Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 12

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

A7 needs verifiable claims

I'm seeing a trend with A7 which I don't think works well. Some admin don't bother to check to see if a claim to notability is valid and simply remove the speedy tag based on the fact that there is a claim in the article, even if its completely made up. I think A7 should cover only sourcable claims to notability and any vague claims should be ignored when the admin consider it. Otherwise any half-baked article could be kept simply by making an equally half-baked claim to notability. --Crossmr 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas about wording? I was going to suggest adding "...that does not +verifiably assert the importance...", but I think this would include articles that assert a reasonable importance (e.g., not "crowned King of France in 2005"), but yet do not cite a link. I have verified and expanded several articles like this. Of course, verifiability means able to be verified, but I think it needs wording that does not leave articles like these open to deletion. —Centrxtalk • 04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We have to remember that wikipedia requires that the person who wants the info included must provide the source. If someone creates an article about a person or group and their assertion of notability is vague, i.e. the band is really popular, or the band has a big following, or the person is a well respected individual or the individual has written some books, without really citing the books themselves, who the publisher is (to show they're not self-published), and if its questioned the article should be deleted. On regular articles if content is added without proper citation it can and is often removed until reasons are given for its inclusion in the article. I see no reason it should be any different for created articles. Obviously easily verifiably famous people don't need citations (though likely most articles have already been created), but anyone who is borderline should have some proper assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:BAND that can easily be verified by any editor and if it can't then send it to the grave until such a time that the person wants to properly establish notability. As for wording...most admins should be familiar with WP:BIO and WP:BAND so something along the lines of "The author does not assert credible notability per guidelines. In the case of borderline individuals or groups this should be presented in the form of external references". (I also think A7 should be expanded to cover any catagory that has accepted notability guidelines, but that is probably another discusison). I don't think this is unreasonable and I don't the admins should err on the side of caution. Don't get rude about it, but politely point them to the notability guidelines and ask them to resubmit the article per those guidelines. If they can't be bothered than the article probably wouldn't have been that good or useful anyway. If the subject is notable, it shouldn't be a huge issue to get those references. If need be, I could help rewrite the nn-warn template to try and be polite, welcoming, and informative but get the point across that we don't take stubs about every piece of information on the planet or your pet project.--Crossmr 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The trend you are describing is exactly how A7 was designed to work -- if the claim of notability is disputed, AFD is the place to go. So the change you are recommending is a rather enormous one, and needs more discussion. A change like the one you propose would hopefully be part of a new general policy requiring all new articles to cite a source, perhaps with a technical change to the article creation process to facilitate this. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately its pointless and kneecaps speedy delete in this case. The criteria needs to have some teeth or anyone can simply get around it by making a vague assertion of notability. Since many vandals know the system they can game the system by creating these articles with these vague assertions and guarentee anything they want on the system for 5 days.--Crossmr 06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete needs to be kneecapped. That's the only protection articles have against A7 - assertion of notability. There is nothing wrong with sending it to AfD, allowing more editors to see the article, and possibly improving it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between an article needing clean-up and a non-notable subject. You can't clean that up.--Crossmr 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And if an article can't be cleaned up after 5 days with verifiabile sources, who'll complain? Why the rush to delete? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And why keep it and add to the AfD backlog if the person creating the article can't support the assertion in any reasonable way? Again: Why are we so inclusionist on new articles, yet the exact opposite in existing articles? Operating as such makes no sense and sends very mixed signals. On the other hand removing articles without a proper and credible assertion to notability allows a number of things to happen. The new user is introduced to policy, if this was just a junk article created, its removed quicker and it doesn't have to sit on prod, AfD, and possibly deletion review. If it wasn't a junk article and this was a genuine attempt to create a useful article, it gives the admin, or someone else the opportunity to interact with a new user, welcome them, explain the way things work, and mentor them a bit with the creation of the article. I certainly have no problem doing that, and when I tag articles for deletion, or put them up for AfD, if the person is receptive to that, I often end up discussing how some of the policies like notability and verifiability work.--Crossmr 06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Again: Why are we so inclusionist on new articles, yet the exact opposite in existing articles?
Uhmm, WP:BITE? New articles are unlikely to have evolved/had enough eyes on them to have absorbed policy and guideline and custom stronger than law. We don't delete problem articles (generally) if the problems are fixable, right? When you speedy someone's article, it would seem to me that they would be less likely to try again later, not more. Recently Jackie Beere went through being speedy-tagged, removed, speedy-tagged, removed, prodded, removed, and AFDed in a matter of hours. Come to find out that the woman has an OBE from the British Crown, and is in fact notable in her field. But your method might not have given her article that chance, and we'd be one short. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, as we've clearly got different wiki-philosophies backing us up here. -- nae'blis 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Bite is how you handle it, not what you do. I have no problem politely discussing policy and how to write an article with a new person, I've done it more than once with someone I was only a few minutes before at odds with who was repeatedly removing speedy and Afd tags from the article. Is there not an online resource for the OBE that could be easily verified, and if not, then yes it could be sent to AfD if the assertion seemed plausible, and if thats the assertion the article was based on. Maybe its not a difference of wikiphilosophies so much as I'm not completely explaining what I have in mind here. As I stated below I'm not saying we require 10 references to even consider keeping an article. I'm saying that that if the article makes a vague claim make a small effort to check up on it first, google it or ask the creator for clarification, etc. Explain the need for clarification of the notability. Don't err so far on the side of caution. if they make a specific claim, i.e. "Sara won the United States Open in 1983", again make a cursory attempt to check up on it, however I think there should be a stipulation that if the person who puts it up for speedy or AfD if the admin removes the speedy, can prove the claim false, i.e. they find the official website which says the winner was indeed Larry, it should be removed on the spot, rather than sitting it out in AfD. I'm not saying every unsubstantiated claim should be removed on the spot. Claims that are vague and have no substantiation should be looked at more critically than specific claims. I could write an article about a guy and make the assertion that he's an author and runs a nationwide company. An admin might turn around and say "Hey thats an assertion, take it to AfD" but a 2 second google search may have revealed the book was self-published and the company consits of him, his dog, and a potted plant he found in a dumpster.--Crossmr 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't want to dump our problem on AfD by shipping it off there because we don't want to be bothered to check the assertion ourselves. For example, I could create an article about Linda Holmes who won Miss Universe in 1987. I could write a steaming pile about this individual when in reality it was Jin Zhao. (I just made up the names). Yet notability is asserted and it would have to sit on AfD for 5 days. That's a pretty obvious case, and I'm sure some admin when presented with the evidence would speedy it, but you're shifting the way wikipedia works from inside the article and article creation. I see no reason these should be different at all. The same rules for inclusion that exist in the article should exist for its creation.--Crossmr 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, all this was considered when the criteria was set up -- the point is that no article which makes a plausible claim of notability should be deleted without going through AFD or PROD, which gives ample time for the matter to be thoroughly researched. A single admin handling speedy deletion likely does not have the time to fully research each and every speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deleting without conducting such research would result in too many false positives of the type Centrx described above. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and its talk page contain more on these issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
plausible is an awfully subjective word. Its also easy to make a plausible claim without it being true. I'm still at a loss as to why the burden has been shifted in the case of article creation to the person who wants it removed and not the person who wants it included. Yet once the article is created any further information to be added the burden goes on that person who wants it included. That shift isn't explained here anywhere at all. I also don't think the admin needs to research each and every case. Why not have the person nominating for speedy explain in full detail the reasoning as to why the individual or band isn't really notable. The admin reads the assertion in the article (which they need to do anyway) then reads the counter-argument. If it makes sense delete it and leave a template inviting the individual to read the guidelines, ensure the individual/group is notable, and resubmit it with a proper assertion per those guidelines. It might take a few more seconds per speedy tag for them to read the counter-argument, but I'm sure someone could whip up an automated tool that would delete the page and automatically leave a template on the original author's talk page.--Crossmr 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the standard is more or less the same in both cases. Implausible, unlikely, or derogatory statements that do not have sources can be removed, either by speedy deletion in the case of a new article or by excision from any other article. Other unsourced statements are usually dealt with less agressively -- by PROD or AFD for a new article or by, say, adding a {{fact}} tag in other articles. These methods are intended to bring problems to wider attention so they can be fixed. Though obviously there is a lot more leeway in dealing with statements in existing articles, the processes are somewhat similar. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As Christopher says, it is doing what it is suppose to do. Sending unsourced notability claims to AFD or PROD only slightly delay deletion while giving the uploader a chance to establish the aunthenticity of the claims being made. Dragons flight 18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It can potentially delay it up to 2 weeks if properly manipulated and with a little luck.--Crossmr 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the rush? I seriously want to know, this is not a facetious question. Why is a claim of notability not worth (at most, in a perfect storm of manipulation) two weeks of reflection? -- nae'blis 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing all uncited living person information only applies to derogatory or possibly libelous statements, not to straightforward or laudatory statements. For an example that would be a problem under the proposed CSD alteration, see Anthony Iannaccone, which originally stated "is a 20th century composer". Only because stubs about non-notable composers are unusual did I check and flesh the article out rather than deleting it. This sort of article is already vulnerable under the current CSD, and would have no basis for not being deleted under the proposed change.

Still, unreasonable claims of notability ought to be included in the criteria somehow. This example points to the contradictions of the notability assertion criterion: someone adding encyclopedic information about someone notable may just state "This person is a 20th century artist", whereas someone adding bandcruft gushes "This is the premier punk rock band of the 1990s and has had a unparalleled effect on the evolution of the genre.", statements which should be curbed unless there is additional evidence in the article. Anyone can make a vague awesomeness statement without any basis, or an utter hoax ("first man to walk on the moon certainly is an assertion of notability and cannot technically be deleted under this CSD, though it ought to be and is deleted anyway sometimes under "nonsense"). —Centrxtalk • 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The key is that the CSDs are supposed to be unequivocally checkable by the deleting administrator. Perhaps this could be resolved just by adding "...does not +truly assert the importance..." or "...does not +reasonable assert the importance...". —Centrxtalk • 18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles that make ridiculous and unrealistic claims of notability like the ones you describe above are already deleted regularly, so I don't think any change is really needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually they're not. Which is why I posted this. Maybe some admin do, but some other admin are erring well on the side of caution and removing tags from things that assert any remote notability even if it wouldn't satisfy the notability guidelines. I.e. we had an article where the only assertion of notability was local within a town in new zealand and I was told to take it to AfD because there was an assertion.--Crossmr 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable for a single admin to check verifiability - this criterion is already subjective enough. Leave it to other deletion methods. Deco 20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If the notability is proven in the article it should take them all of 5 seconds to google it. If they can't verify it in that time frame, it probably hasn't be asserted properly.--Crossmr 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And if the assertion is sourced offline? Let's not increase our symbiotic relationship with Google any further... -- nae'blis 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In this day and age, if a person or band has no google prescence than the chances of them satisfying WP:BIO or WP:BAND is slim to none. Why send dozens of articles to AfD because of a false claim to notability because we want to avoid the remote chance that there is an article who has a legitimate notable claim that can't be verified via the internet?--Crossmr 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So what about bands that don't exist anymore? Groups or people who's notability existed before the age of instant information? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide an example of a notable band that has no web prescence? Since record companies re-release their entire catalogue if a band met the criteria for being a pioneering style or having albums released under a major album, I'd challenge you to provide me with a band where you couldn't find information on them on the internet at all to verify who released their albums.--Crossmr 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A notable active band, or a notable past band? As you know, with WP:MUSIC, albums aren't the only way to check notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A notable past band that has no web prescence. And yes albums aren't the only way, but looking at the list I can't think of any of those criteria that wouldn't result in someon, somewhere writing about them, unless its quite old. There is also a difference between starting an article about a current band and not properly asserting notability and starting an article about a group from the 1800s and not properly asserting notability. Any current band/person should have a google prescence of some sort. Its not a blanket criteria for all articles, common sense has to come into this and obviously its likely to be a lot more difficult to prove notability about a 200 year old music trio, than the latest garabge band. If someone makes an article about an older more historic band that send it to AfD, that one isn't obvious, if someone makes an article about a current day band, and they can't back it up, toss it unless they can.--Crossmr 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a good illustration of why it's a mistake to interpret CSDs too literally. A disputed, unsourced statement can be removed from an article and this is allowed. So, it is within the letter of the law to first remove the dubious clame and then speedy delete the resultant article that has no assertion of significance. However we should not expect admins to jump thru silly hoops like this when the result is the same. I do speedy deletes quite frequently of things that probably don't exactly match a CSD, and so far there's been no controversy. No amount of written rules are a good substitute for human judgment. Friday (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is nice that you do it, but my example about the band above illustrates the other side of the coin, where the band specifically said they had no commercial success but were "pretty popular in their little hometown" (paraphrased). There was obviously no way they were going to satisfy WP:BAND and made no assertion per those guidelines, but there was "an assertion of notability" (even though the notability was far from enough for an article here), and thus an admin sent it to AfD (where it was later deleted). However, I've seen more than one AfD where an article which clearly doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion was kept here because a few interested invididuals were able to muddle the discussion into "no concensus" and the closing admin didn't bother to look at the validity of the arguments and just said "Oh there is an equal amount on both sides give or take, lets just keep it". You essentially have a formula for getting an article kept here by at first making a vague claim to notability then getting a handful of buddies together (as most AfDs don't get massive attention) and muddling the discussion and hoping you get an admin who just tallies it up rather than reads it.--Crossmr 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But you overlook the criterion of frequency. "More than one" is not a preponderance of AfDs. Unless you really think there are so many articles of this type being AfD'ed that AfD can't handle them all, there's no reason to propose an expansion of this rule. And speedy deletion is not a method of overriding a keep vote - if such articles are kept, that is not evidence of the need for a CSD, but evidence that there should not be one. Deco 20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
AfD regularly has backlog issues, so sending more articles there because of vague claims isn't really a good idea. And abuse of the system is exactly a reason there should be a little more oomph to this criterion. I regularly come across articles that people have tried to delete in the past when it was absolutely clear the "keep" side had no basis for its argument but the admin never bothered to actually read those arguments and just did it as a vote. I'm not going to start making a list, but I've seen good closing admin and I've seen bad closing admin. I've seen closing admin who actually read the arguments and the article and even with a majority "keep" remove the article because they've recognized the keep side had no basis for their point. I've also seen closing admin completely ignore the arguments where you have delete people saying "it violates this policy, this policy, this policy, fails for inclusions here here and here" and the keep people saying "I like this article, its pretty", and the closing admin claims no concensus and thats it. By not giving this criterion any teeth that means we now have to turn around and submit this to a third process (where usually good sense prevails) of deletion review. I see no reason why we can take the position that non-notable or unsourced information can be immediately removed from an article and put the burden on the person who wants it included to prove its worthyness, yet have a non-notable article have to potentially go through 3 processes to be removed because we're worried there might have been some notability to the subject. As I've pointed out some admin have taken this carefulness to the extreme, by saying even vague claims should be taken to AfD even if its obvious the claim woudln't meet the guidelines anyway. Also if the subject really IS notable, the original creator should have no issue providing that or even if they don't want to, a notable individual should have more than one person out there who wants to come to wikipedia to write about them.--Crossmr 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
and remember, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, even though some treat it like that. I just don't see the point in passing off obviously non-notable articles to AfD for the potential of abuse via non-obvious sockpuppets, meat puppets or other "stacking", when they can be nipped in the bud here. I'm not saying admins should automatically delete any article they see with db-bio or db-band on it, just take more care in ensuring the claim is remotely plausible before removing it and telling people to take it to AfD. I'm not saying we need 10 references and a dna sample to keep an article, but the assertion should be notable, it should be plausible, and if you can't verify the claim via a quick google search, perhaps ask for a little more info from either the original author or the person who put the tag on it. Heck maybe even a new tag to the effect of "This speedy deletion is currently under review" if you need a few minutes to verify the info. We're not in a race and if handling the article takes a few minutes of multi-tasking rather than a few seconds, I doubt wikipedia is going to collapse. On the other hand it ensures we're not needlessly shoving articles off to AfD.--Crossmr 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not use WP:PROD? Isn't it set up to deal with things like this. Even though the Verifiability policy is very important, it isn't within the scope of something that an admin can look at the page and choose delete for. Including any type of out of page verification by an admin means that the page has reasonable doubt for deletion, enough to put it through the passive PROD process, or failing that an active AfD discussion. Ansell 07:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of the articles this idea would cover are vanity articles watched over and "improved" by some IP who remove PRODs, and if they get a chance, speedy and AfD notices too. Also, if AfD has several meat-fans or socks making wacky keep votes—in the sort of AfD that takes a lot of time/work for the closing admin—then one of them is going to remove the prod, and that's the end of that. —Centrxtalk • 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be silly, they don't make keep votes, they make Do Not Delete votes. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand there are some issues with letting the processes run their course. However, these criteria were never made up with the idea of being anything but directly objective to any reasonable editor "on sight". I have removed tags before and will continue in the future if I see a claim to notability which I cannot verify on sight as to whether it is either patent nonsense or vanity. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NSAMC is one example of where I removed speedy tags and instead of a reasonably uninterrupted prod process, resulted instead on an AfD in which editors agreed that on discussion this article was to be deleted, however it was not something they could do on sight, or were not comfortable doing on sight. Ansell 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you got three saying it should have gone to AfD and 2 saying it should have been speedied, not a terribly overwhelming concensus there. I honestly would have said it should have been speedied to. You've got a vague and unsourced claim that sounds like a joke. This is the exact thing I'm talking about here. If someone put that information in an article, I could remove it instantly and ask for a source. Yet as an article, we want to coddle it and err well on the side of caution. I see no reason for that. It would have taken what... 30 seconds to leave a message on the author's talk page and say "Can you substantiate that claim?" and put a "Speedy Deletion under Review tag" on the page. If he can't substantiate it in a reasonable timeframe (say 24 hours, because he was likely just there) remove it. With 66 members unless its the illuminati's private message forum, the chances of it being notable are non-existent. --Crossmr 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not including the nominator, who replaced the tag and warned me that I had to be an admin to remove speedy tags, clearly showing they don't yet have the experience to be making these claims, I did not see a diversion from consensus, especially since the person who quoted the two essays did not come back to defend or explain their position. Therefore, I did not actually see anyone stating what you would call non-consensus. I do not see how your arguments rebutt what the others said either. Basing your argument on reducing a 5 day prod process which is very passive, and works 90% of the time--in exchange for deleting things which people here are obviously questioning, does not seem to be very productive. Ansell 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Please re-read what that page actually said. The user gave anecdotal evidence that 90% of his prods were deleted, someone who actually looked at the numbers said 90% of the articles ended up deleted but that included prods that went to AfD. he didn't break it down further. In my experience prod has worked 0% of the time, because within minutes the original author or anonymous IP removes the prod. I've only had one or two prods last more than an hour, and those were removed the next day. However I would say 90-95% of those articles do eventually end up deleted, but its always by AfD. That doesn't mean prod is effective or the system works. It means a lot of articles went to AfD that probably didn't need to as most newpage AfDs I've done have been complete slamdunks. When you get that many AfDs that basically just steamroll through the 5 days I think you need to turn around and say "Do these articles really need to be getting here?"--Crossmr 06:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, something like 90% of prods are getting deleted after five days, which tells me the system is more-or-less working. Sure, there's some vultures who watch over their pet articles and remove any threat to their existence, but those can be dealt with as disruption when they occur. I don't want to make admins responsible for verifying claims during speedy deletion patrol (there's enough of a backlog already), and I do think this is an expansion of the original A7 criteria. The system works in the vast majority of the cases just fine, and letting a few questionable cases go to AfD is how it is supposed to work, IMO. -- nae'blis 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I must be really unlucky because every article I've ever prodded has had an IP or new user removing the prod, and often the AfD templates. If we include prod, we now have 4 processes a new article can go through with enough muddling by a few individuals. Someone, or a few someones can game the system into getting an article kept here for about 2 weeks or more depending on backlog in AfD and Deletion Review. And that doesn't say 90% of prods are deleted, he included articles that went to AfD (the first post is a personal guess based on an observation). But doesn't really give any stats on how many went to AfD. I could go through the process of testing the theory to see if that is accurate or if quite a few less prods do survive, but I'm on vacation, and I'm sure there is someone around who's much better at stats than I am.--Crossmr 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So you're afraid of meatpuppetry, so you want to avoid AfD? I don't like that line of thought at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that I've seen articles go to AfD that really had no business being there. I've also seen AfDs that have been kept or declared no concensus by a closing admin who didn't appear to read the AfD. Combing those with a prod, and a deletion review, you've got a potential for something to get muddled around here for 2 weeks. Something that likely should have been nipped in the bud if the admin evaluating the speedy had of been a little more critical. What I'm really saying here, is if they make a claim to notability and it doesn't sound plausible (i.e. Larry's Cleft Lip is regarded by many as the premier country-death metal band in Alabama) maybe ask for some clarification before tossing it off to AfD. Why waste 5 days when you could probably clear the article now?

Any objection to adding "...plausibly asserts notability..."? This isn't nearly as strong as what has been suggested in this proposal, the current CSD:A7 does technically include at its far edge a statement like "Billy is the President of the world", it is rather standard practice to ignore ridiculous assertions, and the objections and counter-examples here would not be covered by it. —Centrxtalk • 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"plausibly" seems sensible, it would bring things into line with what's being done if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
But is what's being done what's right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably. If I created an article about myself saying I was the 39th president of the USA, that's certainly a claim of notability good enough to protect myself from the current A7. (Ignore other criteria for now.) On the other hand, if the claim of notability had to be plausible, then it would be speediable. I don't think there is any debate that an article like that should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"plausibly" doesn't really help much more than "asserts" does currently (is "is well-known in Fooville" or the like an assertion of notability?) Application of A7 is a problem more for the nominee, who is less likely to know the policies off by heart, than the admin. The closing admin will normally have enough knowledge to know that Billy isn't President of the World (and hence delete), but even for them, something more obscure may make it difficult to know what is 'plausible'. A fair percentage of cases that go to AFD could probably be handled under A7, but they end up there because people don't know how to apply A7. Personally I'd like to see A7 go and be replaced by better prod guidelines: allowing you to prod it if you think it fails policies or guidelines regardless of whether it is likely to be contested, and making removal without comment a breach of policy. That would save time in both speedy deletes and AFD. Yomangani 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of them aren't administrators, but there are some people who will insist on adhering with the precise letter of the policy, no matter how ridiculous, and will remove the tag. —Centrxtalk • 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It might protect you from A7, but probably not from a hoax or nonsense. You're not talking about an A7 there. Here's a scenario: "The band Goat Carcasses for Jesus was formed in San Antonio, Texas, and is one of the most heralded ska-punk bands to come from the region." Should that be speedied? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Personaly I would say yes remove it. Its a vague claim, and unless there is a source (i.e. a well known reviewer or publication) backing that up, then its just another vague claim used to skirt the rules. However I know admin who would say its a claim and require I either prod it or take it to AfD. Since every prod I've ever done has been removed, then I'd just automatically take it to AfD. In addition to removing it though, I would explain via template or a personal message on the original author's talk page that they need to substantiate that claim, and if they can do so, the article can remain (if they do it fast enough) or can be recreated.--Crossmr 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Goat Carcasses for Jesus (or GC4J as their fans call them?) is a perfect illustration. Who would know whether A7 applies there? A prod (although likely to be contested by their no doubt huge fan base) would either send it straight to deletion or give them a chance to rectify it before it hit AFD. I can't see that I'd be saved from hoaxes anyway(nonsense is of course covered by the perfectly sensible A1). There seems to be no reason for A7 to be speedy other than the fact that we don't want a lot of 'slam dunk' AFDs and prod is inadequate: it's not something that needs to be taken down quickly for legal reasons. Yomangani 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, if there's any question as to whether A7 should apply, it should go to AfD/prod. A7 isn't for anything we can't necessarily believe, but for things that show no obvious assertion of nobility. The source is irrelevant at this stage of the game, and we simply cannot expect all new editors to understand every policy and guideline that's around when they start making articles. I've been here a year and a half and I'm still learning about policies and guidelines I never knew existed. Save A7 for the obvious, let's not make an excuse to delete articles willy-nilly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's my point: A7 is nearly always questionable. Because it is so vague, it's next to useless because anybody who knows the policy would have a hard time applying it to even the most (un)deserving page, and some people who don't, are wont to slap it on willy-nilly (I've followed somebody's edit history just removing their speedy tags because they clearly didn't apply). I don't want to strengthen it, I want to get rid of it and give prod (or a relation) more teeth Yomangani 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think my point is that there are some questions the admin can answer at the time of deciding on the speedy. Rather than just going "Oh..I dunno, take it to AfD". A simple "Do you have any substantiation for this statement?" would probably get rid of most of them right then and there.--Crossmr 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In short, no, because hoaxes go to AfD. It starts getting into "Well are the sources 'good' or not". Kevin_b_er 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about a hoax. The person can be real and the assertion can be real, but vague and not notable. In the case of the band who's assertionwas "They've had no commercial success but are really popular in their home town". I was told to take that to AfD even though regardless of whether or not that was a true assertion, it still failed WP:BAND.--Crossmr 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a problem is the sentence in Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which reads:

Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion.

The word "remotely" suggests any tiny (but actually implausible) tug at notability bars a speedy deletion. I have deleted the word and commented on the policy talk page to this effect. Tyrenius 12:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

CSD I3 and Fair Use

I have a concern about CSD I3 and how it affects fair use. I asked Jimbo on his talk page (since I3 is a policy from him) but I think now it might be better to have a discussion with others. Okay; here's the issue. A lot of "fair use" images, as part of their rationale, say "in the absence of a free alternative" or something similar. The thing is, because of CSD I3, we basically reject entirely any images that would be free for Wikipedia to use, but which are not "free+" in the sense that they aren't GFDL-compatible. So, what if an image was being used under a fair use claim, and a "with-permission" alternative existed, although not a "free+" one? It seems to me, that would invalidate the fair use claim, as an alternative exists that would be free to use. If this is the case, we need to either reconsider I3 or our fair use policy. Mangojuicetalk 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that other image is also justified under fair use, then you can replace the first one and tag it {{or-fu-re}}. Stifle (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thinking further about this, I think the problem with images used "with permission" is that people are using it as the thin end of a wedge, and if it was permitted to upload images that are just "with permission" to Wikipedia, they will just slap permission tags on everything. (In fact, since the institution of Template:Permission from license selector, they do, and it gets speedied.) "GFDL" and "Creative Commons" still have a somewhat "mystical" feel for users and they don't tend to use them, or maybe it's just because the permission slot is earlier in the drop-down, I don't know. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

I wonder whether CSD R2 shouldn't be extended to cover redirects to the Wikipedia namespace as well. The reason for this is that redirects are frequently listed on RfD with the rationale "cross-namespace redirect" and deleted virtually automatically. It seems to me that this is wasted effort, and we may as well allow such cross-namespace redirects to be speedied. --David Mestel(Talk) 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, I've seen contentious debates over certain cross-namespace redirects, often with multiple deletions and undeletions. No one's going to convince me this criterion would be uncontestable. Deco 00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The anti-cross-space redirect faction has already deleted most of them. As they often have many incoming links, speedying them is not a good idea. At WP:RFD, there will be at least time to orphan them by bot before deleting. Also, the criterion would have to be formulated in a way that the WP: and MoS: shortcuts (which are just as cross-namespace as those that recently have been deleted) won't be affected. Kusma (討論) 08:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This also raises the question of whether G4 should apply to redirects. Normally, if someone else wants an article on a deleted subject, it's not G4, because it's a different article; and this has been taken as an indication of notability. But there's only one way to make a redirect from A to B, so deleted redirects will never be reconsidered. (A limited form of G4, on the order of "no identical redirect can be recreated within 30 days" would be perfectly reasonable.) Septentrionalis 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested U3 - attack pages

I would suggest adding this as a user page criterion:

  • Attack pages. User pages or sub-pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject(s) or some other entity.

This would reflect the reality at WP:MFD, where such pages are always speedy deleted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose this wording, since it will be abused to get rid of pages collecting evidence of 3RR violations or for ArbCom cases. Septentrionalis 16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't forsee a problem. The wording is basically the same as A6, and theoretically the A6 criterion could be used to delete articles about subjects where a neutral biography inevitably paints them in a bad light (Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Roy Whiting, etc). Of course it isn't, because admins are able to exercise their judgement and can tell the difference between an attack page that calls someone an arsehole and a neutral biography that happens to be about an arsehole. In the same way we are perfectly capable of telling the difference between a legitimate 'evidence collecting' page or a work-in-progress Arbcom case and an attack page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, such a difference will come out in discussion. This is why this should be a criterion for deletion, but not a criterion for speedy deletion. Septentrionalis 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty big difference between "take it to MFD for a few opinions and then speedy delete" and just plain speedy deletion, even if that difference can't be encapsulated in policy. It can be useful to get a few more pairs of eyeballs on these if there is doubt. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

U2 modification

I changed "Check Special:Listusers to verify" to "Check both Special:Listusers and Special:Contributions to verify," because some very old accounts have been removed from the system (perhaps all of them at some point in 2002?), even though their contributions are still logged. As an example, compare User:Forgotten gentleman with Special:Contributions/Forgotten gentleman. Ardric47 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a new CSD template

Several weeks ago, in my proposals for "patently worthless media", I proposed, "Image pages for images hosted on Commons where there is no actual media on en Wikipedia." This situation occurs one of two ways usually. Sometimes, a picture is nominated to be a featured picture. Then, the FPC tag is deleted, leaving an empty description page. The other way is that someone leaves a comment about the image or provides some other useful information that would be more useful on the commons description page.

The general consensus was that this situation was already covered under the existing I2 criterion. I have been, when I have found them, tagging such images with I2 and leaving this explanation - "this image is at Commons. There is no media here - just this empty description page." Unfortunately, the response is often a blank stare and several messages have been left on my talk page informing me of the correct way to request that a Commons image be deleted.

So I would like to formalize the arrangement with a tag. Please take a look at {{Db-descpage}}. Any thoughts? BigDT 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The description page, in many cases, should be blanked, not deleted, so as to preserve the edit history of the image description which has been copied to commons. The talk page is also used to place the images into en cateogires and tag images an en-Featured Pictures. 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

G10 or A9 addition for spam articles

"Articles containing nothing but information about a company and links to the company website, its holding companies and products."

Yes, I see this conversation has gone on before. However, these articles seem to be becoming quite common, possibly because of services like this]. WP:WPSPAM is going to be soon overtaxed if these companies follow through on their service if the members have to go through AfD every time. SB_Johnny | talk 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Um... I think it's going to be very difficult to get any spam CSD onto the list, but this one is so vague it seems to encompass every single article on companies. What else should an article on a company contain apart from "information about a company and links to the company website, its holding companies and products"? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You cited an interesting example, it seems MyWikiBiz (which you linked to) has copied WP:CORP, and uses it as their criteria, for accepting clients. Hence, any article they make, would be qualified for inclusion. You can't extend CSD to cover articles which would survive AFD. This seems to be a problem without a solution I can think of. --Rob 15:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think I have a partial solution: see Template:PrSpam. Really just a shorcut template for prodding this sort of article, so presumably not violating any rules. You're right, the articles I've seen so far by that company (one user is apparently MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) are actually quite good, and I can only object to them "on principle", which is of course a POV objection and therefore meaningless. I want to use ((PrSpam)) for newpage patrol, where all sorts of junk articles of the ilk are written (2 days ago I cam across 6 of those in a row, and got annoyed with typing in rote justifications using the ((prod|reason)) (for articles with at least some potential) and/or ((delete|reason)) (for articles consisting of one sentence and a link).
    • (BTW, yesterday I created an illegal template (now "defanged", and will not add articles to the SD category): Template:db-advert. If it's considered potentially harmful, I wouldn't object to it's deletion... and it might be good to delete it actually, because it was used at least once by another user (I deleted it and replaced with a ((delete|reason)) tag). SB_Johnny | talk 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I 100% support adding this as a CSD and associated template. A7 lets vanity pages for people, groups, and bands be deleted. I don't see why blatant corporate spam shouldn't be deleted as well. I would suggest, though, simply redirecting your template to {{prod}} for the time being until this becomes the law of the land. BigDT 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, the template doesn't work (I'm not a programmer). SB_Johnny | talk 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • If you support it, BigDT, then can you answer my question - what articles on companies wouldn't be included under this proposed CSD? What else do such articles contain apart from "information about a company and links to the company website, its holding companies and products"? --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, the language could use some work. Why not just use the same A7 language? "Unremarkable companies (advertisements). An article about a business that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." BigDT 00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. There's a good reason none of their articles have been deleted - they're informative articles about notable companies. Also, "information about a company" seems to be exactly what you would hope to find in an article about a company. Finally, CSD is not a means of overriding keeps in AfD - these are evidence that there should not be a CSD, because it is clearly contestable. Deco 01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not talking about overriding AFD or articles that contain meaningful information about a company. We're talking about blatant coroporate spam when someone just posts their resume, a press release, or some linear combination of the two. These are not controversial deletions. BigDT 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not objecting to the idea, but to the specific wording of the proposal. "Does not assert the importance" won't work either, because they will. I haven't seen a good wording for this yet. Deco 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support the inclusion of such a criteria. What about "It is an advertisement about a non-notable company that masquerades as an article"? MER-C 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I also support a speedy tag for adverts. A lot of really small, obvisouly non-notable companies advertise here and there is no reason we should have to write out a neat little message to them all nor spend time AfD'ing them.
We should have very low tolerance for companies that do not give reasons for their notability - a speedy tag is putting the burden of proof on them, where it belongs. They are sucking bandwidth, editor time and wikipedias good name. Lundse 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning new users about speedy deletes

Over at Wikipedia:Requested templates#CSD, user:Deon555 suggested there be a version of template:PRODWarning or template:PRODNote to warn new users about an impending speedy deletion. I see a procedural problem with such a template since CSD-eligible articles can be (and frequently are) deleted on sight by any admin. I'm not sure, but I suspect the issue is deletion under A7, without any warning, of "good faith" creations by editors who simply don't know the rules. WP:CSD already says (2nd paragraph) Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author — remember, everyone was new once. Perhaps we should create template:CSDWarning and template:CSDNote (as a new pair of deletion notifications) not for the intent of warning about impending deletions, but to notify the original author, particularly "new" users, what might have happened to their article in cases that could even charitably be considered "good faith". Comments about this? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent addition, as long as they're easy to type and remember, e.g: ((sdna#|PAGENAME)) = Speedy Deletion Notice Attack-page (which would also include the text from ((test#)), ((sdne|PAGENAME)) for Speedy Deletion Notice Empty page (perhaps adding text saying that if they were going to add material to the article after creating it, they should include at least some content in the original version, and mark it with ((stub))), etc. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If A7 is a problem, we should discuss refining or excluding it from CSD. Changing the whole system will just confuse users, as by the time they likely read it, the page will be gone. It's different for AFD/IFD, where there's some question and debate to be had about the deletion. If a speediable page gets deleted, it can be recreated (if appropriate) in non-speediable form. If admins are speedying pages that are outside the criteria, smack them with a templated trout. -- nae'blis 17:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is to let new contributors know that the article was deleted, and why... or at least that's why I think they're a good idea. I'm assuming this is a tag to be used by the person proposing the deletion as well as any admins on NPP? Of course they'll probably not be used every time (vandalism and spam is often reverted without followups on userpages), but I'd guess they'll get their share of use once patrollers become aware of them. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this is sometimes a good idea, but only as an optional thing for more confusing/surprising speedies. CSD has to remain lightweight to be useful. Deco 17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Why should a speedy ever be confusing or surprising? -- nae'blis 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Because its personal opinion and subjectivity that can determine if something is worthy of being speedy deleted. Sadly a lot of admins take it upon themselves to remove things stating T1 and T2 in cases where that isn't clear. Enigmatical 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Two reasons: A7, T1. Deco 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It should definitely be optional... and it certainly shouldn't be as arduous as starting an AfD. However, they would allow for easy ways of dealing with both vandals (example template) and newbies example template). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind... these templates seem to be around already! SB_Johnny | talk 20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Many speedy deletions occur because a new editor expects to be able to work on an article in stages instead of having to finish it within 1-2 minutes of creation. Ardric47 20:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A# trumped by AFD?

I'm having a hard time coming up with any hypothetical articles which could pass an AFD with an unambiguous keep result, and later be speedied under any of the A# criteria. Would that be a fair descriptor of what already happens? -- nae'blis 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, articles which would pass AfD should almost never be speediable (see uncontestable at top of page). Of course, there are exceptions, particularly for some of the more debatable criteria such as A7. If you're thinking of adding a caveat that articles that have passed AfD cannot be speedied, I would support this - the point of CSD is to decrease load on AfD, and in this case the price is already paid. If the keep was based on premature nomination and conditional on improvement, it might be speediable, but they should probably renominate it. Deco 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm thinking of doing. I doubt it happens very often now, except when people are making a WP:POINT, and it would clarify one more case when Speedy Deletions aren't appropriate. You've got a point about speedy keeps being a possible point of wikilawyering, though... hmm. -- nae'blis 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
A7 already tells people to go to AfD if the classification is disputed. The only other criteria I can see as having any real chance of being applied to a kept article are G9 and A8, and either would overrule an AfD result anyway (we can't keep a copyvio just because some Wikipedians voted for it, while Office Actions overrule everything here.) For the other criteria...
  • A valid A1, A2, or A3 will never pass AfD, while someone making an invalid speedy deletion using those clear-cut criteria isn't going to stop just because you threw some more red tape at them. If by some freak accident a valid A1-A3 speedy candidate ever does pass an AfD, we'll be in a situation so bizarre that extra verbage on this page is unlikely to matter much one way or the other; whatever strange, unforeseeable circumstances could bring that situation about would have to be dealt with as they arise.
  • A4 doesn't exist.
  • A5 only applies when invoked by an AfD, so it doesn't matter here.
  • A6 could theoretically be disputed, but in practice the definition of 'attack pages' is narrow and clear enough to lump it in with A1-A3, above. The fact that the only major discussion of A6 in recent memory has been its duplication into I8 shows this.
  • A8, as noted, would have to overrule an AfD keep.
The only thing that might be worth having is a slight rewording on A7 to clarify the fact that AfD results should be used instead of A7 when an article's classification is disputed (which would plainly be the case if it had been contested when it came up on AfD!) I do not think that this is necessary, however, and I cannot see your proposed new rule being useful in any other case. --Aquillion 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

G4 on redirects

The present G4 means that a deleted redirect can never be reconsidered; contrary to WP:NBD; since there is no way to make a different redirect from A to B. WP:DRV will not reconsider, since applying G4 to a recreated redirect, even if it is recreated as a result of popular demand a year later, is still proceedurally correct. I suggest the following language:

To avoid irreversible decisions, G4 shall not apply to redirect recreated more than 90 days after deletion. Such cases should be taken to WP:RfD, to ensure that there is still consensus to delete.

Septentrionalis 23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem, unless everyone turns into the most wikilawyerest of wikilawyers. For starters, if G4 overruled a DRV consensus to undelete as you say, then DRV could only undelete articles if they were substantially changed. That's not the case - DRV can undelete articles without them being substantially changed if the deletion was improper. Has there ever been a case of a redirect staying deleted per G4 when it clearly shouldn't have been, or is this an instruction-creeping solution in search of a problem? --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the problem is that, under present phrasing, all such speedies are proper. DRV would be discouraged from discussing "was this redirect useful?", in favor of "was it identical?", which the new redirect will have to be. Septentrionalis 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I like that idea. I fully believe that, for example, cross-namespace redirects of essential Wikipedia pages are a good idea, but I don't want us to have to argue about the issue every three months. BigDT 01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem now is that if a redirect is ever deleted, even by three or four discussants, it can be (legitimately) speedied every time anybody ever recreates it. (And under the proposal, we only have to discuss them if A recreates one and B RfD's it; i.e. if there is still disagreement on the matter.) Would adding "recreated by a different user" answer your objections? Septentrionalis 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Recreated by a different user" is easy to get around - think sock puppets. Is there actually a specific case where this has been a problem? I've got to think that if there is consensus among the editors of article Xyz that, though six months ago the redirect was deleted, it is now a meaningful redirect, and the conversation is referenced on the redirect page, no administrator is going to delete it. On the other hand, having a particular waiting period set out for recreation is only going to WP:BEANS someone into recreating their favorite pet redirects every three months. How about solving the problem by spelling out in the criterion, "this clause also does not apply to deletions overturned at Deletion review." That way, there's a catch all in there just in case someone wants to Wikilawyer. BigDT 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't understand what the problem is here. If something changes to suddenly make it a good idea to overturn the deletion of a redirect (which, given the nature of redirects, would include a sudden increased demand for that redirect), that would count as "new information", and the original deletion could therefore be challenged on DRV, no matter how old it might be... although common sense says that in 'obvious' cases, DRV should only be consulted when someone objects to the restoration by requesting that the new redirect be deleted under G4. In that case, you've got an old RfD result that is, essentially, being disputed again over allegations of new information; I don't see how it could go anywhere but DRV. If nothing at all has changed since the redirect's deletion... why are you challenging it? You cannot challenge an ?fD of any sort just because you don't like its results; that's universal to the ?fD system. AfDs don't prevent the creation of substantially different versions, yes, but that's because it's possible to have substantially different versions, which would mean the old AfD reasoning might not apply... the fact that that doesn't apply to redirects is by design, not an accident. The reasons why RfDs remain valid until new information arises are entirely inherent in the nature of redirects, so suggesting that we 'solve' this by having RfDs periodically expire on an arbitrary timescale makes no sense. --Aquillion 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, all it takes is a different group of half-a-dozen considering the redirect. Septentrionalis 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change in R2

A proposal has been made which involves modifying the R2 criterion. You are invited to the discussion. --Zoz (t) 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I6 or a new one should be added for new policy on WP:FUC

WP:FUC states: "Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies to the image (though anyone can provide an explanation) and make every attempt to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policies. In addition, the Special:Upload page is very specific about our image upload conditions."

Shouldn't this page be updated to reflect this? -- Ned Scott 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the WP:FUC line should just be removed (after discussion there). Anything in that list of policies that could cause a FU image to be removed is covered elsewhere. So it really just amounts to instruction creep. BigDT 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not at all true that things that can be speedied for failing WP:FUC are already listed here (#1? #2?), and that line was just added after a policy amendment. I suggest that we amend I7 to reflect the situation. Jkelly 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be removed because one page is about the policy and then this page is about the process of deleting that which does not follow the policy. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Err, I just re-read that, you suggest it should be removed from WP:FUC. However, as I've said above, speedy deletion is the method of handling things, not the policy itself. The amendment in question was discussed and adopted after a discussion, so it's consensus has already been established .. Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"No source", "no license", and "no rationale" (FUC #10) are bookkeeping mistakes. Since not everyone visits Wikipedia every day, it makes sense to leave them at one week before deletion. Violations of most of the other fair use criteria are fundamental to the image, so deleting the image right off the bat is a good idea. --Carnildo 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the "no rationale" one is already policy for 48 hours. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added this to I7. Feel free to reorganise as makes sense. Jkelly 04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

G6 addition

I have a proposed addition for the G6 criterion: pages with a disambiguation term in their titles that are redirects. A lot of bad moves for disambiguation are made. For example, someone might come along and move steel to steel (metal) and make steel a disambiguation page. Then, it is decided the article should go back to its old name. Steel is deleted and the article is moved there. However, steel (metal) remains as a completely unnecessary redirect after the move. After making sure that any links to it have been changed, I think that the redirect should be deleted. -- Kjkolb 10:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is a result of the move discussion, then it's G6 (and should be noted in the discussion close); if not, it should go to RfD. But I don't think we need to add language; G6 says "like" because it's never going to be complete. Septentrionalis 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


There is actually a good reason to not delete such redirects. An article that has existed under one valid name for any significent length of time may have external, non-Wikipedia links coming to it under that name. Keeping the redirect created by the move allows such links to remain valid. --Aquillion 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see how...

... the set of non-notable companies does not fit into the set of non-notable clubs. A company is a club of select people (those who have been hired) who have the intention of generating income and -- just maybe -- serving customers.

I think Wikipedia already has a de facto speedy deletion criteria for non-notable companies/spam/advertising, even if de jure companies are excluded from A7 (I've seen companies get speedied, and I'll admit I've done this on several occasions too). Either the criteria ought to be changed to reflect this, or "companies do not fall under A7" ought to be enforced. I prefer the former option, obviously. theProject 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Criterion G6: Housekeeping

Recently, a number of redirects have been inappropriately deleted under criterion G6:Housekeeping after simple page-moves. The intention of this criterion is to allow the non-controversial deletion of a redirect in order to make way for a pagemove to the deleted title (for example, when merging pagehistories or reversing a contested pagemove). The intention of this criterion was never to delete a redirect after a pagemove simply to leave it blank.

The MediaWiki software automatically creates the redirect at the old location for a reason. It assists in the preservation of the article's contribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and it serves to point the original author(s) to the new location of the article so they may contribute at the right place.

The only exception to this that comes to mind is when a page is moved from the article-space into the user-space. In that situation, the left-over redirect should always be deleted. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. The move function, unlike copy-paste moves, preserves the full history of the article (on the other hand, external links from mirrors of the article may become broken by a redirect deletion, so it should really have a grace period). Also, after page move vandalism, the leftover redirect can be deleted as simple vandalism (not G6). Other than that, I agree that G6 should not ever be used to delete a former title, even if it was simple miscapitalization - it should go through RfD to determine if that redirect is useful or not. Deco 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Plausible assertion of notability

After Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 needs verifiable claims, any objections to having "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not plausibly assert the importance or significance of its subject." This is rather a change in the letter of the rule, where currently any insane assertion of "greatest in the universe" technically does not qualify, but are in practice rightly deleted. —Centrxtalk • 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I object to any widening of this already too-subjective rule. Deco 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, an article that hinges on a completely and plainly implausable assertion (e.g. "John Smith is a high school student and President of the United States.") can probably just be deleted under G3 as vandalism. --Aquillion 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

non-criteria

"Author deletion requests made in bad faith". IMO the addition is way too harsh. In a civilized society people must give each other some slack. Ever heard about buyer's remorse?

IMO if a person asks to delete his contrib within 2-3 days of creation and no one contributed substantially, why not indulge? We will create less enemies in this way. What can we possibly gain by being snatchy grabbers to risk a reputation? Don't you know that people hate abusers of fine print? (Yes, I know it is bad analogy, but the same style: "Sorry dear Sir or Madam, you ve seen the contract, gotcha!") `'mikka (t) 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think they're worth consideration for deletion, just not speedy deletion. I'd first like to see some consensus form around the decision of making the author happy over retaining the content. In cases where the content is either high-quality, fills a notable niche, or is a voluminous collection of many articles, I don't think happiness is likely to be of equal value. Since it's not clear cut and involves subjective judgement, speedy deletion is inappropriate. Deco 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd (non)deletion query

Hopefully not the wrong place but I couldn't find better. Browsing round I found this page - Stacy Shields. The first edit (after it was created) placed a speedy deletion because of vanity tag on it. The next edit was by the creator Sshields (talk · contribs) & removed that tag. I can see no evidence of discussion of deletion. There is a related page - SShields Couture that may be of interest. I'd like any comments - I can always learn! Anything from "none of your business" to "how interesting" will do. Regards & thanks -- Nigel (Talk) 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put Stacy Shields on Afd as per Wikipedia:Autobiography. JoJan 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The tag was correctly removed. Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Deco 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if removed by the page creator? --Nigel (Talk) 08:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
No matter who removed it. I'd advise Jaranda to cite a specific criterion for speedy deletion that clearly applies in the future. Deco 08:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - useful info --Nigel (Talk) 08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, speedy deletion tags may not be removed by the creator of the article. See the text of {{db-bio}} and every other speedy deletion tag, which explictly says this in bold text. This comes under 'avoidant vandalism' if done repeatedly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I should think anyone could remove a speedy tag that is placed out-of-process. Deco 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any support for a CSD R4?

Proposal

R4. Redirects using punctuation that does not appear in the target's title.
R4. Redirects with scare quotes that do not appear in the target's title or in the target article's alternate name which appears in bold on the target page. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

What does everyone think of this? At times, 25% of the listings on RfD would qualify for this, and I've not yet seen one kept or even had significant showing from the keep votes. Many redirects have single- or double-quotes as scare quotes, which are being nominated en masse. BigNate37(T) 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a redirect that is set up like this? I can't say as I've ever encountered one.--Crossmr 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Examples include 10 of the 13 nominations from 17 August 2006 RfDs, "Hate Me" → Hate Me from 7 August 2006, MOBBSTARR' → Dice and k9 from 3 August 2006 (bad example), 6 of the 16 from 30 July 2006 RfDs... come to think of it, all but one of these are in the form of single- or double-quotes used as scare quotes except one. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because they don't tend to be kept doesn't necessarily mean that a) they're all being nominated for deletion, or b) that there isn't a legitimate search target with quotes in some instances. I'm a little wary of the necessity of this at the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, how would this CSD criteria affect, say, Life's Rich Pageant? The apostrophe does not show up in the title of the album in reality, thus meeting your criteria, although this is a perfectly logical redirect as well as a perfectly logical way to type the title. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I intentionally left the wording terse as opposed to a complex-compound-triple-integral-fudge-ripple-run-on-sentence, which was my first idea. I see now with a couple examples that the wording needs revising, but could be a lot simpler than I had first thought. Single quotes, double quotes, tildes and apostrophies used as scare quotes should all be considered to be scare quotes, of course. BigNate37(T) 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I also toyed with the idea of making another condition that the same redirect exists without scare quotes, but that seems too restrictive and too easy to avoid by simply creating the redirect. See my comments at 'Anti-Pope' Gregory XVII → Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez for an example of what this criteria would look like. BigNate37(T) 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't these just be speedied as unlikely typos (or attack pages)? "Hate me" was speedy deleted. I've tagged quoted redirects for speedies before as unlikely typos and nobody has ever complained. BigDT 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely typos are open to much more interpretation, and as such have a short limit on how new a redirect can be to qualify under that criterion. Most of the redirects I've seen that this proposed criterion addresses are not attack pages. Admins continue to delete redirects out of process by misapplying CSD criteria, or applying WP:SNOWBALL, or whatever you wish to call it, but that is neither consistent nor efficient because many of them end up on RfD for a few days. An actual policy provision means that we wouldn't need rouge admins sniping these off of RfD; those finding them could simply tag them as CSD in the first place. An advantage to this is we would have less reason for these awkward pseudospeedy deletions: admins would be less likely to hastily delete a contested RfD nomination by mistake if they had less uncontested RfD nominations like these to content with. BigNate37(T) 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems too narrow. Other criteria apply to broad classes and have hundreds of candidates per day. For this, there was just this one crop, and some of them are reasonable typos. —Centrxtalk • 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem here is that it potentially leaves too much guesswork. Anything that is really an attack scare quote like John "the idiot" Doe can be speedied. Anything that is "just for the heckofit" quotes, like "Michael Vick" or "Frank" Beamer can be speedied as an unlikely typo. Anything that is potentially controversial or questionable (Tim "the tool man" Taylor, etc) needs to be discussed and not speedied anyway. You don't want an administrator having to have some kind of technical knowledge or knowledge about the subject to decide whether the quoted portion makes it a legitimate redirect or not. If anyone with no knowledge of the subject can see that it is a nonsensical name, then it should be speedied. If they can't, then it needs to go to RFD. BigDT 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding A7

Moved recent discussion from section Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand A7.

A template is up for deletion since it refers to A7 to speedy-delete unnotable web sites. Some might argue that websites are groups, but simply expanding A7 would be very useful. Allowing speedy deletions of unnotable websites is certainly in line with the spirit of the rule that grants speedy delettion of articles on unnotable groups, clubs, bands or people. --Swift 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any expansion of the already too-subjective, too-general rule A7, which is often interpreted loosely by the single admins that apply it. Deco 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain this a bit further? Do you mean that the term notable is too loose? Are you both opposed to widening the rule (adding more items in similar vain) as well as deepening it (making it further reaching)? --Swift 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to any expansion whatsoever. I disagree with it because what constitutes a "assertion of notability" is subject to interpretation, and because often legitimate articles are written (such as on historical figures) that contain, at best, an implicit assertion of notability. Deco 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of A7's usability, but it does need SOME sort of refinement. Websites and startup businesses could fall under a generalized "no claim of notability" criterion, but we can't start biting the newbies just because their first edit doesn't include what the person's fame and fortune is. I've seen way too many articles tagged and bagged in under 5 minutes (and then sometimes redeleted as G4) to be comfortable with an expansion of A7 at this time. Maybe set a "no plausible claim of notability, and the article is more than X hours/days old". There's a fine line here between chasing off new contributions, and keeping the dreck out. -- nae'blis 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. There's a lot of commentary on this page about the problems/limitations with A7. This should probably be moved down the page/split off into Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/A7 refinement to get the widest possible consensus. -- nae'blis 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it should have a delayed element. Broaden the class of things that fall under it, but only allow deletion after they have been around for a week or so. —Centrxtalk • 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
After a week, you're faster going through {{prod}} anyway, aren't you? I was thinking more like 12-24 hours. -- nae'blis 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Prod can be removed by anyone. The idea is that the article has been around for a while, it is not "in progress" to making a claim of notability and it is not a popular sort of article that is on its way to indicating notability. The time limit could be anything to that end. At the extreme, deleting 10-minute-old pages with A7 should be stopped. Just a notion. —Centrxtalk • 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you'll get no argument from me on giving progressive saves some slack, but the trick is how to word it without hamstringing NPP for things like kids in school, garage bands, somebody's aged grandmother, etc. -- nae'blis 20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Why expand it at all before discussion here? It's controversial enough without trying to add corporations and websites, and there's no indication that it needs to be expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? It hasn't been expanded, and this is the discussion about whether and how to expand it. —Centrxtalk • 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's part of the template thing, no? Either way, is there anything demonstrating the need to expand it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd still like somebody to explain why the current A7 needs to be speedy? "Oh no, they aren't notable! Quick, get it off the servers, before the notability police see it!"? {{prod}} would seem to be able to do the same job just fine if we dropped the "uncontroversial" constraint (which is often ignored anyway). Yomanganitalk 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Prod can be removed by anyone and then it has to go to AfD, so for many of these it means adding to the already many AfDs and the extra work that goes with nominating, having several people vote on it, and then closing it, when for the majority of these sorts they are going to be unanimously deleted on AfD, or in some cases are just deleted peremptorily by admins where they vaguely fall into the CSD criteria. So, the question is: what is a good, well-defined, well-worded criterion that would include the things that are always deleted at AfD, but not admit the deletion of legitimate articles. So, for example, if Bill Smith the insurance salesman makes an article about himself and also an article about his personal website, which happens to have some insurance tips, why shouldn't the website article be deleted along with his person article? —Centrxtalk • 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the removed prod having to go to AFD is a failure of the prod process, which at the moment acts more or less like {{db-owner}} for non-owners or a clear-up for abandoned articles. Sticking random notability criteria in Speedy delete isn't a solution because the problem doesn't lie there. {{prod}} needs some teeth - removal without a reason shouldn't mean that it can't be replaced for example. Yomanganitalk 23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why that's a "failure" of prod (as opposed to maybe a "failing"). Prod is designed for lightweight, uncontroversial deletions that neverteheless don't rise to the level of speedy deletion. If it's controversial in any way (and that includes if any editor disagrees with the prod), it either stays or gets a wider audience at AfD. That's how it was designed and how it was accepted - we can't change the rules now because we don't like them. Several processes failed to gather approval before prod was formed. Where do you see the problem is with prod? Most prods suceed in their goal, according to at least one survey of the data. -- nae'blis 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what is meant is that prod breaks by allowing the 2-day old user who wrote a fan page about their favorite website to just remove the prod tag. —Centrxtalk • 23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps I should have said failing rather than failure. Essentially what I'm saying is that {{prod}} succeeds in its very limited aims, but there should be something between the current {{prod}} and AFD, and that it doesn't need to be a rather flimsy A7. I'd like to tighten up the prod rules slightly, but my main problem is with A7 being speedy - there are lots of articles that don't conform to the policies which don't fall under speedy criteria, so why should this? It doesn't hurt anybody by being on the servers for a week; it is likely to be newcomers that fall foul of it (as, unlike experienced contributors, they don't know that inserting a rather flimsy claim to notability will avoid the article being tagged under A7); the inclusions and exclusions are ridiculous (I can make an article about my pet, my house, or my imaginary friend under a strict reading of the rule but not one about myself); and I'm guessing a lot of the potential A7 deletions end up at AFD anyway, because nobody is quite sure where to draw the line on the notability claims. By the way, I'm pretty sure we can change the rules if we don't like them (otherwise this discussion is a waste of time!). Yomanganitalk 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. Prod works most of the time, and A7 works some of the time, is overapplied some of the time (and passes, and sometimes looks like it should be applied (imaginary friends, pets, etc) but can't be so it takes up time and space at AFD. I'd support, personally, an A7 that included real-world people/groups/bands/companies/pets that make no claim of notability/importance and are more than 24 hours old. Maybe this requires some sort of {{preA7}} template for New Pages Patrol that can be revisited, or maybe just better use of prod, but it has a lot of potential to trim AFD, if recent days' entries are any indication (yesterday (unscientifically): 34 RL persons, ~29 lists, 21 businesses, 19 websites, 15 musicians/groups/albums, 14 fictional characters/references, 9 neologisms/dictionary definitions, 6 original research/essays/POV pages, 4 webcomics, 3 RL groups, 3 RL places, 3 pieces of software - with some noticable overlap between websites & businesses, and musicians & people). -- nae'blis 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Something like that {{preA7}} template to slow things down may help address some of the points, but I'd be worried that it would get removed by the editor without comment, just as {{prod}} can be. Although I'm loathe to suggest another process, perhaps a NPP watchlist page, where New page patrollers can add pages that look like they are likely to fall under A7 (or just need watching), would be the solution. If A7 is sticking around to prevent things going to AFD, it should definitely be reworded to list its exclusions rather than its inclusions (I think allowing pets and buildings to pass was probably an accidental omission rather than a conscious choice). Yomanganitalk 08:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Everyone in this discussion should be aware of/read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal#Failed_proposals where unremarkable bands failed with 69% support (at the time), unremarkable websites failed with 58% support (too subjective), and unremarkable clubs failed with 37% support (too vague). Also vanity articles unimproved in 3 days failed an earlier proposal with 58% support, which is probably relevant. A lot of the prior discussion seems to center around the idea that "notability is too hard for one person to determine", which has a lot of validity. Since admins can use speedy deletion criteria to delete articles themselves without ever having it be tagged/go into the category, it's important that we not shortcut any ambiguous cases. It's also important to note that the original proposal emphasized that it was about "real people", and even then only squeaked by with 74% support. Note the original "An article about a real person that does not assert..." wording. bands/groups were added in December 2005; the discussion is referenced here and the poll itself was closed here. It's still all about people, not websites/corporations, though, which would be a stumbling block to expanding A7. On the other hand, can someone provide statistics on uncontested deletions of nn websites/companies on AFD? Maybe that would provide the data needed to gain support. -- nae'blis 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Camps - I should welcome a view as to whether camps are covered. I speedied Camp Horseshoe but it was changed to a Prod on the basis that camps are excluded. I assumed that they could be a 'group of people' or a 'club'. If they are not covered I should like to suggest that they are. (I am not arguing this specific case but the principle.) BlueValour 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

New userpage criterion?

How about adding a U3 "Blatant advertising". Self promotion/sandboxing etc on userpages is expressly forbidden by WP:NOT/WP:USER yet there are probably thousands of such userpatges out there (I'm talking about stuff like User:Group5motorsport, User:Junwang, User:Flatratefax, User:Motargem, User:Unisoftdatatech (will be MFD'ing them all)), and they are generaly left alone due to our traditional respect for the "privacy" of userpages, indeed advertisements created in the main namespace are often even moved to userpsace rather nominated for deletion! This seems to have resulted in userpsace becoming a "free for all" where people can drop theyr google bombs and plug theyr products in relative peace. Such userpages don't stand a snowball's chance in hell to survive a MFD debate, and a few bold admins are already quietly deleting such pages with no great controversy, so IMHO we should simply make it "official". The only problem I can see is wording it properly so it's neither easy to game nor too wide as to result in "legitemate" userpages getting deleted because they included a link to some commercial website. --Sherool (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any statistics on this question? CSDs are usually proposed when AFD (or it's equivalent process) is getting overwhelmed. How many of these a day are at MfD? Is the problem really beyond the ability of MfD to handle efficiently? I believe we should look for solid evidence that we need yet another CSD criterion before we add yet more complexity to this page. Especially since, as you say, this one may be particularly difficult to word properly. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this, from WP:MFD in the last four days:

I guess that is only a sample of the spam that is out there, in userified pages nobody knows about. I can't speak for the amount of spam that gets posted (even though I do RC Patrol - I'm online during the quietest part of the day), but on some days they can come thick and fast. I don't think Prod is appropriate for blatant spam - when someone spams up your email inbox, do you wait five days before you hit the delete button?

It should be a general criteria, because spam can crop up anywhere. As for wording, it should go something like this - "article is about a non-notable company or product and it only serves the purpose to promote the subject". MER-C 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Unsalvageably

Unsalvageably is not a word (Ref: Oxford English Online, Merriam-Webster Online, and American Heritage). I took the liberty of doing a full text search of Oxford English Dictionary Online, and unsalvageably does not show up anywhere – that is any definition, quotation, variant spelling, etc. Furthermore, neither salvageably nor unsalvageable are words, thus making this use of erroneous sesquipedalia verba in official policy, CSD G1, all the more abnormal. The use of a real word would be less offensive and more intelligible, especially considering this is often used as a notice to new users who have just made an inappropriate entry. JustOneJake 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The meaning is obvious. It's the adverb form of "unsalvageable", which is quite common and found in the Merriam Webster dictionary, among others.[1] The word "unsalvageable" has been used in headlines by the NPR[2] and the New York Times[3]. It's a real word. Deco 23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, unsalvageable is a word, sorry for the mistake. The meaning may seem obvious, but I believe it is highly ambiguous, bad English, and looks poorly upon Wikipedia. salvageably are unsalvageably are not words in any English dictionary. Dictionaries list adverbs formed by adding a derivational morpheme, namely -ly, such as systematically (M-W), accountably (M-W), and beautifully (M-W). Complex derivations that are not considered words in common use are not listed, like tastablely and unsalvageably. Would you find it odd if someone said, That fruit was tastablely delicious? Furthermore, consider the phrase it is used in: an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This implies unsalvageably modifies the adjective, incoherent. We are suggesting the incoherence of the page can not be salvaged. It makes more sense to use the adjective unsalvageable, and definitively describing the noun, page. Thus, suggesting the page is neither coherent nor salvageable. JustOneJake 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, it is the coherence to which the adverb is intended to apply. The point is that if the page can be edited to be coherent, it should be. This often applies to articles written by authors with a poor knowledge of English. Deco 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is not in the dictionary, it is safe to say that this is a nonce word made up of a real word and a familiar suffix. We are not documenting the word itself but using it for its meaning; if it suits the purpose there is nothing wrong with using a nonce word in policy. Having said that, if a suitable alternative can be agreed upon there is no harm in removing the word. I really don't see it being a big deal either way, there are more pressing issues on Wikipedia. BigNate37(T) 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it even more disturbing, and inaccurate, if we actually intend to be modifying the adjective incoherent. Incoherent implies parts of what has been written lack connection or unity. It is doubtful the articles flagged with this message actually contain mutually exclusive or contradictory statements. Thus, while the articles may often be unintelligible and not encyclopedic in nature, the coherence almost always could be salvaged given the authors further explain themselves. So take this into consideration along with the nonexistence of the word and the novice linguistics skills of the average offender of the policy. The suggestion (below) for irredeemably confused, by Deco, is strikingly better in this situation, as it more accurately describes the situation at hand. JustOneJake 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As a potential compromise, I might suggest the precise wording used on Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which is currently "irredeemably confused". Deco 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing fair-use rationale (I6) needs teeth

You know, looking back. I realised I was quite silly and didn't cleanly read the criteria. We ask that uploaders in all sorts of places put fair use rationales. But there's no teeth to it with dozens of fair use templates that circumvent the point, I belive, of I6. I've tagged (and probably gotten several images deleted as a result) by tagging images which were marked as fair use, but not with {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}}. If you want to actually upload some images, you can avoid having to put a fair use rationale if you create your own template. {{DisneyCharacter}}, for example, was created after the cutoff. No longer do you need to provide a rationale, you have the fair use copyright tag that isn't {{Non-free fair use in}}! Yet people abuse {{Film-screenshot}} and {{Tv-screenshot}} constantly, and the images are used for almost decoration. The strong recommendation that images have a fair use rationale needs teeth. Several editors already do this, they take the time to provide fair use rationales when they don't neccessarily need to because the image would have to go through a lengthy deletion process to be deleted, when they can just be lazy. I7 has some usefulness to remedy this, but its not enough. Please help to amend this criteria to include all the fair use tags. Kevin_b_er 07:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannot find evidence that person exists

Please see Nordie Tullion a.k.a. Nordie4u. This article asserts importance, so under current rules, can't be speedy deleted. However, it's sources are either non-existent or don't mention the person at all. No hits on Google. Why doesn't an obviously fictional person, with no verifiable information in the article, qualify as speedy? Or does it, and I'm just missing which reason it falls under?Chidom talk  17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can't find evidence doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. This is absolutely a situation where an AfD is warranted - if it's a hoax, 5 more days with multiple sets of eyes won't hurt to make it clear, and if it isn't, it'll easily be proven otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly as Jeff said. It's no great tragedy when we can't use speedy deletion for everything. Mangojuicetalk 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a waste of many people's time and energy; it encourages this type of vandalism. If the sources given in the article are bogus and I've checked the major sources for porn star names and Google and not found anything, this person doesn't exist. If they do, then verifable sources need to be listed so that the assertion that they are a porn star can be verified, or we leave ourselves open to libel.Chidom talk  19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So you've looked in every possible place that this could be? You don't think other people may be better equipped to find information in places you're not thinking of? I just had this exact issue with Captain Underpants and the Terrible Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers: I thought it was a hoax by someone who's made some vandal-like edits in the past. It turns out that, even though the book isn't listed at Amazon, on the author's site, or anywhere else, it IS previewed on the final page of the most recent book, something I was unlikely to notice anyitme in the next week. If I had speedied it, it would have been a very dumb mistake. Instead, I took it to AfD, a source was found, and the article should be kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's too open to interpretation. It will give administrators the excuse to delete a large amount of the biography stubs we have without any warning, and it may actually unintentionally apply to some articles on people from long ago. Some editors (and admins) will interpret the word evidence. Do we have evidence Jesus existed? These kind of violations of WP:OR need to be taken to AfD. While awaiting deletion, an AfD notice and a {{hoax}} tag will ensure nobody takes the article as fact. BigNate37(T) 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to look in every possible place this could be to start with; the author of the article is supposed to provide verifiable sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If none of the material is sourced, it should be speediable. (It's up to the administrator if they want to find sources or not.) If they aren't there and the nominator can't find any, it should be speediable; including the example given by BigNate. In this case, the sources that were given either didn't exist or made no mention of the subject matter; they're worthless—not reputable, as is required, particularaly in the case of a living person. Badly written articles take up way too much time and energy; I could easily have blanked the entire article under the "no sources" instructions. If that's possible—which in effect deletes the article—why shouldn't the article just be deleted? Either way, it has to be re-written in order to survive.Chidom talk  19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then, by all means, stub it and send it to AfD. Hoaxes are bad, yes, but they shouldn't be speedyable. I understand what you're saying about the sources, but there has to be some level of effort to affirm it's a hoax, or some sort of consensus. We disagree, and that's fine, but hoaxes don't appear to have an consensus to be speedyable, and I don't see that changing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's okay that we disagree. Hopefully more folks will chime in here. The "level of effort" should be made by the editor to prove that it's not a hoax; not the other way around. Properly sourcing the article does this. If we're going to have the policy that articles have to be sourced, then we should enforce it.Chidom talk  20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, generally hoaxes shouldn't be speediable. An article whose only claim of notability is "was elected POTUS while smoking crack and banging four year olds", on the other hand, is demonstrably false, and vandalism. I would think verifiably false claims of notability (i.e. unique awards) wouldn't count for A7, as the claim can simply be removed from the article. -- nae'blis 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"POTUS" = President of the United States (I didn't uderstand the abbreviation.)Chidom talk  20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We're all in agreement that biographical hoaxes are unwelcome here and are prone to deletion, but there has been nothing in this discussion to establish why it needs to be a speedy. How many AfDs a week would this eliminate? How many of last month's AfDs qualify for speedy under this criterion, and how many of those were kept? Personally, I would like to see how this saves significant time on a daily basis and also that it does not allow for abuse by deletionist admins (at least no more so than the current CSD criteria) or the deletion of fledgling articles. These are my comments to Chidom for improving his position if this is to reach consensus rather than being a rebuttle per se. As an aside, the reason we put all that work into deleting bad articles is because some of them are good faith contributions that turn into good articles despite their initial violation of WP:V. BigNate37(T) 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How much time does it take to put a {{speedy}} tag on a page rather than go through listing it as an {{afd}}? That seems significant to me. How much of the backlog at AfD could be reduced? There are obvious cases, as in this one, where I still feel speedy is justifiable; the sources are either dead-ends or don't mention the person, none of the standard sources for finding a porn filmography list him, there are no Google hits&nmdash;surely one of those would support an AfD, but the lack of all of them? The only reason this can't be listed as speediable under current guidelines is that A7 doesn't apply here because of the assertion of importance, which has not been sourced and is not verifiable by any usual means. What is the harm of deleting the article under these circumstances and having it re-created with proper sources?Chidom talk  00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked for more people to chime in. Deletable? Yes. Speedy-deletable? No. Alleged hoaxes (including situations like this where the first user can't find evidence of the person, event, etc.) are not appropriate for speedy-deletion. We've just had too many cases where an article was initially tagged as a hoax and then during the AFD discussion, discovered to be a real though obscure historical person or event. These questions need more than a single set of eyes before making the decision. Remember that speedy-deletions are deliberately limited to those cases which are so obvious that any reasonable editor will immediately reach the same decision and without the need to do any research beyond reading the article. Speedy-deletion candidates really should be that obvious.

I was keeping a file on mistaken-hoax discussions for a while. I think I still have links to a couple of the more interesting discussions on my userpage. By the way, remember that the initial version of the article is poorly sourced or poorly written. WP:V is the standard to which we bring our articles. Very few of them met that standard on their first edit. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree that hoaxes should not be speediable, for the reasons above. Deco 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And remember, there is the occasional hoax, like Dominion of Melchizedek, which is notable as a hoax. The proper thing to do in such cases is to make sure the article presents it as one, rather than delete (often difficult, as with the example). AfD is more likely to catch this. Septentrionalis 17:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as important as Wikipedia:Verifiability is, a lack of sources is not sufficient reason to speedily-delete an article. This is done, as I understand, mostly because new articles written by inexperienced editors tend not to have sources, though the articles themselves may be very useful. Fagstein 06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages designed to encourage the creation of notable articles

I do most of my wiki use at work. I'm typically researching some technical term or company. I use wikipedia a great deal in this search. It saddens me when it appears wikipedia does not have the article I'm looking for. At work I don't have the option of creating a proper article. So instead, when I found a different website which described what I was looking for I would create a talk page for the notable article that does not yet exist, post the link, and give a one or two sentence description why the article should exist. Is this Kosher? I've asked this question all over the place, generally people tell me yes, but I think I should ask again here :) Mathiastck 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The criterea already cover this IMHO. "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article.(...)" (emphasis mine). --Sherool (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree :) But someone put all the talk pages I created, that didn't have attached articles, up for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what to do about that now, or how to prevent it in the future. I am not familiar with the sppedy deletion process, or how to respond to it. I was thinking of making a template or something I could just drop on a new talk page I create, saying something like, This talk page was created to encourage the creation of an article on this subject. It is notable because of X, these Y links should assist future editors. Mathiastck 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how recent the edits to the talk page are, I would think. If someone created a new talk page as you did, it probably shouldn't be speedied immediately. OTOH, a talk page which corresponds to a deleted page (admins occasionally forget), contains nothing but garbage or has an inappropriate title, or a page which was moved without moving the talk page (it happens), or which has sat untouched for weeks...those are good speedy candidates. In questionable cases, {{prod}} may be more appropriate, to see if anyone wants to keep it for a good reason. There isn't an (usually) urgency to delete stray talk pages, after all... --EngineerScotty 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of creating a template for this purpose. It is {{User:BigNate37/TM/Future article talk page}}. Feel free to use it as-is, change it, move it to your userspace, or whatever. Just let me know if you definately will not use it, and I'll slap a {{db-u1}} on it and get rid of it. BigNate37(T) 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly! Bignate I will definitely use it :) Mathiastck 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)