vanity publishers instead of a specific list; while some are laughably easy to identify, the majority are not. "3-4 of them a week at AfD" isn't particularly compelling, either; 3-4 a day still wouldn't be. This fails the Objectivity and Frequency guidelines at the top of this page. AFD's the proper venue. —Cryptic 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's "picked up by a small press with little marketing clout", it's not going to be any better off. It's only being picked up by a more major publisher that will make a difference. There's still no guarantee of notability or even significance resulting from the pickup. Peridon (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
yes, there's no guarantee of significance in such cases, but there possibly might be significance, so Prod or AfD is the place for it. And there have been cases, especially in SF and self-help books where the person continues to prefer self publishing, sometimes for ideological reasons. But there's no problem here, for such authors will be notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My objection against speedy deletion criteria for books stem from this, which nearly got deleted before I actually figured out what the editor, likely a child, was trying to say. It's now a bit better. Given how other speedy criteria are routinely "loosely applied" by administrators, I would be hesitant to endorse any speedy deletion criteria for books that fails to assure the survival of such admittedly terrible articles for unquestionably notable books. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My reaction to that, Jclemens, would be: You should know, you used to be a sysop. But that wouldn't be very friendly. Nevertheless, I do think we should accord more trust, confidence, and good faith in the work of our admins - too many RfC have oppose votes based on simply not wanting to horizontally increase their mandate, rather than an arguments based on policy or guidelines or whatever else we're trying to get introduced to keep or encyclopedia clean. Whatever we do, there will be collateral damage, but that's also why around 20% of our 5 million articles have been passed through NPP to remain perma-tagged and get Wikipedi its reputation for inaccuracy and unreliability. WP:NBOOK is a clear, unambiguous set of criteria, and the language of Tokyogirl79's mock up seems OK. What we do need to do however, is to find a way of greatly, and I mean greatly, improving and insisting on much higher degrees of knowledge and experience on the part of RfA reviewers and NPPers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Kudpung, and it is from that fount of experience--I have deleted 14,000 articles, if memory serves, but there's no easy way for an ex-admin to see their admin stats--and seeing seen countless cases of administrators interpreting criteria their own particular way and deleting things in a way neither consistent with our stated policies, common interpretations thereof, or even any reasonable interpretation of improving the encyclopedia that causes me pause with any new expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. As we get fewer administrators, the relative workload increases, and the pressure to 'just do something' can overwhelm well-meaning individuals and cause them to shortcut good due diligence in order to rapidly decrease backlogs. Yellow Star is an example of a book that should have been kept, but if it had been speedied, almost certainly would not have been, thus my opposition to speedy deletion criteria for books, because I don't see how anyone can safely guard against that outcome. I have a far higher tolerance for things being in process, and prefer that shoot-on-sight criteria be limited to copyvio, attack, promotion, madeup, hoax, and a few other things where substantially no one can fix them and nothing salvageable remains. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      (Some admin stats for prior admins show up here, 19642 of them are deletions in your case) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      Oh, hey, cool, I'd seen that page before but missed that that stat was buried in there... Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      Former admins also show up on the misguided local scoreboard at WP:ADMINSTATS. —Cryptic 18:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      No one can guard against admins making mistakes - I make mistakes, fortunately they are a very low percentage (41 restored out of 7,000 deleted articles) and I don't get all my AfD nominations right, and possibly 3 of my 1000s of CSDs have been overturned, but when I look at the stats of other admins, I don't find their error rates generally worse than mine. Problem is, when admins make an error, because we're held to be infallible it gets blown out of all proportion, the admin gets tarred and feathered (and in some cases will retire completely) and the entire corps of sysops gets a bad name again. I don't think that the error rates therefore, are a sufficiently significant concern to be taken into consideration when discussing the creation of a new CSD criterion. If we did, we would need to be reducing the list of deletion criteria rather than expanding it. On the other hand,however, having a highly granular set of criteria can add to the confusion indeed, but not to the bureaucracy. What we should perhaps be examining is how often do book articles come under fire, and is it essential to create a CSD for them? I can't answer that, but perhaps someone else can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      As you are likely aware, I am personally aware of how a single controversial decision can lead to having one's livelihood threatened. CSD isn't that level of hating-on-admins, and by opposing this proposal, I'm actually advocating for a more limited set of CSD criteria that would, in my estimation, reduce the risk of such hating-on-admins. Wouldn't be the first time a couple of long-term editors have disagreed over the best way to implement shared values. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      In the beginning, there were very few controls on Wikipedia - it would have been impossible to pre-empt every possible situation. As Wikipedia grows, more areas for control become evident. Wikipedia must introduce more controls if they are required. No one forces anyone to be an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that we might be able to help prevent a deletion like the potential one for Yellow Star by virtue of the requirements: no assertion of notability, not published by one of the specified publishers, and the author lacks an article. YS would've passed because it was published through a major publishing house - and admins should be at conducting a cursory check for notability before speedying if the article is unclear. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. At the very least, this proposal needs to be limited to books whose only form of publication falls into the self-published/vanity category. It's becoming increasingly common for authors (particularly genre writers) to revert rights to their out-of-print books and self-publish ebook editions while making hardcopies available through commercial POD publishers. Even authors as prominent as Lois McMaster Bujold have done this See July 13 blog entry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll go along with that proviso. It should be common sense that if something has been regularly published first that it should not come under this criterion. However, I would point out that books by that author would not come under it anyway as they have an article. Whether this became part of A9 or a new A14 (or whatever), it would be a two part criterion. Self-pub book AND no-article author. Peridon (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that this proviso is warranted for the reason Peridon stated (a book by a notable author wouldn't qualify regardless of whether or not the work is self-published), but if it'll help get this passed and make it easier to get rid of the CreateSpace, Smashwords, and Lulu books that people toss up here, then I'm all for it. I think it's great that an author can put together a work, but it gets kind of old seeing them go to AfD when deletion is all but a foregone conclusion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I am not fully convinced we need it, but it seems like a minor helpful shortcut to deal with spam. As the revised version is worded, it should not result in deletion of anything notable, so if it can save us 1-2 AfDs a week, why not. Every little bit helps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I see a lot of books coming through new page patrol coming from new editors where there is no author article. Some are advert-csd'ed, others are afd'ed, while others are notability/advert tagged. It would be nice to have this option to clear up some clutter. It would be better to have a category of publishers though; it is almost as easy to make your own e-publisher (or self-seller) as it is to write a book.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 12:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as publishers go, I'd say that any of the publishers on this page should be listed: List of self-publishing companies. I'll list them here for posterity but also because we will need to have a set list somewhere in case someone tries to remove one of the names in the hopes that it'll keep their book around.
  • American Biographical Institute
  • Archway Publishing
  • AuthorHouse
  • BiblioBazaar
  • Blurb, Inc.
  • Bob Books
  • Books LLC
  • CafePress
  • CreateSpace
  • Darkside communication group
  • DiggyPOD
  • Famous Poets Society
  • Greyden Press[10]
  • iUniverse
  • Kindle direct Publishing
  • Kobo Writing Life
  • Lightning Source
  • Llumina Press
  • Lulu
  • Notion Press
  • Outskirts Press
  • Poetry.com
  • PublishAmerica
  • Self Publish, Be Happy
  • Smashwords
  • Tate Publishing & Enterprises
  • Trafford Publishing
  • Vantage Press
  • Wattpad
  • Xlibris
  • Xulon Press
If anyone wants to add to (or take anything away from) this list, feel free - just note what you're removing and why. I was only familiar with a few of these, but I figured that since these are the outlets that are known enough to warrant an article, that they'll be the ones we'll most likely see for an article. Offhand the article had all of the names that I was going to suggest adding. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
That list looks good to me. (And I've learned how to do columns too...) Peridon (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Same here - I really only learned to do columns via this one author's article, which I use as a "go to" for the column template when I'm feeling lazy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Peridon and Tokyogirl79: {{Multicol}} isn't an ideal way of doing columns, the presence of {{Multicol-break}} splits one list into two (or more), creating an accessibility problem. It's better to use constructs like {{div col}}/{{div col end}}, which you can see in action at Wikipedia:Meetup/UK#Oxford. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice! That looks far easier to use overall. I changed it up to the version you posted here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a problem with the wording: "does not give any indication where the work is important or significant and where the author or contributors' article does not exist (all criteria must be true). Fanfiction and podcast novels would qualify under this criteria if there is no assertion of notability". Which is it, significance or notability? Significance is a lower standard than notability. Lumping the two together would only increase the amount of confusion regarding them (as if there isn't enough already). Also, "this criteria" should be "this criterion", as we're only talking about one, and I'd suggest changing "all criteria must be true" to "all conditions must be true" to avoid confusion. I'd also strongly suggest that if this is passed, it is an extension of A9, not A7 or a new criterion. A9 already has a very similar requirement of no contributing artists, expanding A7 would make that criterion even more confusion than it is already, and a new criterion would make CSD in general more confusing, as we would have three criteria for very similar things. Adam9007 (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested adding this to A7, as it is a two part criterion. It can fit into A9 quite well for that reason. (I mentioned 'A15 or whatever' just in case anyone objected to adding to A9...) That 'notability' can be 'significance' instead, and I do agree about 'this criteria'. Should be 'criterion' and both changes can be made now by the proposer or later by the scribe of the rolls if this is passed. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made the tweaks in the updated version - feel free to make as many tweaks as you like - just note next to the updated text and/or down here that you added or changed something. I actually don't have a huge problem with this being lumped in with A9, since that's mostly what I modeled this after. By the by, should I open a RfC on this just to make sure I get more voices? (I probably will.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm bumping this for a bit more consensus, plus I have to say that I ran across another self-published book here, which I had to put up for AfD since speedy criteria doesn't apply here. This is essentially the type of book I'd like to be able to speedily delete, as this is obviously non-notable and has its author as its publisher, so it fits the criteria here to a T. Earlier I had to close this AfD on another self-published book and I want to emphasize that such books hit AfD on a weekly basis. There are so many articles up for AfD in general that I just think that it'd be nice to save at least some time for those that do monitor AfD or the other deletion outlets like PROD, time that could be spent on stuff that actually would potentially merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Not sure if I'm doing this part correctly, but I'd like to have some comments on this potential addition of self-published and vanity books to the speedy guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I saw the RfC notice, and my first reaction (after having read the discussion above) is that I'm a little uncomfortable about making something like this, where there is some judgment about notability involved, eligible for CSD. CSD should really be for pages where it is abundantly obvious that it is either an attack or is something that could not possibly be notable, and this seems a bit more subtle than that. On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to what new page patrollers have to deal with, and I certainly favor dealing speedily with spam. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The way this is written, the criteria wouldn't cover any book that could potentially be notable. It's meant to cover the obviously non-notable self-published or vanity books like this or this, where it's self-published, makes no assertion of notability, and the author has no article. If the article even remotely makes an assertion of notability like winning an award, getting mainstream coverage (ie, newspapers), or anything similar, it wouldn't qualify - the same thing where a musical album (without an artist page) would pass speedy criteria if it had an assertion of notability. The page wouldn't cover anything published via a non SP/vanity publisher - being published through one of those guys (Harper Collins or even an indie publisher) could be seen as a potential assertion of notability since those typically require that the book go through some sort of vetting process and there's the potential for some coverage. (Less so than with the indie ones, but a book published through Harper Collins stands a fairly good chance.)
In other words, this would allow for instant deletion of books like America Deceived while preventing instant deletion of something that could have received coverage like Hugh Howey's Silo series. I do think that I will remove the podcast mention though - that's a little too loose and besides, that's sort of already covered with A7. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna oppose. I've done thousands of new page patrols and I'm not sure that I've ever encountered a vanity book. Most books I have encountered had a statement of significance, or were old enough that the authors were obviously deceased. So I'm not seeing a need for this. PROD can cover it. I'll add that I think it a bad idea to have a CSD rely on a list of publishers, considering that companies go in and out of business constantly and we would be forced to keep up with this here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is more for the self-published books nowadays than the vanity, as in most cases you're more likely to come across a book that is self-published. Vanity has fallen quite out of favor/ These still hit AfD with regular frequency, enough to where it's sort of a nuisance to have to clear them out. I've closed quite a few AfDs for books that are clearly non-notable, yet they still have to take up AfD time because they don't qualify for any of the various speedy deletions. As for PRODs, those aren't really a catch all because they do tend to be removed quite often, resulting in an eventual AfD. As far as the list of publishers go, the majority of these are ones that are relatively unlikely to go out of business any time soon, as they're run through fairly major companies like Amazon. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I added a self-publisher here, Archway Publishing, given that it's a self-publishing arm of Simon & Schuster. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Would this rewording be clearer than the first sentence of the current proposal? "This criterion applies to any book (a) published through the self-publishers or vanity publishers CreateSpace, AuthorHouse, Smashwords, Lulu, Leadstart Publishing, or where the publisher is the same name as the author on a book first published since the year 2000, and (b) where the article gives no indication of the work's importance or significance, and (c) where Wikipedia contains no biographical article on the author. Conditions (a), (b) and (c) must all be applicable.". AllyD (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks very clear, but the other self-publishing outfits should be in there (or as an appended list). CreateSpace seems to me to be the main one at present, having overtaken Lulu, but the others are all found here. Oiyarbepsy and I must be working at different times, as I do find quite a few self-published works. Vanity publishing doesn't come up as much, as with that the author is mainly wanting a small number of books for some purpose - family, local society or so on. Fortunately, quite a few more articles concerning self-published books come under A7 as they are nominally at least about the non-significant author. Peridon (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see them too, often as a complementary pair, one article on author, one on book: which may give a temporal problem in meeting condition (c) here, at least until the author article is deleted as A7. Expanding on that, I do wonder about the efficacy of this proposal. From countries that respect civil service we see a fair number of self-published books like "Forty Years a Penpusher" by a retiring under-secretary at the local transport department, often accompanied by a local press piece showing that the Minister attended the book launch and shook hands with the author; such coverage may be enough to defeat the new speedy such that it needs to go to AfD as at present? AllyD (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To answer the last concern: a piece of local press would be seen as an assertion of notability for most topics on Wikipedia that currently fall under speedy criteria. For example, a sandwich shop would likely pass A7 because they've received at least one piece of local press. It's meant to be a weak bar to overcome overall. If the news article is accompanied by a photo as described then that'd also help it overcome speedy, just as a photo of the PoTUS (or the state governor) chumming it up with the shop owner in a news article would probably help it pass A7. The criteria here wouldn't be much different. Now as far as the position goes, minor positions (ie, the stuff that would get an article on someone deleted via A7) wouldn't affect the speedy much at all. If it's a very major position then this would be similar to an assertion where the person claimed the book was a best seller or that it was published via a major publisher. When it comes to the temporal problem, this would likely end up resolving itself much like how the current criteria for non-notable musicians/bands and their albums does on here. There's really not been much of an issue with people nominating a musician for deletion and then nominating the albums, honestly, at least not from what I've seen. Whenever there has been an issue I've just redirected the album to the applicable band/musician article and left it at that. I figure that can be the case with books and authors as well. The criteria is really meant to cover stuff like this.
As far as the publishers go, I'd like to have that appended list because there are a few on there that are reasonably common enough to where their inclusion would inevitably become necessary - especially as self-published authors are under no requirement to stick with one company and can easily publish under one of the competitors as a way of circumventing the speedy criteria. Other than that, I like the way you've rephrased this. If you have no objection I'll add/change this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
That book you've linked has a great blurb ;-). That's why regular publishers have editors - to weed out stuff like that. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, my initial thought is: I would hate to see the best known self-published works - including My Immortal, or the various Wattpad works that were picked up to be turned into traditional multimedia - speedily deleted based on this new criterion. They are worth at least a bit of discussion. – SJ + 00:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There wouldn't be a problem after they were taken up by regular publishers or made into successful films. This proposal is to deal with the stuff that isn't published by regular publishers, and isn't by anyone of note. A9 works. Think of it like people - someone like Prince George or Princess Charlotte is notable from birth (or even before...). They are, shall we say, not common. Someone like Susan Boyle was non-notable for most of her life, until success unexpectedly arrived. We don't allow articles on the basis that notability could possibly arrive. We wait until it has arrived. Peridon (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sj: My Immortal wouldn't qualify under this criteria because it has a fairly good assertion of notability - looking at the page itself shows that it's been covered in multiple different places that would be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Any book that has coverage in reliable sources wouldn't qualify for this guideline any more than a person who has received coverage in RS would qualify for A7. That doesn't mean that the book/person couldn't qualify for deletion via some other method like AfD, it just means that they wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion. As far as the Wattpad stories go, none of those would qualify for deletion either because if they were made into a notable film (or other media) then they'd pass by speedy criteria as well. The bar for notability for this proposed guideline would be as low as the bar for the other notability criteria. It only has to make some assertion of notability in order to pass, so any book that has received coverage in a RS or has been adapted into something that seems even remotely notable would not be deleted even if they would otherwise fail notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Basically this would only cover fanfiction or Wattpad-esque writings like this one that was deleted at AfD. The work was never adapted into anything and it never received any sort of coverage. Under current guidelines it didn't qualify for speedy criteria because fanfiction falls under a grey area - it's not entirely web content because it's a written product and not a website. It also wasn't promotional or a copyright violation. As such, I had to take it to AfD for a week. This new criteria would enable us to delete something like this immediately and without any "but it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion" qualms. It's not meant to delete anything that might be even remotely notable. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I do think it's a bit odd we don't have CSD for books, when we have for web content, people, companies, events etc. Seems logical that there should be criteria for books as well as they suffer from the same issues of self-promotion and occassional entirely inappropriate/unsourced articles. The restriction to just vanity/self-published works pretty carefully circumscribes the category. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Tokyogirl79 and FuriouslySerene. I've gone through a few cases where this might've been useful. There are two paths Wikipedia could have taken: one was being flexible and vague with the CSD criteria so as to give editors a wide take on what needs to go; the other was limiting minutiously what can be deleted quickly and why. The community chose the latter, and as such adding another concrete mechanism to allow for the quick deletion of self-published junk without having to resort to more bureaucracy seems both prudent and advisable, as long as it is carefully worded and presented. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

db-move and RMassist[edit]

Regarding {{db-move}}, I made some revisions of move how-to pages, explained at Wikipedia talk:Moving a page#Revisions on 16 September 2016. Please follow up there if there are any comments. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 00:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Change "article" to "page" in C2D[edit]

Criterion changed per proposal.

I propose changing the word "article" to "page" in criterion C2D of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. I think this is a common-sense change that would permit speedy renaming of categories associated with a certain template or project-space page. For example, the category Category:Free screenshots was created specifically for use with {{Free screenshot}}; including that template automatically puts the page in that category. If the template were uncontroversially renamed to, say, {{Screenshots that are free}}, then it should be possible to speedy-rename the associated category to Category:Screenshots that are free. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - seems sensible. As another example, I have a speedy at the moment to rename Category:WikiProject Introduction members to match the parent WP Introductions, which is in Wikipedia namespace.Le Deluge (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - the word "article" was probably originally used due to that being the normal use of this criterion, but I doubt that it was the intention of the community, at the time, to exclude other page types. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be for adopting the proposed change. No objections have been raised, and no further comments have been made in the last ten days. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure says that even involved editors can close discussions where contributions have dwindled but the consensus is obvious, so I am closing this one. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

All necessary edits have been made to fully activate deletion criteria x1 & x2[edit]

Pursuant to the outcome of this discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_10#Template:Db-x1, where it was decided to keep templates {{db-x1}} & {{db-x2}}, I have made all the edits necessary to fully activate both deletion criteria. Categories have been created and any pages tagged with those criteria will show up in the appropriate categories. As I felt it was downright foolish to create those two templates but not the necessary supporting categories, I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and did it. Safiel (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)