Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 25

CSD for dead WikiProjects

I've been seeing a lot of dead WikiProjects on the recent WP:MFD logs (thanks to Warlord John Carter for listing them). Is there a way we can write a CSD or PROD formula to keep the really obvious cases off MFD? My criteria would be something like this:

  1. The Wikiproject never had more than two members in its entire history.
  2. The page has no meaningful content, OR it has received no meaningful edits in the last months, where I would suggest .

Thoughts? YechielMan 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Creep. We don't need a new CSD criterion for what is ultimately a rather limited issue. EVula // talk // // 19:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think MfD is perfectly capable of handling these. Presumably this nomination spree has cleared a backlog, so there won't be as many cases in future. Hut 8.5 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's neither a pressing urgent matter or a regular backlog on MFD. No need for a speedy deletion for these, they can wait five days. -- nae'blis 21:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the issue rests as is. YechielMan 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If this becomes a big issue, I'd suggest extending WP:PROD to the Wikipedia namespace, rather than speedily deleting them. >Radiant< 09:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting suggestion, in my opinion. Has it been suggested/attempted before? What are some arguments against it? JavaTenor 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I can think only of two argument against the change, though I personally think the idea has merit.
  1. Not necessary – There aren't that many pages in the Wikipedia namespace which qualify for uncontroversial deletion and those that do are generally speedy-able. Also, MfD can handle the controversial cases. Then again, "not necessary" doesn't necessarily equate to "not a good idea", especially since extending the scope of proposed deletions isn't all that problematic or bureaucratic.
  2. Oversight – The proposed deletion process doesn't provide as much oversight as MfD. In theory, controversial deletions could occur. This could be a problem especially for WikiProject pages that are unwatched or watched by only one editor who is on a break.
In any case, I think this idea ought to be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am actually going to make a proposal page for WP:WFD, a new XFD area for anything in the project space including WikiProjects. FunPika 00:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
MfD handles that stuff fine? Why on earth would we need an XfD for something as minor as wikiprojects. ViridaeTalk 00:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I said it was for all crap in Wiki space, not just the Wikiprojects. FunPika 01:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
A significant portion of useless pages in the Wikipedia namespace can be speedily deleted (usually per CSD G6). I think MfD handles the remainder well enough. I don't think that the benefits outweight the costs of having another XfD process. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Change to I7

Relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Change to CSD I7.

About a week ago, I made a change to I7 encompassing non-free images uploaded as free. Geni reverted this as it'd be redundant under G12, but I have two concerns with the reversion:

  1. Uploading an image with the wrong tag != Blatant infringement.
  2. In that case, I7 would be redundant to G12.

I had a rough conensus on the AN (about 70%), but I think I should ask on this page before reverting, even though it's a nobrainer. Will (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse my own previous endorsement. I believe copyright violations should be nuked on sight. -N 01:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I7 already covers this, I think. The current wording of I7 is poor, because too many people see the first words "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag", and assume that is all that I7 covers. But in fact I7's scope is actually "Non-free images or media that fail any part of the non-free content criteria". This could be clarified by moving the bit about invalid fair-use tags to the end of I7, rather than it being the opening of I7. Jheald 02:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I have been bold, and tried instituting this change. (Though actually I don't think it's so very bold). Jheald 03:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd still like I7 to allow any incorrect tagging to be an instant speedy (as IMO, tagging a non-free with {{PD}} is worse). Will (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be some leeway for simple errors. I would favor a "48 hours after uploader is notified, or 1 week after page is tagged" rule, to give uploaders a chance to correct good-faith errors and possibly learn soemthing. Many uploaders don't properly understand the various license tags and their meanigns, and wrong tags are ofteen not malicious, jsut mistaken. It isn't as if we don't usually ahve a 48 hr or more backlog enyway, so this doesn't really cost anythign in practical terms. DES (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between pro forma problems and images that are not acceptable to use. If someone uploads a screenshot from a TV show, tags it PD-self, and says "I made it", then just fix the tag and let them know that taking a screenshot isn't a creative act. But if they upload a news media photo and tag it PD-self, just speedy the thing - we can never use news media photos and there is no reason to wait 48 hours to expunge a copyright violation. In other words, the driving force behind an instant speedy vs a delayed speedy ought to be "could we use this image if the proper tags were added?" If not, there's no point in waiting 48 hours for the inevitable. --BigΔT 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That is IMO not unreasoanble (Although I think there are rare cases where a news media photo might be usable under fair use, this is not true in the vast majority of cases, if ever.) But a deleting admin ought to be admonished to think hard if there is any plausible way that with a proper tag, and perhaps a proper fair use rationale, an image might be usable, not jsut auto-delete based on a tag. DES (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Say a user posts a comment on their userpage that they are a rock band from somewhere. The comment is blatantly promotional of the band, and is using the userspace purely as MySpace. The user has made no other edits, and it has been a reasonably lengthy amount of time since the posting. Could we presumably delete the userpage under G11, or should there be a new userspace criteria? Sure, userspace isn't the same as mainspace, but does the process really need to go the WP:MfD? Sr13 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Use prod instead. MER-C 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
G11 can apply to userpages, actually. The general criteria apply across all namespaces, user pages included, but generally some leeway should be given with pages in userspace (for instance, deleting a user's sandbox under G2 would be poor practice). They should only be speedily deleted in the most blatant circumstances, e.g. blatant copyvio, spam, vandalism or defamatory material. The example you're describing sounds like it might be fine for G11, but if in doubt there's no harm in using prod. If the user has made no contributions it would seem unlikely that they're going to object. - Zeibura (Talk) 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

G10 "or fails to comply fully with the relevant policy in any other way"

I've added a phrase to stave off wikilawyering in cases of BLP violations. The important criterion with respect to the BLP is that all articles on living persons must comply fully with every aspect of the BLP. Accordingly I have added phrasing to emphasize that, the result being:

Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced or fails to comply fully with the relevant policy in any other way, where there is no compliant version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.

--Tony Sidaway 10:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that definition as it opesn the door for blatant abuse. ViridaeTalk 11:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain this? What kind of abuse do you foresee? --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The new wording would potentially allow an article to be deleted if any part of it is a BLP violation. So if there's one biased sentence in George W Bush, I could delete the article. I don't mind the concept - but the wording needs to have "all or substantially all" in there somewhere. --BigDT 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There is still strong argument about the scop eof BLP, untill we clarify exactly what that is, it opens the door to further exremly controversial deletions. ViridaeTalk 12:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The article couldn't be deleted if there was a good version to revert to, and obviously it's enough to remove a BLP-violating sentence or two, and we wouldn't need to speedy such an article. This criterion is intended for egregious violations, and the addition of the wording is to remove scope for wikilawyering over terms. I don't think there's a problem with "extremely controversial" deletions here. Obviously nearly all material deleted under the BLP is inherently controversial. Let's try some new wording:
Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"), or a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced or fails to comply fully with the relevant policy in any other way, where removal of material cannot make it compliant and there is no earlier compliant version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.
How about that? --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that doesn't hande Viridae's concern at all. If there is not a previous version that is acceptable but the matter is easily correctable with removal of the sentence that shouldn't be deleted. Your version doesn't make that clear. Furthermore, this leads to a massive amount of discretionary deletion for admins when it isn't at all clear at this point when and how much the privacy consideration matter. JoshuaZ 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What about the wording from G11? An article that "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become" compliant? NickelShoe (Talk) 14:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still worried by the wording of "or fails to comply fully with the relevant policy in any other way". Speedy deletion cirteria are rightly unambiguous/specific, and that just isnt. If it is not an attack page/neutrally worded or is not unsourced what is the great hurry to delete it anyway? Such pages are worth the community's time to look at, try and improve or delete with a deletion discussion. Private material (contact details for private individuals etc) can of course still be deleted (or oversighted as necessary), and I don't think we need a speedy deletion criteria to cover that. However it is due courtesy to the community to not delete their hard work without a discussion except in the most extreme of cases. As such I oppose ALL speedy deletions citing BLP, except those that qualify under the current wording of G10 - if you think there is a compelling case, feel free to argue it at afd - or take editorial steps to merge and redirect where appropriate. But keeping a potentially slightly dodgy article there for another 5 days while the community makes up its mind is hardly going to be a problem, (I am not talking about very dodgy ones here, attack articles, those filled with negative bias etc) especially considering it is going to take a damn site longer than that to get out of the mirrors and the search engine results. ViridaeTalk 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In reply to JoshuaZ, I'll try to clarify the wording. In reply to NickelShoe, thanks for the idea. Here goes:
Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"), or a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced or fails to comply fully with the relevant policy in any other way, there is no earlier compliant version in the history to revert to, and the article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to comply. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.

JoshuaZ, I hope that addresses your concerns and those of Viridae. And just to make it absolutely plain, the very intention of this proposed criterion is to encapsulate the very broad discretion that administrators have in enforcing the BLP. It's only telling us what we already know. Obviously I'd rather we had something people could look at, but we can continue to go along with the system of arbitrator oversight that we effectively have now. Either is okay with me, really. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but I could do without "fully" - that seems to be a very stretchable criterion as written. If we just said "fails to comply with the relevant policy in any other way" it would have the same meaning: "fully" and "in any other way" are redundant. When we repeat them it seems to have the purpose of making the discretion even more broad and hard to question than it needs to be. I think this wording is a pretty good common-sense way of explaining that non-compliant BLP articles can be deleted. I especially like "fundamentally rewritten," because it makes it clear that admins are not required to work hard to save articles they think should be deleted. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Viridae's latest comment, I appreciate your statement that you "oppose ALL speedy deletions citing BLP, except those that qualify under the current wording of G10." That is, as you're probably aware, out of step with current policy on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that version is much better, however, I don't think at this point there is any clear consensus among the community to assert that Viridae's attitude is that out of step with current policy. At this point, that seems to be very much in a state of flux. JoshuaZ 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that community is undecided as to the extent of BLP speedies (I have not seen a strong consensus either way) and that was me expressing my personal opinion. I am willing to compromise on the addition, however only if the wording reflects the normal way speedies are conducted - they should not be open to interperetation, and I believe this is. From the top of the page: "The criterion should be objective: an article that a reasonable person judges as fitting or not fitting the criterion should be similarly judged by other reasonable people. Often this requires making the rule very specific.". Your wording leaves it open for all sorts of interpretation, escopecially consider the wording of WP:BLP isn't static. Untill we get policy written that is stable, I don't think a vague reference to BLP cuts it, you must list under what circumstacanes the speedy deletion criteria occurs so something like this
An article may be speedied for either of the following reasons, provided there is no good version to revert to.
  1. The article is unsourced and negative in tone.
  2. The article is written in a manner so as to disparage its subject.
  3. The article is sourced and negative in tone, but the sources are third party/unreliable (ie blogs, other than the subject's own blog).
That is just a start, I see no other room for speedy deletion in the policy, because it trails off into ethics, and ethics are inherently subjective. Indeed, WP:BLP gives the criteria for speedy deletion itself: "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)." If you come up with any more, I would suggest listing them here so they can be discussed. ViridaeTalk 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

there's a small number of very loud people supporting tony's position. I've never seen any broad based consensus for the necessity of speedying such articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You made this mistake in the past and are about to be sanctioned for it, as is another administrator who made the same mistake. Let's set that behind us and work with the implications of the policy as it stands, not as you would wish it to be. I offer this modification as a way of bringing clarity to the written policy and thus avoiding the imposition of further sanctions on administrators who may repeat your error. If you prefer we can leave the situation as it is, and those administrators will just have to take their chances. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"Anything goes" brings a certain clarity to what's acceptable, but in all the wrong ways. If you add this criterion, it's going to be incredibly expandable and you'll have anything at all justified under it. CSDs are deliberately narrow. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What could work is a separate criteria like G11 (blatant spam). The rule there is that if it's totally unsalvageable, then delete. That should be the rule here. Otherwise, we should encourage stubbing as was common practice until the current spate of deletions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need to widen G10 at the moment. In any case, making all violations of WP:BLP speediable is unacceptably vague (and not now policy.) Spacepotato 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a look at my proposed G10 again, and I'll answer the objections above:
Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"), or a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced or fails to comply fully with the relevant policy in any other way, there is no earlier compliant version in the history to revert to, and the article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to comply. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.
So under this proposal, to be speedied it must:
  1. be incompatible with the BLP in its current revision and all previous revisions, so there's nothing BLP-compliant to revert to.
  2. be impossible to make compatible with the BLP by removing content ("stubbing down")
Far from being an "anything goes" rule, it has very tight and clear requirements. There has to be a fundamental and irreconcilable BLP problem with the article. It doesn't "make all BLP violations speediable". It only makes irreconcilably broken articles speediable in the same way we've dealt with personal attack articles in the past. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. CSD criteria should be objective and uncontestable; this is neither. Is it obvious to every observer when a given article passes every aspect of BLP? Plainly not, or we wouldn't have had an Arbcom case where three admins disagreed on whether certain articles did. (Whether their responses were appropriate is another question.) In fact, given the vigorous discussion on WT:BLP, it is not clear that it is well-defined. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • or that fails to comply with the relevant policy in any way" is absolutely unacceptable as a statement. There is considerable question over some of the interpretations of the policy, and a sentence like this is a license to remove whatever anyone wants to remove. It specifically does make all BLP violation speediable, and this is not the accepted policy. If Tony thinks this is no more than A10, then let's stick with A10 as it stands. DGG 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      I'm only stating Wikipedia policy, which has recently been explicitly clarified by arbcom. We can, as I've suggested, live without this, but probably at the cost of a few admin bits. --Tony Sidaway 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      Would you care to differentiate this statement from "Let's have a purge"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Arbcom, as Tony knows perfectly well, doesn't make policy, and it is not IMO clear that any such draconin wording as this is, in fact, current policy. In any case, given the way some seize on any looseness in language to speedy delete things that shouldn't be speedied, particualrly in the area of BLP, I oppose any expansion of then CSD on this issue at this moment. If ther must be a change though, the wording must be very tight and not open to easy misinterprtation. The conditions that tony suggests are not too bad, but the wordign he sugests is unikely, IMO to have the effet of limiting deletions to thsoe conditions. DES (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Up in the May archive, you can see I suggested this version:

10. Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes any page which cannot conform to the Biography of Living Persons policy.

By which "cannot" is taken to mean "cannot possibly be made to", which I think is a higher bar for its user and so articles speedied with this criteria could be restored if it's determined they could be rewritten to comply with BLP. I had trouble making it clear enough at the time, and held off while the arbcom case worked on clarifying things. I put it here, now, in case it helps. --InkSplotch 15:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. I think DESiegel is missing the point a bit if he think that this isn't already policy. The recent arbitration case simply highlighted the degree to which our practice is ill-understood by some administrators. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to non-existence pages SHOULD exist in some cases

Two years ago we had a long discussion of this point. The consensus ended up being that certain exceptions should continue to exist, to the rule that redirects to non-existent pages should not exist. The people who object to those exceptions were so belligerent and hostile and so unwilling to read the points they were responding to that I now suspect that the present unconditional prohibition was not put there in good faith.

This is being discussed at talk:Pincherle, and two people keep raising objections that have already been answered, and are unwilling to answer those answers.

The main reason for redirects to pages that don't yet exist is to prevent duplications in which two or more people, not knowing of each other's work, create separate articles, which would then need to get merged. This can be done by creating redirects from synonyms, misspellings, misnomers, inappropriate plurals, etc. Michael Hardy 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So you mean creating the redirects before the actual article? I suppose the wording could be changed to "redirects to a deleted page", which must be the most common situation to use R1. - Zeibura (Talk) 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how it saves work in any way- who's to say that every redirect would end up pointing to the same page? Editors who create redirects aren't necessarily aware of redirects of the same topic pointing to a different article name. I very very rarely run into pages where two articles cover the same subject, particularly in any sort of detail (one is usually far more developed than another). I mean, maybe in the case of plurals it could work. I also believe it's misleading and confusing to readers- they click on a link expecting an article, but instead see a broken redirect. Could you also link to the old discussion?-Wafulz 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Wafulz that it doesn't seem useful to have redirects to non-existent articles even in such cases as have been brought up. Although it doesn't seem majorly harmful, it would be rather confusing to click a blue link that doesn't have an article on the other end. It seems odd in particular to be thinking ahead of time about what redirects should be made to an article that one doesn't intend on actually creating. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The opponents of such redirects use the word "would" too much. They talk about what "would" happen in such cases, instead of what does happen when such redirects are allowed. Here's an instance:

who's to say that every redirect would end up pointing to the same page?

Who's to say different people who edit Wikipedia articles would agree on everything?
Who's to say a wiki encyclopedia wouldn't just become a bunch of graffiti?
Obviously multiple pages that should get merged could still happen. So this solves some of the problem but not all of it. Does that mean it's a bad thing?

As for the blue links that should be red, that's been reported as a bug. Michael Hardy 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your premise is still based on the idea that someone wanting to write an article about Salvatore Pincherle would name it Pincherle instead. Who would do that? In the Italian Wikipedia, not only did someone create it:Salvatore Pincherle before it:Pincherle but, in fact, it:Pincherle has never been created! Even if someone created a Pincherle first, wouldn't they then create a redirect from Salvatore Pincherle to Pincherle? Even if they didn't, wouldn't someone notice that there is already a Pincherle article before creating a Salvatore Pincherle? (It actually seems like Pincherle should be a dab page with Salvatore Pincherle and Pincherle derivative). Bottom line is that the argument is very weak for ever creating pre-emptive redirects. This Pincherle scenario is particularly unconvincing. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Would", "would", "would", "would",....

Several links to Pincherle were already created before I created the redirect page. At any rate, people do create articles with inappropriate names. All the time. I don't need to say they "would" do so; I keep seeing it happen. I just moved Fourth of July (Tomato Variety) to Fourth of July (tomato variety). I do things like that frequently. If someone had already redirected the former to the latter, the problem might have been avoided. Michael Hardy 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to nonexistent pages should be deleted. They are not sufficiently helpful to avoid the duplicate work scenario as discussed above. More importantly, leaving them in place causes readers to waste time clicking on blue links with the expectation of finding more information and ending up with nothing but a red redirect. No big deal if there are a couple here or there, but if we don't have a policy of deleting them, they will be all over the place and it will be frustrating for all of us. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, this is something of a nonissue. If you care enough about a topic to create redirects for it, you care enough to write a stub. Go ahead and stub it out. No reason to have redirects to future articles except very briefly. Dcoetzee 17:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Have any of you looked at the discussion that took place two years ago. Dcoetzee, you are guilty of "would". Michael Hardy 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you linked to the discussion yet? I haven't seen it, so I can't read it. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to dig a bit and find the link. In the mean time, I invite everyone's attention to the fact that all of the reasons given for disallowing redirects to non-existent pages seem insincere EXCEPT the one about causing blue links that should be red. That's the reals reason some people object to this. Michael Hardy 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't agree. I don't think they are insincere at all, they just disagree that allowing such redirects because they might help in rare circumstances is worth the hindrance they might cause. At the minute I'd say in this discussion the consensus is against you, for sincere reasons. Hiding Talk 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here seems to have died down and it seems that there is no consensus to change the policy. Thus, I am removing the "disputed" note on the policy page. By the way, I also agree with the current policy as worded. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned images

An admin has been deleting orphaned images after 48 hours under a novel interpretation of policy. While WP:CSD#I5 clearly gives seven days before orphaned images can be deleted, see why he thinks the 48-hour deadline applies here, and my reply here. DHowell 22:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about non-free images, not orphans in general, right? As long as the uploader has been notified, I7 applies. I5 predates I7. The thing about the 48 hour rule for failing any part of the policy is actually fairly new (last November or so I think). So there are images that qualify for both I5 or I7, but that's only because I7 is a newer rule, whereas orphaned non-free iamges have always been deleted. But even more than that, why does it matter? The whole reason for the waiting period is because until a year ago, images couldn't be undeleted ... so if someone made a mistake in deleting one, it couldn't be recovered. But that's not an issue now ... so why does it matter? Process for the sake of process doesn't matter. If he wants to help out by deleting images and is willing to undelete one if someone asks him to so that they can add it to an article, who cares? --BigΔT 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Except that the uploader hadn't been notified that the image would be deleted in 48 hours. The {{Orphaned}} template warning says seven days. The {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} template on the image description page says seven days. WP:CSD#I5 says seven days. the Category:Orphaned fairuse images says seven days. Even WP:CSD#I7 which says images can be deleted after 48 hours, says that it only applies to images uploaded after 13 July 2006. I see no evidence that there was any distinction made between images uploaded before or after that date. Even WP:FUC, though the wording is not entirely clear, seems to make a distinction that images that fail criterion #7 (orphaned images) are deleted after seven days. There's also the issue that there is evidence in the deletion log that many of the images weren't orphaned, and while the admin may have undeleted the ones which were specifically requested, what about the ones that weren't? Are we saying it's ok for admins to simply delete images willy-nilly, based on tags placed by bots, with no regard to whether they actually violated policy or not, because any mistakes can be cleaned up later? When we are talking about mass deletions done at bot-like speed (whether it was done by a bot or not) I don't believe this should be accepted.
This isn't just process for the sake of process. This is process for the sake of the users, for common courtesy, for being civil, for not biting the newbies. When every warning apparently gives seven days to clean up the problem, it is inherently uncivil to then delete after 2 days without any other warning than a separate obscure policy which had never been applied in this fashion before. Until about a week ago, orphaned images were always given 7 days before deletion; it is only recently that one admin unilaterally, without any adequate warning, decided to reinterpret policy to delete orphaned images after 2 days. Sorry, I'm not buying that this is an acceptable practice that we must tolerate because "process doesn't matter" or "orphaned non-free images have always been deleted". DHowell 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess the tags need to be updated. The 48 hours is already decided a long time ago. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. Oh and with some obscure policy I hope you don't mean Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Garion96 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It is obscure when it conflicts with the clear language of the templates, the categories, and even NFCC itself: "An image on which fair use is claimed that is used in no article (Criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification." If it there is truly consensus that the waiting period for orphaned images should be 2 days instead of 7 days, then the tags and such should have been updated, and consenus confirmed, before the early deletions began, not afterwards. DHowell 03:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This resolution (point 5) seems to imply that images uploaded after March 23, 2007, should be speedily deleted, though it is very possible that I am interpreting this overly strictly and there was no intention that this be interpreted to mean a speedy delete; two or seven day waiting periods may be acceptable. This is especially the case as the resolution points to WP:NONFREE with its 48 hour and seven day waiting periods. --Yamla 02:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are overly strictly interpreting this. The resolution clearly says nothing about "speedy deletion", only that such images "should be deleted". How quickly those deletions should occur seems to be left up to the individual projects. DHowell 03:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is. An orphaned non-free image needs to be deleted. The only reason for the delay is so that if the image was removed in an act of vandalism, it can be placed back on the page. If someone notices it before the image is deleted, they can add it back. If they don't notice it in time, they can get an admin to restore it. But Wikipedia isn't webhosting for copyrighted images - if we aren't using the image, we get rid of it. There is nothing magical about seven days and there is nothing magical about 48 hours. Now that we can restore images, the delay isn't that big of a deal. --BigΔT 03:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is: (a) we shouldn't say we're going to do one thing (delete the image after seven days), and do another (delete the image after 2 days), that's just uncivil; (b) requesting an admin to undelete an image is more difficult than just un-orphaning any images that should not have been orphaned, and this is even more so when thousands of images have been deleted before the expected time was up; (c) the uploader is not necessarily the only person interested in having the image restored--I would often peruse the orphaned image categories to look for images which would be obviously useful in an article, and I certainly can't do this after the images and categories have been deleted; (d) what is being ignored is the fact that a few images were deleted which weren't orphaned--maybe someone will notice, or more likely someone will come along and see the redlink and delete the link to the deleted image, and it will be pretty much gone for good (not really, but practically; who's going to go digging around in article histories for images that were accidentally deleted?). But hey, who cares about a little collateral damage in the noble effort to get rid of non-free content, huh? Apparently only me... *sigh*... DHowell 04:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Leftover images from a G12 deletion

What about the seemingly obvious case where an editor uploads images A, B, C, claims fair-use for their use in an article that they just created, which happens to be a copyright violation (from the same source as the images). I delete the copyright violation, but the images are now orphaned non-free images without fair-use rationales. Do we give a waiting period in case the article is created properly in the near future and actually can use those images? Sancho 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are deleting the article under WP:CSD#G12, even I wouldn't see a problem with speedily deleting such images, as long as they were uploaded by the same person who uploaded the copyright-violating article. This of course is not the same as mass deleting thousands of images uploaded by probably hundreds of different users in good-faith, two days after warning them that the images will be deleted in 7 days if they don't fix the problem. DHowell 06:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I did, since I couldn't imagine an objection. Do you think that's common sense enough to already be covered under WP:CSD#G12? Or should we add this case into either G12 or I5? Sancho 06:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I just delete them. We have in the past actually discussed having a rule for "images uploaded soley for a deleted article that have no other encyclopedic purpose", and there is pretty universal agreement that we should do it, but the wording is a point of contention. --BigΔT 13:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the wording of G12 already covers it: "Uploader does not assert permission (for images: no assertion aside from tags) or fair use, or the assertion is questionable"; I don't think anyone would dispute that it would be a "questionable" claim of fair use if the image was only uploaded to be used in an article which is a blatant copyright infringement. DHowell 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I propose the following as an addition to the G section.

CSD G13: RfA or RfB pages where the page was created and the user declined the request This would cover all RfA or RfB pages that were created by a nominator before asking a user, and the user declined. These pages contain no useful information, apart from the default RfA/B template, the nominators statement, and the user saying they did not accept. This would include ones with comments/votes, as those would be removed anyway. This would cover both declined ones at any time, and at ones not edited by the nominee within 1 month.

Thanks, and this is my first proposal like this, so sorry if I messed something up. Thanks! (Note: Feel free to edit the proposal above, but say you changed it. I do not consider that changing my comments) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's instruction creep to create rule for this, see the top of this page "The criterion should arise frequently". This is something that comes up maybe what, 10 times a year? Just change the RFA page to allow for deletion of requests that aren't accepted. This is how WP:RFC works and it doesn't need a CSD rule change. --W.marsh 22:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Declined RfAs can be deleted under CSD G6. RfA pages are purely wiki-administration pages, so deletion of ones that never saw the light of day is a routine housekeeping task. Given the consensus at the RfA talk page, it is also uncontroversial. For RfA pages not edited by the nominee, one could drop a note on the nominee's talk page and again tag the page for speedy deletion if no response is forthcoming after a while. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Falcon. I once tried to create an RFA page for someone as a joke, and within a day it was gone (before I could G7 it myself). This falls under the category of "so obvious it doesn't really need a separate rule", provided that it's clear the nom will never be accepted. Shalom Hello 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A1 (very short articles) revision

Could we revise this to exclude articles less than an hour or two old? Sometimes people create articles with almost nothing in them, and then add substantial content in the following edit. —Ashley Y 07:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. Andrewa 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - if it's deleted, there's nothing stopping the editors from recreating it. From that post, you're aiming for an "all or nothing" approach that's stopping obvious CSD violations from being deleted. Will (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. I think it's a well-intentioned idea, but the practicalities of new page patrolling simply make it unworkable. IronGargoyle 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to prevent one of the problems caused by current new page patrolling practices, which is the deletion of articles before people get a chance to add content. Now, perhaps only a few new articles are created this way, but should we really be WP:BITEing new additions just because it makes enforcement of some other problem easier? —Ashley Y 22:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You put it in a way that sounds bad, but yes. If we have to sacrifice a few articles which might become good to deal with a huge load of bad articles, apologies to the creators, but it's worth the price. -Amarkov moo! 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Admirable as a practice, but bad as a rule. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the rules reflect good practice?
It's strange. There seems to be a consensus that the practice of pouncing on a new article in the first few minutes of its existence is bad. It's bad for several reasons... loss of articles is one thing, but loss of newbies just because they make the obvious mistake of saving a half-written article is probably more important. (And there's another thing, see below.)
Even for old guard who know the rules, it can be a problem. Note everyone has a reliable broadband connection and a newish workstation. If you're worried about your session dropping out, or your browser crashing, or both, the obvious thing is to save often. But that then exposes you to well intentioned substub-police. This is more important to editors from cultures other than the US middle class, which is where Englsh Wikipedia's strength and bias lies. So the current situation is reinforcing this bias, by discouraging those with lesser connectivity.
And that other thing: It must also be annoying for these substub-police to be criticised when they are only following the rules and procedures. These people are, or should be, our trainee administrators. They're the ones who aren't admins yet but are interested in doing admin work. We want them to have rules and procedures that make this work rewarding.
Surely, there's not a lot of instruction creep in just suggesting a few minutes after the last save of a new article that is admittedly substandard, but not embarassingly so, and is possibly a work in progress? That's all that is being proposed here. No work in progress flags, that would be instruction creep. Just a few minutes delay. Most people, particularly the older hands, already do this. We should encourage everyone to. Andrewa 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Good practice is creating an article that isn't so flawed it falls under a criteria for speedy deletion. You can create articles in your user space or a text editor... it's not like creating an article prematurely is the only possible way to start an article. --W.marsh 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
True, and in a perfect world there would be no CSDs at all. But good practice is also giving an (imperfect) editor the chance to finish an update rather than prematurely flagging their unfinished work for deletion. That just wastes everyone's time. As for creating articles in user space or offline with a text editor, yes of course that's possible, and appropriate in some circumstances, particularly for experienced Wikipedians with reasonable computer skills. But part of the beauty of MediaWiki is that few skills are required for basic editing. If we were to require that draft articles were to be prepared offline or in the user namespace, now that would really be instruction creep. Andrewa 14:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about articles that contain nothing useful due to lack of context, not just draft articles that aren't totally finished yet. Creating an article that contains nothing useful shouldn't be a protected right... if newpage patrol doesn't catch this stuff, it can sit around for weeks or months with no improvement. --W.marsh 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about articles that do contain something useful to the person working on them... that's why they have saved it! The problem is, it's impossible to distinguish these from ones that, as you quite rightly say, sit around for weeks or months..., if you must make the decision within minutes of the first save. That's why it's sensible to wait a little while. It's also polite.
Nobody is suggesting that the useless substubs that you're talking about should be kept, just the opposite. What we're suggesting is a more efficient way of identifying and deleting them. Andrewa 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Preventing people from dealing with them for X amount of time would cause many to fall through the cracks and is needless micromanaging of people just trying to identify problem articles. If there's something useful in a new article, it shouldn't be deleted. But if you're just creating articles that say "Bob was a guy. MORE TO COME SOON!" you shouldn't be so shocked when "bitten". --W.marsh 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with all three points. Firstly, the person who puts an article Bob was a guy... is either a prankster or, far more likely IMO, a newbie. But in neither case is instant deletion, or even instant flagging, the best option. The prankster is watching for a reaction (either way); The second-best way of dealing with them is instant deletion, the worst is no deletion (most will come back for another look), but the best is both flagging and deletion after a delay... after they've gone away and before they come back. They'll quickly tire of that. The best way of handling the newbie is the same... after a delay you send them a greeting and some helpful criticism, flagging the article as appropriate. If you do it instantly, it's less helpful. You don't know whether they're a prankster, and you're likely to give them an edit conflict, which doesn't help anyone. Secondly, I think you underestimate both the editors and the software... it's no harder to look for new articles two hours old than it is to look for all new ones. So there's no reason anything should slip through the cracks. Thirdly, micromanagement... that's a hard one to call, there's a lot of judgement as to what's a helpful level of policy and procedure and what should be left to the judgement of the individual. I respect your opinion on this, but I disagree... I think a delay is helpful in far more cases than not, and that our procedures should simply reflect this. And other CSDs should remain instant. Andrewa 06:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I encourage you to do CSD or various backlog tasks and see how many of these articles do slip through... it's very frustrating. I feel like that if someone sees a problem, they should never not fix it because it's "too soon", that's counterproductive. In theory, people creating junk articles mean well and will eventually spin them into featured articles... but in reality they almost always just sit there waiting to become the next Seigenthaler embarrassment if not dealt with by NP patrol. This is quite possibly one of those things that doesn't really click until you've sifted through a few thousand orphan articles and see what is really going on in article creation. A lot of people create articles not knowing what they're doing, then leave... and that's okay, but we need to deal with that in an effective way. --W.marsh 12:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with W.marsh here. Myself, if I see an article that looks like a legit article that may have been saved prematurely, I would think twice about deleting it, but it would be very bad to un-tag that kind of article, because someone tried to clean up what is almost certainly something in need of deletion, and I hate seeing things fall through the cracks. Also, I can hardly imagine a legit attempt at an article being saved in a state that doesn't even pass A1... and if it does happen once in a blue moon, the page creator can always just create the article again (note that if they are building an article in "multiple saves" they will probably be editing it while the current version is being deleted), or ask for help. Mangojuicetalk 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree that nobody (admin or other) should remove a CSD tag just because they think it was applied prematurely. That's another waste of everyones's time. And I admit I haven't been active lately in clearing CSDs. But part of the reason for that is that it's unrewarding, and that's because often CSD tags (and many other similar tags) are applied to articles with very little thought as to whether the tag will really help to improve the encyclopedia.
One obvious way for non-admins to reduce the admin backlog is to do those admin tasks that a non-admin can do... such as checking the story behind a deletable substub. When I used to hang out on AfD (or VfD as it was then called) there were several regular contributors (proposers or regular contributors to debates) whose work I'd give priority, simply because I knew they'd have done their homework, and so I was happy to check a little less thoroughly myself after seeing their usernames in the discussion. I now do the same at WP:RM, not because I want to hurt those who are high maintenance proposers, but simply because I like to see results for my efforts, and I get more results for the same effort if I'm processing well-researched nominations. (I do also deliberately take on some of the problematic nominations from time to time... someone needs to...). I'd guess that at least some admins monitoring CSDs would do the same there, whether they admit it or not. Moral: if you want your work actioned promptly, just do high-quality work.
The idea of this proposal, as I see it, is simply to enable the CSD patrol to do a better quality of work. It's not about forcing anyone to do anything. That won't work. Andrewa 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Sceptre and IronGargoyle above. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah... bad idea. It's not that hard to just create an article that stands on its own. And in the field, it seems like maybe 1% of people who promise "Under construction, watch this space!" ever edit the article again. --W.marsh 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a better idea. Instead of preventing non-admin newpage patrollers like me from tagging an A1 article when we see one, the admins can use discretion to "lay off" a new A1 article in the hopes that someone will fix it soon. The whole thing strikes me as "instruction creep," and I think it's similar to a perennial proposal. Shalom Hello 16:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what we do! Or at least, some admins do, some don't... but if you look around, admins with short fuses have a much shorter half-life than those with a bit more patience. But it would be far better if the delay was exercised before flagging, see above for why (the bit about pranksters and newbies). (Another reason: might reduce admin burnout.)
The proposal wouldn't prevent anyone from doing anything. No admin is going to jump on you, or even remove the tag, for flagging the article early (I hope), regardless of what the procedures say. We're all volunteers here. We don't come looking to waste time like that. We want to build the encyclopedia.
I had a quick look at the perennial proposals page before buying in to this, but it's not listed there as far as I can see, and IMO it's not quite in the same league as those that are. But a good thing to bear in mind. Andrewa 06:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This really is a perennial proposal, even if it isn't listed there. And it is a very bad idea every time it is suggested, no matter how rational it looks at first blush. The problem is that most of the articles that get tagged for a CSD get their tags straight off of special:newpages patrol. This rule wouldn't just hamper newpages patrolling; it would hamstring it completely as far as one major CSD is concerned. There is absolutely no valid reason why an editor should ever submit a page with no content; it does not "help" them construct the article piece-by-piece. Only a single coherent sentence is needed to avoid being deleted under this criteria; if an article lacks even that much, it is absurd to suggest that it is really a "work in progress". --Aquillion 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems to me that current policy suggests that the problem be tackled in the opposite direction - provide clear guidance that new users will see that says not to create a page without a sane amount of content. I imagine it happens sometimes to get rid of a redlink, but it's better to have a redlink than a link to a page that, as it stands, is pointless. A redlink means that someone thinks the page should be created, they don't have to create it to reinforce the point. SamBC 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Obvious garbage images

Hi all,

I have just requested speedy deletion of Image:ThayneShaman.JPG, because it is what I would call an "obvious garbage image", something that any reasonable person would immediately agree does not belong in Wikipedia. Aside from that, it's not linked from any article, and if you look at the creator's contributions, it's clearly part of an ongoing pattern of vandalism.

Addressing the first point only, is such an image covered by general criterion 1 (patent nonsense)? It doesn't seem to be covered by any of the criteria specifically applying to images. It seems unreasonable to me that such an image should have to go through the whole five-day process.

Your comments are appreciated. Tualha (Talk) 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I would opine that, as a rule, G1 is a bit wider for images than it is for articles — they cannot (and should usually not) be edited into useful material. IMHO, YMMV, etc. — Coren (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, G1 and possibly G3 may apply. Will (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Patent nonsense as described only really applies to text, though. The only instance I can think of where an image page might be speedied under G1 is if the page was created with a load of random text on it, for a nonexistant image or for a commons image or something. The rule here is that if you can be sure something was created in bad faith, as it was in this case, G3 applies. If not, then the image should be tagged however appropriately (generally dubious images tend to have no source information) and run the full course. Or taken to IfD. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What about "2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever"? Wouldn't that apply to images just as much as text? — Coren (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point, I don't think that could be applied to images though, it'd be a bit rash to judge that "no intelligent person" could make any sense of a picture; pictures are open to interpretation and any good faith image might be illustrating anything. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, although the original question really was directed at obvious garbage. I've seen the image in question just before it got deleted and I wouldn't have hesitated to G1 it as well. G3 might also be appropriate though, and I see your point that it might be more inclusive of images, but it needs to presume deliberation... the uploader might have simply been misguided. G3 pretty much throws AGF out with the image. — Coren (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Modifying I6 (no fair-use rationale)

Our policy page here states that images uploaded after May 4, 2006, may be deleted after 7 days after the uploader is warned. Our policy page over here says that any image which doesn't meet any of our non-free content criteria may be deleted 7 days after the uploader is warned. This includes criterion 10c, the requirement for a fair-use rationale. The "deadline date" on that policy page merely states that older images get a 7-day grace period. In light of this, and to reflect current usage, I went ahead and streamlined I6 to remove the requirement that the image be uploaded before May 4, 2006. There's no sense making everyone wade through multiple policies when they all have the same net effect. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting. WP:NFCC specifically states "For an image that was uploaded before 2006-07-13, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." —Remember the dot (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As does criterion I6. "may be deleted seven days after they are uploaded". I don't see the conflict here. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I misunderstood your changes. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, to clarify, any media (regardless of upload date) lacking a fair use rationale which has been tagged as needing one for >7 days (or 7 days after upload at admin discretion) can be deleted? GDonato (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, and this has long been the case. I'm just trying to streamline two symmetric processes into a single one. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline still mentions the May 4, 2006 date. Is this date completely meaningless now? --- RockMFR 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is an excellent change, since images on both sides of the date were being tagged, but producing different messages on the uploader's talk page - causing confusion. ~ BigrTex 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nogallery on image categories

See this discussion. Lately the nogallery has been added to the speedy deletion image categories. Any objections to this being removed again? I find it very unpractical. For non-free/fair use reason it also is not necessary see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. I put it here since Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion doesn't seem to be watched so much. Garion96 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It primarily gets added and removed as the size of the images causes the page to load too slowly. — xaosflux Talk 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Should have specified it more. No, I meant categories like Category:Images with no fair use rationale as of 17 June 2007. Just a little while ago I found out on what templates it was added, I removed it from the templates now. Garion96 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New article deletion criterion: completely unsourced articles about a living person

Gee this idea had some support, it is now closed because Tony changed his mind? Until(1 == 2) 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#T1 scope widening

From – Templates that are divisive and inflammatory to – Templates that are divisive and inflammatory including those used as templates but kept in userspace. Userspace has been frequently used as a means to get around WP:CSD#T1. Transclusions that are used as templates should be treated in the same manner and explicitly stated on the WP:CSD page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If a page is used as a template, then it should be treated as a template. (Though it also in addition may be treated as whatever else it may be, such as a userpage. This shoudln't be an either-or scenario.) I also think the whole decentralisation of userboxes from Template space was an incredibly bad idea. There is a history of the various spaces being used for different supportive things, direct and indirect. - jc37 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Especially when userspace is used as template space for soapboxing, WP:NOT, etc. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT is specifically not a criteria for speedy deletion. But I suppose that that may be a different discussion altogether. - jc37 12:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What people find divisive and inflammatory is awfully subjective, and I have seen userboxes of the type "This user joined Wikipedia in 2004" deleted as T1 because they are in Template space rather than user space. The Wikipedia:Userbox migration was a way of solving the userbox wars we had from December 2005 to March 2006, and was quite successful at stopping the fighting, keeping unencyclopedic boxes out of template space, and the users of these boxes fairly happy. I fear that sticking a CSD into the userspace area will spark off more fighting over this, and with the BLP controversy still ongoing, another stupid war is the last thing we need. In addition, I think our current MFD process for getting rid of truly offensive userboxes works pretty well (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:One Night In Hackney/Monarchy for example), and userboxes which just disparage people ("This user hates Sjakkalle and thinks he should be banned indefinitely") are already subject to deletion per the criterion on attack pages. I think the proposed expansion of the CSD will cause more problems than it will fix. Oppose proposal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Many of these user box templates have been used by multiple users by transcluding these pages into their userspace. This in many ways entices other users to transclude them in their user pages as well. In my opinion, user boxes should be hard coded into user space rather than transcluded. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree. In fact, I favor deleting T1 altogehter -- what is "divisive" is just too subjective, and these deletions are often far more divisive than anything they delete. See the thread above on this subject. DES (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, I must agree with DES. For the most part, I do not like political and religious userboxes; however, T1 is much too subjective and is constantly being misused to delete any template that notes a social, political, religious, or cultural self-identification. In many cases, it creates more work and bureaucracy than would have come through a normal MfD/UCfD nomination. Either we should: (A) get rid of the criterion, or (B) sanction editors who misuse it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If T1 was not opposed so much then I would suggest making U4 or replacing T1 with G13 instead. FunPika 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose There's currently no policy saying that you can't express opinions, much less that you can't express those opinions in heavily-formatted ways. The last thing we need is an official way of enforcing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EVula // talk // // 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose T1 was a mandate from Jimbo, and he specifically said it doesn't apply to things which are in userspace and only used in userspace. In fact, as DES points out above, T1 violates T1; it is divisive and inflammatory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything that is actually an attack page can and should be speedied. Anything that is hateful can and should be speedied. Unfortunately, "divisive and inflammatory" has often been misinterpreted as "anything I don't WP:ILIKEIT". For example, {{User Christian}} was the subject of frequent out-of-process deletions and DRVs last year. A simple statement "this user is a Christian" is neither divisive nor inflammatory and if introducing this criterion into user space is going to embolden the userpage police to start censoring userpages of Christians, it's the last thing we need. --BigDT 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an expansion of T1. I also would prefer to delete T1. If there's a way it can be circumvented, I would encourage people to use it in order to reduce the scope and power of this inflammatory and subjective rule. Dcoetzee 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with DES. Deletion of these templates causes more strife than the templates themselves. — Omegatron 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, T1 is already policy, but people are opposing it being used for all pages used as a template because they don't agree with T1, not because there's a logical reason to treat them differently? I feel like I am in some kind of bureaucratic hell. If I transclude something that would be deleted in the template namespace from any other namespace instead, it cannot be deleted. Does no one else see why that, on its face, violates the spirit of the policy? Dmcdevit·t 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's like saying "we should execute people for crimes in Minnesota - they do it in New York, and what's the difference?" If you disagree with the fundamental idea, you will disfavour its expansion, regardless. Besides which, the ability to move such templates to user space is currently the only effective way of mitigating the conflict caused by T1 deletions. Without such recourse the people who support and oppose the templates would be unable to reach a compromise and wheel wars would probably emerge. Dcoetzee 02:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that completely misses the point (and comparing template deletion to the death penalty is more than a bit hyperbolic). You are free to disagree, but the simple fact is that that criterion enjoys general consensus and has not been controversial for a while now. And the fact that it applies to all transclusions, not just the ones starting with "Template:" follows form the spirit of the policy. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • "This user is a social liberal" has tended to be speedy deleted as T1 when it is the template space, but consensus has been to allow such political statements/identifications in userspace. That was the entire point of the userbox migration. "This user is a big supporter of Hitler's final solution" is of course another matter, and could probably be speedy deleted under the general criteria as petty provocative trolling (vandalism/disruption/attack page), we don't really need T1 for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually I think the point of the migration was supposed to be to take personal statements out of template space, which is supposed to be used for the encyclopedia. Inflammatory statements may still not be made in userspace or anywhere else. The content of a statement may be inherently inflammatory, of it may only be inflammatory when deliberately and knowingly disseminated via transclusion. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would strongly support the idea that T1 applies to page being used as templates, including userboxes in userspace. If some creates "All fags should be burned to death" or "All women should live chained up in the kitchen" userboxes those should be deleted on sight as T1. The problem is making sure that only inflammatory content is deleted, not restricting the scope of a totally valid deletion criteria artificially to one namespace when the software allows pages in other namespace tos serve as templates. WjBscribe 02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
T1 has always and will always apply to all transclusions. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
T1 has never applied to transclusions from userspace to userspace. Jimbo has spoken. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Where has Jimbo said this? I hope that doesn't sound like an unreasonable question. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should leave a note on User talk:Jimbo Wales and ask him to provide his opinion.--SefringleTalk 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to use templates, substitute them, rather than providing other users options to transclude those pages into their userspace. Wikipedia is not a free web host for soapboxing. We are an encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we are I hope all agreed that it is in the interests of the encyclopedia to rid it of as much of this poisonous trash as possible. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree that the encyclopedia will grind to a halt if we allow people to present their opinions in easily shared ways. EVula // talk // // 20:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. If something is created for the purpose of being used as a template, why shouldn't it be treated as a template? --Flamgirlant 16:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. It is a long-established principle that expressions of controversial opinion in userspace are allowed. If controversial userboxes don't belong in template space, then fine. But they must be allowed in userspace. I don't see that this use of userspace is in any way harmful to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Waltontalk 16:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the User page guideline. Your statement above is simply false. Polemical statements are not permitted on user pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeesh, I didn't realize this would generate such strong opinions. I've taken it for granted - not really as a CSD, because I don't have the delete button, but just as a rule of thumb - that "This user is a pedophile" is inappropriate under any circumstances, and the whole userbox migration thing was a formality to prevent the appearance of Wikipedia supporting controversial positions. In other words, we don't need to expand T1 to cover userboxes because it's already been understood that way. Did I miss something all these months? (I'm always willing to learn.) YechielMan 13:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees with that even for "This user is a pedophile" -- I don't, for one. But T1 is being used to delete "This user supports the ACLU" and possibly even "This user is a Democrat/Republican". It has been urged as a reson to delete "This user is a Christian/Jew/Muslim". I really don't think there is consensus for deletions that broad even in template-space, much less in userspace. I think that the creation of T1 was a large mistake, and it should be removed, not expanded. DES (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I must strongly oppose to this "widening" of the T1 criteria to userspace. Many core policies already cover the important part of keeping "This user hopes that all Members of $Religion$ die horribly as they are $expletive$ $expletive$" out. The way T1 was used in the past shows that some administrators prefer to use the guise of "divisive and inflammatory" to justify their campaign against userboxes - may I call your attention to the T1 deletions of "This users supports recycling". Divisive and inflammatory? WHAT? A compromise was found. Now it seems that those involved wish to reneg that compromise and establish their version of a "pure" Wikipedia, free from that horrible clutter that is called "userboxes". 00:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose proposal I am opposed to the proposal, as I said in the above section. What needs to be done is a clarification in this article as to whether the policy applies to userboxes. I hope it doesn't. It will just create a war, back and forth to delete all political userboxes that both sides support. I only hope this doesn't happen in articles, or WP:NOT#Censored will become obsolete, and any content offensive to anyone will just be deleted. What would wikipedia be then? First userspace sensorship, next is article censorship. At this rate, we will be discussing whether or not to remove WP:NOT#Censored from policy soon.--SefringleTalk 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Stick with Wikipedia:Userbox migration. --DieWeisseRose 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, but only on the condition that said userboxes are both divisive and inflammatory and emphasis is put on inflammatory - i.e. saying you're a Christian or a liberal shouldn't be deleted, as such a statement is not inflammatory, but saying "All black people should die" in a userbox should be deleted, as it is inflammatory and divisive. T1 was designed to remove such userboxes, not shift them into userspace. Will (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Again, I don't trust admins with anything like this (especially said admin who made this proposal, along with others). I just can't believe how intolerant Wikipedia has become in the last few months. The encyclopedia is NPOV, but is written by people, people who are allowed by law to have opinions regarding anything and everything. You can't possible expect that people will disregard all of their personal values and views when they are within the community do you? Maybe you and your crowd of anti-userbox crusadists could just step back and stop being such control freaks for a little while.
I never actually understood what Brant was talking about before, but now it's perfectly clear to me. The Hive-Mind mentality. I totally agree with the NPOV as it applies to the articles, but I totally and utterly disagree with any attempt to control the minds of individuals while they are here. This is not a social network site, but that does not give some high level egotistical admins the right to be total idiots to every contributer here just because they have a bit that allows them to. Maybe you guys should be more concerned about the content of the actual encyclopedia than about the people that are giving up time to write it. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to description

It seems the general consensus is not to widen the scope. As such, maybe we should add to the description of T1 that this policy does not apply to userboxes.--SefringleTalk 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Does not apply to userfied userboxes. Template boxes have always been in play. That's why WP:GUS was invented. Otherwise support adding that T1 does not apply to userfied userboxes. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Support. Suggest wording this as does not apply outside the Template: namespace.The Storm Surfer 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New article deletion criterion: completely unsourced articles about a living person - The Sequel

I for one think that this discussion was raising some very useful points that may have reached a useful conclusion, and would like to see it continued, so here's a new section.

I think we're seeing that there's a situation which isn't covered entirely adequately by any current system, and which there seems to be disagreement on how often the situation in question occurs. Would it be wise to try and obtain some objective numbers, somehow? SamBC 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want objective data, just look at the history of almost any article about a living person. For example, the initial version of Jim Carrey was just a stub. The first reference was added in this diff, about 18 months later, by a completely different user. Now, it has 14 references and 6 external links.
If you think that's just because we weren't as careful about sourcing articles back then, the same pattern can be found in brand new articles. For example, the original version of Mohammed Asha's article was created on July 2nd, 4 days ago, with no sources. This user never added any sources to the article. The first source was added by another user 6 minutes following creation, and now it has 5.
In short, if we delete articles that are unsourced, we are losing important information that can easily be sourced at a later time by users interested in sourcing. Let the stubs grow. Dcoetzee 01:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a very real fear. We can afford to use proposed deletion, or "prod" as it's very appropriately known, as a reminder to anybody who might be watching the article that it would be a good idea to add some sources. Over the past two months or so I've prodded a few unsourced living bios, most of them orphans, and most of them die easily. When there was anybody around to care, the article was usually spruced up in short order. When it wasn't, I took it to AfD and very often it was sourced there. I think this is a good way to do things. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
right.For old olds, all it takes is following up. For new ones, it's a little trickier--but often the person realises the article won't be acceptable, especially if a personalized explanation is written, and most of the time it is either improved or abandoned. Prod is greatly underused, considering the potential--there is no problem about finding the right category--any argument that would be good at afd is good at prod. Tony and I--on the same side at last! --we obviously are getting closer to consensus. DGG (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
For more statistical data, check out User:Carnildo/The Living 100 Biography. I didn't reach 100 articles, but based on the 65 articles I did check, only one BLP in six has formal sourcing, and only two out of every three have something that could maybe be construed as a source. --Carnildo 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a good idea - some of the data is a little weird though. For example, the articles on Maya Angelou has 5 footnotes directing sourcing facts in the article, but according to your table has no sources or footnotes. It's also worth pointing out that a uniform sample of living person articles such as this leans heavily towards developing articles (21 stubs, 28 "low"). If you look at just the articles labelled "Med" to "High", these articles all have at least one item that can be construed as a source. Dcoetzee 02:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that many of these articles are totally noncontroversial, and that perhaps effort is best spent on the ones that are. There are enough articles with real BLP problems affecting neutralityDGG (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


I would like to propose a change to CSD R2. It currently reads: "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space (this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." However, I would like to propose that it reads: "Redirects to any non-article namespace from the article space (this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect." I would like to propose this because, currently, a lot of reports are being filed at RFD that are downright deletes, but go through this because it's not on here. For example a lot of X -> Wikipedia:X are showing up, and they're always deleted, but it's not covered in CFSD. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically I agree with you. The problem is that a small number of RFDs for "article" redirects to Wikipedia: namespace pages have been kept where it was sufficiently obvious that the search term was not an article. (I "voted" in at least one example, but I can't remember it.) At any rate, I would support expanding the range of speediable XNR namespaces to every one except Wikipedia: and perhaps Category:. I think the current text should be updated accordingly. Shalom Hello 16:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how we should pursue this? Cool Bluetalk to me 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this now, I don't think we should have too much of a problem with this. I think we can trust the administrator looking over it to use common sense. If there's any conflict we can always just send it to RFD. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we get anymore comments on this? Support? Oppose? Suggestions? Cool Bluetalk to me 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Support, expanding to all namespaces bar Category:, with an exception for "WP:X" redirects into Wikipedia: Will (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Support - also extend to redirects to user or user talk pages from any other name-space. I recently nominated Wikipedia:Random picture of the day and Wikipedia:Random picture of the day/template under R2, but the nominations failed as the redirects are from Wikipedia:, not mainspace. I believe this is a mere technicality which should be addressed. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll address that. Is it safe to put it in? Cool Bluetalk to me 14:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This might not be a bad idea, but I don't think that any substantive additions (as opposed to mere rewording for clarity) to the CSD should be put in with out at least the discussion being announced on the pump. The CSD is supposed to have site-wide consensus -- not just consensus on this page. DES (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've never been a big fan of deleting cross-namespace redirects. Things like having wikien-l -> Wikipedia:Mailing lists and NPOV -> Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, can be helpful by making the search box work as expected when wiki-centric terms are typed in. However, judging by RFD and DRV, I lost this argument long ago. Dragons flight 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll announce at the village pump. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I agree with ya :) This can help cut down on the obvious RfDs :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I support this, so long as WP: redirects are clarified, in the wording of the policy, as not being in the article namespace (which was in the policy before, since there is no consensus to remove it). It needs to be in the policy because I've seen WP: shortcuts wikilaywered away without it. Now, new suggestion: how about if we append "unless the shortcut is of possible historical value"? RFDs for those can survive, at least that I've observed. It makes the criterion a bit more murky, but murky cases are meant to be brought to RFD anyway. GracenotesT § 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this, admins can be expected to use common sense, I hope. — The Storm Surfer 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this and I have reverted. We've discussed this to death at Rfd and at many other places, with very very long discussions. There are numerous cnr's in the article space that have consensus to be kept. --- RockMFR 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects are not always deleted at Rfd. Yes, recently many have been. But there is a giant list of them that mostly have consensus to be kept. --- RockMFR 21:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And there exist many "pseudo-namespaces" that not everybody is aware of. There's at least C:, CAT:, MoS:, P:, T:, WP: WPT:, WT: and possibly more. The mailing list redirects are also helpful, cross-space and can't possibly confuse anyone. RFD isn't overworked, so they can deal with the small amount of CNRs and decide case-by-case. Kusma (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If we do want to change R2 - how about getting rid of the waiting period suggestion? When I userfy pages, I always consider waiting, and then delete the redirect after 3 seconds of careful consideration. I usually leave a note on the user's talk page; I think that is far more useful than hoping he'll figure out what happened during a day where a strange redirect is around. Kusma (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're fine as far as the pseudo-namespaces. I mean, even if a newbie comes along and noms something like WT:X or CAT:X, and it redirects to a Wikipedia talk:, Category:, or other non-article namespace, I think that the administrator can be trusted to use common sense, and administrators are regulars who know about the pseudo-namespaces. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is CSD we're talking about here. No offense, but never trust interpretation of CSD to administrators' common sense. Why? It only takes one administrator to disagree with everyone else and delete all the established pseudo-namespaces not explicitly mentioned in the criterion. Admins don't all have the same POV, and some of them will always interpret the letter of the criteria different than others. Let's not leave anything to anyone's interpretation with speedy deletion criteria. BigNate37(T) 05:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I have a problem with Speedy A7. People add the speedy tag claiming that the subject has "no notability", but no due diligence is required to check Google to see if the topic has any notable. I want to add a "due diligence" clause that states that the article can be flagged for "no asserted notability" ONLY after some due diligence is performed with a Google web and news archive search. A7 is becoming a back door deletion method. We should always fix and improve before deletion, especially when there are so few checks and balances to a speedy deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that the issue is whether the article asserts notability. Certainly if it looks as if the person might be notable, a person ought to check before deletion or tagging. But I don't think we should be required to check Google for every article that doesn't even give a hint of why a person deserves an article. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it should be required for something like "John Doe is the coolest guy ever!!!", but it could be helpful in a disputed subject in compliance with WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc. It should be a pressured suggestion for an admin. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cool Blue. Its a good idea - but only if one is unsure about it. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Non-notable" is not sufficient justification for A7 deletion, despite widespread misuse. To admins, please only cite A7 when A7 applies - if A7 does not apply, and you still want to delete, you have the option of using and citing IAR instead (at your own risk). Dcoetzee 02:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Here I disagree. Any speedy that cites IAR as its reason i will undo as invalid if I happen to see it. Please note that the policy page says "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. Instead if you see something that you think really ought to go, but it asserts significance so it isn't properly an A&, but seems to lack any actual notability, tag it with {{prod}} instead. This allows others to find sources establishing notability if they can Or just go directly to AfD. DES (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is what people ought to do - I'm not speaking here to the people trying to follow the rules, but the people so determined to delete something that they're happy to ignore the substance of a CSD and misapply it. It's less destructive to simply admit that you're breaking the rules, allowing appropriate scrutiny to take place, than to deceptively hide the deleton behind a CSD and encourage its further misuse. Dcoetzee 06:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that A7 has often been misused of late. See current and recent discussions on WP:DRV and on this page. I urge admins to be cautions with A7 -- do not delete if an assertion or claim of significance is present, even if it is unsourced. Please be rather flexible in what you consider an assertion, although "Joe Blow is the coolest guy in the world" obviously does not count. DES (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this proposal. In my opinion, it is for the author to assert notability, not for reviewers to chase around looking at Google for every page that consists only of "Splat is a band formed in 2002". These is why we have {{hangon}} - if the author thinks it is notable and can produce cited evidence to prove it, they have the opportunity to do so. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My take on A7 has been that any assertion of notability, even one that on first blush would obviously fail at AfD ("Joe Blow has won the tri-county school distric best attendance award for the last two years") puts the article beyond the pale for speedy deletion. I would have trouble deleting for A7 an article that makes an impossible claim of notability. ("Joe Blow (1912-1947) won the Nobel Prize for History in 1963"). Even given my rather strict interpretation of A7, the number of articles that fail to meet it, amazes me. Dsmdgold 22:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't go quite so far--it has to have some credibility. But in borderline cases I would much rather use another criterion when possible. Basically I'm looking for some assertion in good faith--which is hard to specify exactly. When it's obviously gaming the system, I end to lose patience. The problem cases for me are someone naively asserting his notability as a junior high school student, but with an article too long to really call it empty or lacking context. I don't know how to set up a rule to deal with these. DGG 03:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I certainly recognize that there can be different interpretations. But in my mind A7 was designed for the "John Doe graduated form Slippery Rock University 147th in his class and now employed by some dull firm" and the "The Totally Awsome dudes are a great band. As soon as we release an album we will be famous" articles than anything else. Every time I work on the A7 backlog I find things with very clear claims It sometimes is very hard for me to allow obviously bogus claims through, but I would rather have a bad article hang around for the week or so it takes PROD to work than see A7 expand too far. Dsmdgold 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A7 is getting abused as far as I can see. How is an "assertion" defined anyway?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question: would anyone object if non-sysop editors went through Category:Importance or significance not asserted pages for speedy deletion and un-tagged articles which clearly had an assertion of notability? Ideally the editor would apply necessary cleanup tags or cleanup the article themselves, and for articles with entirely false claims of notability they can simply leave the {{db-a7}} there and remove the false claim as unsourced original research. This would let the responding administrator close the CSD as delete while not breaking any rules or creating a situation where an editor removes the claim and then tags as CSD A7 herself. BigNate37(T) 05:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do that at CAT:CCSD from time to time. Removing incorrectly placed speedy tags isn't an admin only task, as long as a rationale is left somewhere as to why the speedy deletion is declined then it shouldn't matter. If speedy deletion is dubious or questioned by another editor then the article should be put through another process. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Not at all. Anyone except the article's creator may, in good faith, remove a speedy deletion tag. Per the CSD policy, "discussion using another method under the deletion policy" is appropriate for cases where "reasonable doubt exists". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Slight fundamental change in policy?

Oh. I'm going to be bold and suggest something marginally radical:

The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without formal discussion. Non-administrators Any editor can request deletion of such a page by adding an appropriate template (see below). The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created.

And then add a section

Absent of exigent circumstances (such as an article whose very presence is damaging or dangerous to Wikipedia), administrators should not delete a page unless another editor has placed an appropriate template on it.

(Rewording needed)

Perhaps clarify "exigent circumstances" further? Something along the lines of clear G10 and G12, for instance, because the longer such a page stays on Wikipedia the larger the legal exposure.

Zeibura below made the very excellent point that uncontroversial deletes would be affected with no good reason. I've approached this from the default deny approach ingrained into my specialty, which was very correctly pointed out to be a silly mistake.

I'd still propose the double check, but only for arguably controversial/subjective criteria: A1, A7, G11 and maybe G1, and G3. Just thinking about it for two minutes (yeah-- I probably should have done that before being bold) allowed me to realize that those were, at any rate, the only cases I've ever seen where individual judgment may differ in good faith and that two minds would have been better than just the one. — Coren (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

It should be noted that some of the criteria for speedy deletion necessarily include some measure of subjective judgment in their application (G11, A1, A7 and, less saliently, G1 and G3). An administrator should almost always prefer to wait for the page to have already been tagged by another editor before deleting it.
It is, of course, totally appropriate for an administrator to place a tag on the page to bring it to the attention of other administrators who could then delete it.


It's all about checks and balances. This method would insure that, in most cases, at least two editors look at an article before it gets speedily deleted. This might even have the side effect of reducing pressure on DRV a bit (although that's not what I feel should be a primary objective).

Pages that are candidates for speedy deletion, as a rule, are not damaging if they survive a few more minutes or hours. Someone's garage band's article might stay on a little longer (long enough for a patroller to catch it, and then for an admin to handle the speedy), but that's also potentially a Good Thing(tm) since it gives a little wider window for an editor to fix the problem with the article and stave off deletion altogether.

What do you think? — Coren (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • No. "checks and balances" are great in a bureaucracy... but we aren't one. If an article meets a CSD I will delete it, tag or no, and improve the project in so doing. Attempting to tie admin's hands would not improve the project. Some admins are just going to make terrible calls with CSD... some aren't. Attempts at rules like this make it much more time-consuming for people who follow the rules and the people who make bad deletions will just do so anyway.--W.marsh 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't describe this proposal as tying an admin's hands. The article an admin tags for speedy would still be deleted--it'd just take longer. The only downside I can see to this proposal is that it would make the chronic CSD backlog even more chronic. Pan Dan 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Arguably, the proposal might reduce DRV by reducing the number of false (or simply marginal) positives. Certainly not by as much, but CSD backlog is fairly easy to take care of, whereas DRV tends to be heavy. — Coren (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If I came across a new article that said "Hey can i edit this page?", under this rule, I'd have to tag it for speedy deletion and watch the article to make sure no one removed the tag. That's just pointless. --W.marsh 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, for that kind of article, you're right, it's pointless. But as we've seen on this talk page, there's a fine line between "obvious" speedies and obviously improper speedies. This proposal might do something to prevent obviously improper speedies, while obvious speedies would still be deleted, just later. Pan Dan 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No thanks. Pages that are obvious violations of Wikipedia policy are the ones tagged for speedy. I think we can trust admins to a pretty large degree to see that something should go through AfD or prod instead. --YbborTalk 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you been following this talk page? There are many examples of admins speedying articles that don't fit the criteria. Pan Dan 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a risk of a potential article that should definitely not be on Wikipedia, but is never tagged. An administrator would be unable to get an article deleted until a user tags it. Captain panda 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not following you. There is a risk of a potential article that should definitely not be on Wikipedia, but is never tagged -- that risk is exactly the same whether this proposal passes or not. An administrator would be unable to get an article deleted until a user tags it -- this restates the proposal without explaining why it's a bad idea. Pan Dan 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This proposal will prevent admins from deleting articles that can be deleted without controversy unless another user tags the article. With this method, an article may not be tagged and would in the encyclopedia even though it does not belong in it. Captain panda 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • No, an admin could still tag an article (and then another admin would delete it). It seems to me that you might be under the mistaken impression that this proposal would forbid an admin to even tag an article for speedy (?) Pan Dan 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed, that's the reason for the change in the introduction from non-admin to any editor. — Coren (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Admins have gained the trust of the community by having received the admin bit. If you disagree with their deletions, take it to WP:DRV. If you think they're making too many inappropriate deletions, take it to WP:RFC. Corvus cornix 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The above, also this would mean that technically a user would have to tag simple, uncontroversial things like housekeeping pages, test pages and corrupt/redundant images for deletion before they could be deleted, which is just silly... - Zeibura (Talk) 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Now that is a very good point I hadn't considered. Obviously, I've tought about this from the wrong angle-- uncontroversial deletes should default to "no need to double check". I'm going to change my proposal above. — Coren (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If someone knows a deletion is likely to be controversial and debatable, they shouldn't be doing the speedy deletion in the first place. But some people already do anyway... I don't think this rule change would stop them. WP:IAR is too powerful. --W.marsh 18:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I mean uncontroversial delete criteria, not individual decisions. Nobody in good faith would contest a CSD by A3, say (either it has contents or it doesn't), or G6 (by definition). — Coren (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So, the actual suggestion now boils down to identifying certain criteria which should carry an extra 'buyer beware', suggesting that admins make sure there's a second opinion before deleting under that criteria? SamBC 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, which I think was my real intent all along; the discussion served to shake the dust and settle my idea into place enough to distill it to its essence. My original proposal was, I think, tainted by professional deformation. I specialize in security and some of the approaches which are reasonable there are not so reasonable elsewhere. — Coren (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Any criteria can be controversial... we've had Arbcom cases over A3 deletions. It all boils down to how able an admin is to apply a rule correctly and understand the implications, if any. --W.marsh 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's reasonable to expect any mechanism to cover all cases. There will always be cases that are ambiguous, that people genuinely disagree with, or that people contest in dubious faith. I think this proposal has the property of solidifying CSDs by, as it were, having the more arguable deletions "seconded" by a second opinion. Yes-- this can also be done in DRV, but that process is even heavier and more bureaucratic. — Coren (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No. The whole point of CSD is that it's lightweight. Anything that slows it down defeats the purpose. I would however support a double-check for the more subjective CSDs: A7, G11, and T1. Dcoetzee 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no sense to this proposal. Speedies are discretionary. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The percolated, digested proposal

In order to try to make the point we're now at clearer, I've tried to collect/digest/copy salient points here.

The proposal is that an annotation be added to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion identifying certain criteria as particularly subjective; admins are cautioned from deleting an article/whatever under these criteria unless they have already been flagged by any other user. One suggested wording is:

It should be noted that some of the criteria for speedy deletion necessarily include some measure of subjective judgment in their application (G11, A1, A7 and, less saliently, G1 and G3). An administrator should almost always prefer to wait for the page to have already been tagged by another editor before deleting it.
It is, of course, totally appropriate for an administrator to place a tag on the page to bring it to the attention of other administrators who could then delete it.

Can people try to comment in a way that makes clear whether they are supporting/opposing the sense of the proposal, or the specific wording. SamBC 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the concept, speedy deletion should be made easier, not more bureaucratic. (Voting is evil). Corvus cornix 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just another attempt to red-tape people into not making bad deletions. Unfortunately this overlooks that the people who make these deletions will just cite WP:IAR same as they always do, and are not ones to let some clause on a policy page stop them. --W.marsh 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

but we will have something better to reply to them. At present, mentioning something like this is often ignored, and sometimes gets a rather angry response.
  • I suggested this soon after i came here, and, even though an admin now, still think it would be a good idea, but there is the problem of the thousand or so articles of unquestioned junk which just about anyone with experience could safely delete single-handed. The difficulty is in delimiting this--whatever boundary is set, people will exceed it. There are many admins who are less careful than W.marsh. We have very little protection against them unless the author has the gumption to complain effectively, or the errors are extensive enough for people to notice. There have been enough examples mentioned above over the months. If you ask me whether I think I can count on any admin to follow the rules in all cases, even when tired, the answer is that I do not, and i include myself among them. I know I make mistakes; I know I will continue to make mistakes. I hope not perversely, and I hope with decreasing frequency, but for most things I would rather someone check my work. Of course I can choose to do so, & I generally do, but not everyone does. I think an audit of single handed deletes for reasons that do not fit speedy would be of some interest, and would either show coren's doubts misplaced (and, unlike myself, he tends to be a deletionist)--or not. The confidence of ordinary WPedians in admins is not at present very great, and we should think how to increase it. DGG 00:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think DGG has an excellent idea; perhaps a day or two of monitoring speedies and gathering good statistics rather than guesstimates would be productive regardless of how this discussion turns out. I'm unaware of a method by which this data can be collected, however. If someone would be so kind to show me how I could do this, I would gladly perform the legwork. — Coren (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have some ideas, and I've set up the subpage Wkipedia talk:criteria for speedy deletion/analysis for discussing it. Let's see what we find. If we do decide to change, it would help to have a baseline to see if it does any good. DGG 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the first test result looks interesting. It's on the subpage, I did not select someone I thought to be possibly a problem, and yet it appears to be a totally inappropriate deletion by someone who clearly thought it the right thing to do--any comments?DGG 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to support the proposal with its current wording. The specific enumeration of G11, A1, A7, G1, and G3 will help keep these frequently misapplied CSDs monitored to some extent without a significant overhead. Dcoetzee 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if you could get this proposal accepted, I don't think you could get the admins to follow it. — The Storm Surfer 22:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • To quote an appalling TV show that I can't quite remember (apart from this quote), "a single drop raises the ocean". If some editors adjust their behaviour accordingly, it's worth it in the end. SamBC 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Does that mean you wouldn't accept it and follow it, or that you would but expect some (many?) others wouldn't? — Coren (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would be willing to support this as it stands. This is how I have worked ever since I became an admin -- In fact I promised to do so during my RfA. I will not speedy delete a page unless it is obviously vandalism, an obviously uncontroversial housekeeping issue, or a similar issues that is both obvious and uncontroversial. For all other issues, even A1, A3, G1, advertising, and copyvio, if I find it, and it isn't tagged, I tag it, rather than deleting it. And I spend significant time patrolling the CSD category, and deleting where appropriate, or removing tags placed incorrectly. In fact i find enough of those that I drafted {{Speedy-Warn}} which I recommend to anyone patrolling the CSD category. (Note also that I always double check an article before speedy deleting it, including checking the history, and i won't do a db-repost without finding the deletion discussion and linking to it in the deletion log entry. And people feared on my RfA that I would be too quick on the trigger on speedy deletes) I also wind up spending a Fair amount of time on DRV challenging invalid speedies, and many of them were un-tagged deletes. Reducing the need for that would IMO be a good thing. I think that the suggested analysis will help get better data on this. DES (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • m:instruction creep. Bad idea. You are alluding to a problem without providing credible evidence that it in fact is a problem. >Radiant< 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right, of course, that we don't yet have evidence of the problem (or that it's an illusion). We're working on that.  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No thanks. As Radiant! pointed out, this is essentially a solution in search of a problem and adds more bureaucracy that we do not need. It's pretty simple to contest a controversial speedy and DRV should be enough of a "check" against improper deletions. The amount of time saved by not running spurious deletions through DRV would be small compared to the amount of time wasted forcing admins to seek a "nomination" prior to speedying these sorts of things. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

declined adminship requests

I propose a csd to delete rfm pages for users who were nominated for adminship but declined nomination.--SefringleTalk 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See the related discussion in the section #CSD G13 above. Basically, declined nominations can be speedied per CSD G6 (housekeeping). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Change timeframe for I6

I propose changing the timeframe of I6 to count from notification/addition to deletion category, than as it's now, from upload. Both to give the uploader a chance to fix the problem, and to make it work as the other semi-speedy image-deletion criterias. AzaToth 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. CSD I6 has said 7 days from upload for a long time, but in practice all the notices give people 7 days. I actually think we should delete any image or image use without prior notice - tell them after the fact, but nicely - if we can catch it within the first 24 hours. That'll teach all the new users not to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talkcontribs).
I agree as well (with AzaToth, not Wikidemo). The current system of image deletion timeframes is needlessly complex. "If an image is A, but not B, use form Q-13/A. If an image is A, B, and D, but not C, use form JR-D15/D-6.B. If an image is L, but not Ñ, go have an enema." ... (I paraphrase a little.) 7 days from time of tagging is good. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Policy ought to reflect existing dominant practice whenever that existing practice isn't against any Foundation principles. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New speedy deletion criterion proposal

Articles that are effectively copies of existing articles under a totally different name, with original research/deleted material added such as Duane moore (Tony Eveready). I've seen them crop up occasionally.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this is needed for a speedy deletion criteria. For one thing, it is probably not objective/obvious enough in some cases. In addition, it doesn't arise all that frequently to require speedy deletion. {{prod}} can usually handle these cases effectively (assuming they aren't covered under existing CSD criteria like G3 (vandalism) and G11 (spam). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Would those kinds of articles technically qualify for G12 as GFDL violations? Pan Dan 19:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No. The revision history of the original article and any subsequent modifications to the POV/OR fork are licensed under the GFDL. A GFDL issue arises if the article from which the OR fork was created is deleted, but that still doesn't justify deletion under CSD G12 as the revision history can simply be restored. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletions are not the answer in situations like the one above, redirects are. Merge any differences (that don't violate core policies like WP:V) and then redirect the less popular title to the more popular title. This will prevent duplicate article recreation and newcomer biting. BigNate37(T) 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically what BigNate says, and also if the redirect is one which is never going to be typed into the search box and has no relation to the copied article, it can be speedied under R3. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty underhanded to turn an article you don't like into an implausible redirect and then speedy it... aside from that, if someone creates an article at a certain title, it's reasonable to assert that it's something people search for—someone already did. BigNate37(T) 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm I see what you mean, I guess there'd be no harm done leaving the redirect and letting someone else find it. I didn't mean "an article I don't like" though, I mean a copy of a page or an article clearly on exactly the same subject, these (unless they're vandalism) should be turned into redirects by default. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I implied anything, it was not my intent. I was speaking hypothetically, and using the second person to direct it at you was out of habit—nothing personal. What it should say is that such an idea leaves itself open to abuse, rather than having implied you were suggesting such abuse. Sorry again, BigNate37(T) 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Amend paragraph 3 of the intro

The third paragraph of this policy states:

Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete.

Is this really necessary? Based on the number of people that do Newpage patrol, this is already largely ignored. Also, shouldn't pages not fail speedy deletion criteria from the very first edit? It is also unclear. How long should we wait? Should we assume that the author is editing on a slow dialup connection and will need 5 minutes between edits? Doesn't waiting defeat the "speedy" in speedy deletion? What criteria should this apply to? Obvioulsly it would not apply to copyvios or attack pages, but what about G4, A1, A3, or A7? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree totally. If you don't want your article speedy deleted, don't create an article so bad that people want to nuke it on site. I'd totally support removing that language. I'd like to see where anyone ever got consensus to add it before hearing that there isn't consensus to remove it. --W.marsh 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd support this, but I don't imagine most people will, just a gut feeling. In any case, I would argue that it's perfectly possibly to create a two-line article with no links or references that doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. As such, it seems silly to allow new articles to be speedy-able for some length of time. SamBC 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree, in fact I think this concept should be promoted more instead of being removed. I recently came across a legit article that someone had put up for AfD one minute after its creation. In the next 10 minutes, as the article was built, it became very apparent that not only was the subject notable, but it was well referenced. Now I know this discussion centers on CSD rather than AfD, but the principle is the same. I couldn't tell you how many times I've declinded a speedy request because the article had been improved in the few minutes between when a NPP tagged it and I got to it. Makes me think that the CSD backlog is actually a good thing. Many editors, especially new ones, don't understand that it is better to build an article in a sandbox, and so well-meaning NP Patrollers can easily jump the gun. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't tell you how many times I've found a terrible article that sat around for weeks or months with no improvement, and should have been speedy deleted when it was created. Even articles that promised improvement int he article text. So it goes both ways. The only difference is the guy who wants to make improvements still can if a sub-standard article is deleted, the guy who creates junk and walks away isn't going to follow up a few days later to make sure his embarrassing article has been dealt with. I guess I should say that I'm pretty strict with CSDs and rarely get challenged, so that colors my perception of what a speedy deletion means, which is a deletion of an article with nothing usable towards a good article. --W.marsh 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I used to do new page patrol back when I was working until 3AM; I'd come home and sit on the computer watching Special:Newpages for an hour or two before bed. It was fun, in that it was easy work applying clear policy to improve the wiki, and I was making a noticeable difference. When my schedule changed, I did new page patrol during other times of the day and quickly learned that if I respected the grace period when an editor is still submitting edits every 30s to 2 minutes, someone else would beat me to tagging it for CSD/AfD/cleanup/whatever. This became frustrating and I ended up taking the side of new editors on many occasions, growing some disdain for other new page patrollers. I eventually gave up NPP, but the things I learned tell me that in order to enjoy NPP, one must actually be editing some of the new pages. In order to do this one must edit them sooner than another patroller would, which causes a race to get to each less-than-perfect new page before everyone else. Hence, your reason why many new page patrollers do not give editors time to flesh out a new article. BigNate37(T) 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The present policy is , to put it simply, forthe convenience of admins at the expense of encouraging the improvement of articles. short of copyvio and BLP, no apparent attemtp to creat an article in good faith should be deleted within at least 24 hours, and if we need to ask the developers to creat a timed holding mechanism, I think they can mannage it.DGG (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible new CSD: Albums of non-notable bands

When an article about a band is deleted under A7, or in an AfD due to notability issues, it seems reasonable to me to say that articles about albums, songs, etc of that band should be speedy deletable. Such articles are sometimes speedied now, which is at least technically improper, or else they are deleted via prod or AfD, more often prod. It is hard to see how an album can be notable if its creators aren't. However i suppose there should be an exception -- if the article contains cited sources establishing or arguably establishing notability, this new CSD wouldn't apply. What do people think of this idea DES (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I think clearly this is the intent of A7, but the wording in A7 is a bit restrictive. Perhaps "artistic works" or something should be added -- this would cover non-notable albums, singles, paintings, sculptures, recipes, poems, books, TV shows, art school film projects, etc., etc., etc. You are right that those are technically not covered by a strict reading of A7 right now (although I think pretty much everybody accepts that A7 applies to anything that fails to assert notability) --Jaysweet 21:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think adding "artistic works" to A7 is a good idea. It's very difficult for a non-expert to judge what constitutes an assertion of notability for an artistic work. Such pages should be {{prod}}ded. Also, A7 doesn't apply to anything that fails to assert notability because, again, assertions of notability for certain subjects can be very difficult to judge. The speedy deletion criteria are deliberately "worded narrowly" and should be interpreted narrowly. Thus, A7 should only be used for articles about real (never fictional) people, groups, bands, clubs, companies, and web content. Any other deletion under A7 is unwarranted. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Black Falcon. It's hard to make notability requirements for artistic work itself. -WarthogDemon 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Really??? I guess I'm confused then... I don't understand how the notability of a band could be any easier to determine than the notability of an album...?
I can understand why it would make sense for real people, because of WP:BLP concerns.. but then why web content? --Jaysweet 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well there's always the odd chance that an album from a highly notable band doesn't do so well. Does that mean we should exclude that one album just because no one liked it? Or maybe I'm looking too deep into this. -WarthogDemon 22:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Recongising an assertion of notability for a real person is relatively simple: have they done/accomplished anything? For other subjects, it's difficult for a non-expert to determine whether notability is asserted. For instance, I know almost nothing about American football. If an article tells me that so-and-so was a 2nd draft pick for the Denver Broncos, I have no idea whether that's important (in fact, I'm not even sure that makes sense). Likewise, most people won't know whether the fact that the strange quark is the "lightest of the quarks" is important.
With artistic works, it's hard to know what constitutes an assertion of notability. Is it financial success? Is it influence in a particular genre? Is it a particularly rare pattern of brushstrokes? Is is capturing a particular moment in history?
I presume that the reason "web content" became a CSD was because too many people started creating articles on their personal websites and blogs. I hope these examples clarify my initial comment. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to Jaysweet I for one do not think "that A7 applies to anything that fails to assert notability". A7 is and IMO should be narrowly limited to categories of articles that have been particular problems in this regard, and applying it to anything else is an improper deletion. Note that I am not quite proposing an extension of A7 to albums and other artistic works. (note that some artistic works do have their own notability guidelines, see for example WP:BK). I am specifically suggesting that if an article about the creators is deleted under A7 or for non-notability, and if there are no sourced assertions of notability, then and only then would a work be speedy deletable. i am also proposing to limit this to musical works, because it comes up there far more often than in any other category of artistic works. I agree that determining whit is a reasonable assertion of notability can be tricky for some subjects. That is why I would peg this criterion explicitly to a previous deletion of a closely related article (specifically one about the work's creator), not simply to a failure to assert. But perhaps it isn't a good idea. DES (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I might support this if the article on the band/musician was deleted via an AfD discussion. There's two reasons that I think this criterion might be problematic when the band/musician article is speedily deleted. First, there's a good chance than an A7 deletion of a band or musician with a released album will be contestable (not necessarily wrong, but at least contestable). Second, any attempt to check whether deletion of an album was appropriate will require also checking whether deletion of the band/musician article was valid. That's different from having a link to the AfD discussion provided directly in the deletion log.
Of course, that then raises the issue of whether the situation arises frequently enough to warrant a new criterion. My personal impression is that when an article about a band/musician is nominated for deletion, articles about their songs and albums are generally included in the nomination, but I have no evidence to support support that view. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I'm not sure of the best solution -- maybe just advise using prod on the albums/songs when bands are speedied? DES (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I do. Songs have never been covered under CSD A7 as far as I know and it's not worth taking such cases to AfD. If a band is not notable, it's extremely unlikely that its songs/albums will be (since a band typically acquires notability through its music). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, thanks to Black Falcon for your attempts to explain. That has helped some, but I am still confused... In particular, your example about a person being a 2nd round draft pick for the Broncos seems to contradict the idea that it is easy to tell whether a person is notable and whether A7 would apply.
I sort of feel like, even in the case of people, A7 should only be applied if it's incredibly obvious. Similarly, even with artistic works, sometimes it is incredibly obvious. I mean, I don't have to be an expert to know that if somebody creates an article about a film they made for a school project, that was never shown outside the college, that fails notability. (If it was shown at a festival, even a minor festival, then yeah, let it be a prod)
I dunno, this is just sort of an eye-opener to me. I never realized that A7 was so narrowly worded, I had just assumed it was about obvious non-notability in general... so now I'm just trying to wrap my head around why it's worded the way it is :)
I'll ponder this some more. Right now my wife is staring at me waiting for me to come to the store with her, so it's sorta hard to concentrate. LOL... --Jaysweet 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad I could be of some help. A7 is deliberately worded narrowly because deletions under A7 are made without discussion and without a waiting period. The thing to keep in mind about criterion A7 is that it does not call for the deletion of articles that are not notable. Rather, it applies specifically to articles that do not assert any notability for their subject. An assertion of notability, even if unsourced, should be sufficient to prevent a deletion under CSD A7.
As for the Broncos example, you're right to note that expertise may even be necessary for judging biographical articles. However, a significantly higher portion of editors are likely to know about American football than artistic works or quarks. Another reasons that biographies are covered under A7, as opposed to physics topics (for example), is the sheer number of biographical articles created every day. The {{prod}} and AfD systems would suffer significantly from having that burden shifted entirely on them. Black Falcon (Talk) 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The last two sentences are the most convincing.  :D I am not sure I necessarily believe that a "significantly higher portion of editors" are able to discern the notability of a person or group more accurately than, say, an album from a band. (e.g. I recently participated in an AfD for Bif Bang Pow!, and the AfD was no consensus because nobody who knew anything about bobblehead makers showed up at the AfD -- in contrast, if I created a page called The Neighbors You Hate demo CD (that's my band), it would be a shame if it didn't get speedied)
But yeah, while I'm still a little skeptical about how easy it is to discern notability in either case, I totally buy the argument that way more people are creating Wikipedia pages about themselves or their crappy startup company than for these other examples.
With that in mind, though, DESeigel's original proposal makes more sense to me. Yes, I am sure there are a few stray examples of notable albums from non-notable bands, but that's gotta be quite a rarity... and anyway, there is such a thing as a {hangon} tag.... --Jaysweet 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD R3 expansion

Could the wording of CSD R3 possibly be expanded to include redirects that aren't exactly typos, but that are very unlikely to be entered into the search box. This is a common occurence, when someone creates an article, for example, with the title in inverted commas,[1] or with "wikipedia" on the end,[2] or just other random MoS violations such as [3]. After moving the page, I always tag the redirects under R3 and they're always deleted as such,[4] [5] even though they're not typos. - Zeibura (Talk) 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's widely used as such, even though it's not explictily mentioned. I must also say that "recently created" is kind of vague. hbdragon88 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I use it that way also. If everyone does, maybe we should change the wording to match the practice "or other errors" but recently does make sense--long standing one may be actually used and should go to RfD. Most of the ones I see are mistakes made when writing new articles. DGG (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I apply it that way also - not exclusively typos so much as everything that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being searched for. The best policy codifies existing practice, and since the slightly broader interpretation of CSD R3 seems to be standard, I see no downside to adding something along the lines of Zeibura's proposal. Lets give it another few days, and if no one has come up with a reasonable objection (ie, something other than "instruction creep is bad"), then we add it. Picaroon (Talk) 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree also, It should reflect what people are doing, especially when what they are doing makes sense. - cohesion 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See the previous discussion Proposed template: naming convention orphan redirects, which resulted in expanding CSD R3 to cover misnomers. —Piet Delport 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I forgot about that discussion. Good to see the page has been updated... I'll be using {{db-redirmisnomer}} from now on then. Cheers, - Zeibura (Talk) 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think we need that template? I just updated {{db-redirtypo}} to apply to the whole criterion, because I think one template will be easier to remember than several of them, even if the template has only 'typo' in its title. Picaroon (Talk) 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah that's probably a better idea. - Zeibura (Talk) 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I see no point in merging the templates. Typos and misnomers are not the same, and i'm sure it helps the admins to know which one you intended. (It certainly doesn't harm.) Criteria G3, G6, G7, A3, A7 all have multiple specific templates too, for similar reasons.
I think the wording of {{db-redirtypo}} should be changed back, to match its name. I don't think the addition of "other very unlikely search terms" to the criterion or the templates is an improvement: it doesn't really cover anything that isn't already covered by "implausible misnomer". —Piet Delport 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks like there's no objection, so i'll restore the previous wording. —Piet Delport 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not saying I object at all (haven't thought it through fully), but people aren't likely to voice objections if there's never been a suggestion of changing the wording back. SamBC 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, i thought the preceding comment was a clear suggestion. :) —Piet Delport 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I had that clause in mind recently when I flagged Wholemeal Turnip for speedy, just as an example.
I don't understand; what does "implausible misnomer" fail to say about that name? —Piet Delport 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


You can perhaps understand how shocked I was to see myself on the internet; Image:Pasen 2007 045.JPG, is a picture my grandson took from me weeks ago! I don't now how it came on the internet, but what I do know, is that I want it to be removed as quickly as possible. Such things cannot be tolerated! It is a complete violation of personal information I don't want to be within the public domain. I am a amature-sailor and won some sailboat-races, so it is quite possible I am on the internet, but I never gave permition for this to happen. Can you give me the name and some information on the user who uploaded this? Is it used more often? Were else can it be seen? I wanna know! I want it removed completely! -The Bold Guy- 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That picture is not on Wikipedia, but on the Creative Commons, which is a site that holds images for several websites including Wikipedia. The image was upload by someone going by the name H.O - WikiCommonsAccount". It is being used in the following locations: Project talk:Facebook(On this Wikipedia), Simple:User:J. B. A. Evháh, Simple:User:J. B. A. Evháh/J.B.A. Evháh(last two are on the "Simple" Wikipedia).
The uploader of the image claims it is "self-made", I am not sure where the commons goes to challenge copyright. Until(1 == 2) 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know, actually. I'm just new here, and I was stunned, seeing myself here, without me ever given permition to anyone using the image. -The Bold Guy- 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have found the tag that commons uses for copyvios. Go to the image page(commons:Image:Pasen_2007_045.JPG) and add "{{copyvio}}" to the page, then go to the images talk page(Commons:Image talk:Pasen_2007_045.JPG) and explain things. I am sure a commons admin will take care of it in a short while. Until(1 == 2) 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's likely a complicated legal question. Your grandson took the picture so he owns the copyright and might ordinarily be entitled to grant it over your objection or anyone else's. However, he may be a minor, and I don't know how that affects grants. Further, you potentially have a right of privacy not to have your face on the Internet in that way, but once the cat's out of the bag you might lose it so act fast! My guess is that you can probably forget all the legal complexities and just figure out how Wikimedia Commons handles these things. There's probably a layer of super-administrator just like Wikipedia, or someone on staff, who can just make an executive decision to delete the image if you ask nicely and have a valid claim. Wikidemo 14:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like the -The Bold Guy- in the original post is saying the picture was taken from him, as in the actual paper/file was transferred in possession. To me, it looks like the picture was self-taken. See the lower left corner, the shirt sleeve is close and out of focus. Also, the subject's shoulders are raised, suggesting he is holding something (i.e. the camera). If that is the case, you definitely have a valid copyvio complaint. BigNate37(T) 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have copied the above discussion into the deletion request for the image over at commons here. Deadstar 18:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Image has been deleted. Deadstar 09:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is orphaning images standard practice?

Is it standard practice to orphan an image that may fail the fair use criteria immediately after tagging it? My question pertains specifically to cases of CSD I7 (disputed fair use). Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on I6

I don't much care myself what the outcome is, but can we please stop edit warring on a policy page. SamBC 14:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a substantial loss if the "should be deleted" in the Foundation Licensing policy is interpreted as meaning "immediately", thus negating the seven day window. I understand how it could be read that way, but I would also be surprised if the Board really intended to rule out any attempt to correct licensing problems. Dragons flight 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely unsurprising when one considers that this is only for content uploaded after the resolution came into force; content uploaded before should be subject to discussion processes, as the resolution goes on to say. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
One could read it differently though. Tagging for 7 days is not the same as a "discussion process", and so I6 actually moves more quickly than is required for old items. And having a 7-day window is not the same as subjecting new items to discussion, either. Even with a waiting period, we ensure that all problematic content will be deleted, which I believe is the intent of the Resolution. Assuming they mean "should be deleted immediately" seems actively detrimental, and so it is not a reading I would want to make unless the timing were really explicit in the text (which it is not). Dragons flight 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation sometimes tells us what to do. It leaves the decision on how to do it up to us. The resolution simply says that new images uploaded after March '07 when the policy resolution was enacted should be deleted, whereas old material should go through a discussion process before being deleted. Our policy recognizes an earlier date, July '06, when we changed our own fair use rationale requirements. Either way, we're doing exactly what they say, deleting images if they don't have rationales. It doesn't say "immediately" or "with no grace period" and frankly that's impossible anyway given the current set-up here. I would favor a grace period of fifteen minutes if we could catch them all in the act and make them try again. But it's going to take time to get there. Seven days is already pretty aggressive and so far overoptimistic. The backlog is about a month and the project has barely begun. Anyway, the foundation also gives us until next April to finish the task. We'll get there. Wikidemo 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dragon's flight and Wikidemo. The point the resolution requires is that such images can be deleted by a CSD process; an IfD is not needed. Our current well-established CSD process, with its 7-day window, fully implements that, in a civilised and straightforward way. Jheald 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
48 hours, with notification. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible new CSD: nav templates for deleted articles

If a page is a navigation template linking only articles that have been deleted, or a mix of deleted articles and never-created articles, but in any case all red-links, it seems to me to have very little usefulness. Would this be a proper new CSD? DES (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

how frequent is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talkcontribs).
Yeah, I gotta agree with DGG here... I've seen that like maybe twice ever. Might as well just prod it rather than CSD it. --Jaysweet 22:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
{{prod}} does not actually work on template (the idea was discussed and rejected a while ago), but I agree with you that this doesn't happen frequently enough to warrant a CSD. (I doubt that it occurs more than once or twice a month.) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I had seen this a few times recently, deleted the speedy tag and sent the template over to WP:TfD, whre people asked "why isn't this speedy deletable?" and i thought, well, why isn't it? But perhaps it just doesn't come up enough. DES (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly it's so rare a CSD would be unnecessary. Usually they can be included in the AFD of the articles... as these navboxes tend to be left after a set of articles are deleted at AFD. Just delete the obsolete navbox as a part of closing the AFD. --W.marsh 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If it's a template that only links to now-deleted articles, I can easily see it being deleted under G6 (housecleaning). EVula // talk // // 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough -- in the case I encounted, the articels were A7 speedy deleted, IIRC. DES (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd call that housekeeping, actually. If a template's only purpose is to connect a bunch of articles, and all those articles are deleted per regular process, there's no need to keep the template around. That's akin to deleting redirects to nonexistent pages. >Radiant< 12:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Some admins seem to like using CSD criteria to cut short a debate where there are well-reasoned "keep" opinions. This is bad. -Amarkov moo! 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh, what do you really want us to say? Talk to the admins. Take bad calls to WP:DRV if you can't resolve them with the admin. If an admin keeps doing making bad calls, take it up at WP:RFC. We can't really write CSD such that some people won't choose to misapply it. --W.marsh 03:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I know... but it would be nice if we could. -Amarkov moo! 03:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • W.marsh is correct--the solution is not to accept the situation, but to carefully pick those articles where a better solution was possible, and then to follow them up. Judging form comments there, even were there no CSD rules at all, people at AfD would speedy delete when it suited them. DGG (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We could very well create a rule that AfD candidates that have received Keep votes can't be speedied, but this doesn't seem like a good idea to me, as such Keep votes may be poorly informed. If there is a genuinely speediable article with a genuinely good reason to keep it, that indicates that a CSD may need to be restricted, and I'd invite you to raise such a specific issue here. Dcoetzee 05:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the article is really speedily deletable, then I seriously doubt that it could have keep-opinions that truly are "well-reasoned". >Radiant< 12:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Equally, if the keep-opinions are well-reasoned, then I seriously doubt that the article is really speedily deletable. You need to argue on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to non-existent pages

Recently I came across Ramsay H. Traquair, a redirect that was deleted as WP:CSD#R1: "Redirect to non-existent page". I'm not sure, but I think I created this as a redirect to Ramsay Heatley Traquair, a 19th-century scientist who won the Royal Medal of the Royal Society in 1907.[6] I probably created the redirect while working on the page Royal Medal. Given that this is a valid redirect that would have worked once the page was created, was there a need to delete it? My feeling is that a brief look at "what links here" can reveal whether a redlink has potential or not, and whether a redirect to it should be deleted or not. In this case what links here for Ramsay Heatley Traquair shows that there are two pages containing this redlink (he also won the Lyell Medal in 1901). So my questions are:

  • (a) Did I create Ramsay H. Traquair as a redirect and what page did I direct it to?
  • (b) Can someone undelete the redirect? I will then write a stub for Ramsay Heatley Traquair based on the above.
  • (c) Should WP:CSD#R1 be modified to suggest checking the "non-existent page" to which a redirect is pointing, to see if the non-existent page is actually a "redlink with potential"?

I would normally have just re-created the redirect and written the stub (to avoid further misunderstandings), but I thought that a little bit of investigation on the part of the deleting admin would have shown that Ramsay H. Traquair, despite being a redlink, was a genuine redirect, so I wondered if this rather subtle use of "what links here" (it is surprising how many people don't realise you can use it for redlinks) would be of interest. Incidentially, nothing was linking to Ramsay H. Traquair, but I'm now thinking someone might have tidied up links. Is there any way to check that? Carcharoth 00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(a) Yes, you created a redirect at Ramsay H. Traquair and targeted it to Ramsay Heatley Traquair.
(b) No, the redirect shouldn't exist until the target exists. You can create the stub and then create the redirect.
(c) No, redirects shouldn't exist to non-existent pages. A redirect to a non-existent page will show up as a blue link. This is confusing to readers as they end up at a non-existent page if they click it. Readers expect to find a valid article when they click on a blue link. It also potentially discourages article creation as someone might see the blue link who otherwise would have written an article if they saw it as red.
-- JLaTondre 00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There was a discussion about scrapping CSD R1 not too long ago (see here) that failed to gain consensus. As for your questions:
  1. Yes, you created Ramsay H. Traquair as a redirect to Ramsay Heatley Traquair.
  2. Undeletion/recreation of the redirect is certainly possible, just as long as the target article comes into existence immediately afterward (otherwise, someone else might run across and re-delete it).
  3. When dealing with redlinks, it's usually difficult to check whether a title has "potential" without actually researching the subject.
If you want to check whether someone removed the links, you can look through the contributions history of the deleting admin shortly before or after "15:01, February 10, 2007". It's most likely that he or she is the one who removed them. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that my comment is, for the most part, redundant to JLaTondre's. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you were both very helpful. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm now trying to remember why I created the redirect in the first place! Looking at the page history for Royal Medal, I see I made this edit, so I had obviously noticed by that point that the original link on the page had turned from red to blue. I think what happened was that I clicked on Ramsay H. Traquair, then clicked on "search Wikipedia", found the "Ramsay Heatley Traquair" in the Lyell Medal article, did some quite searching elsewhere to confirm they were the same, and then turned Ramsay H. Traquair into a redirect to the full name. I then missed out the final step of creating an article at Ramsay Heatley Traquair... I'll do that now. By the way, the scenarios in (c) were not a problem here, as no links existed pointing at Ramsay H. Traquair. Carcharoth 01:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
However, if someone added a link to Ramsay H. Traquair, it would have shown up as blue and they would have thought an article existed when there wasn't one. The (c) scenario doesn't just apply to current links, but also future links. -- JLaTondre 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Anyway, Ramsay Heatley Traquair now exists. Does anyone want to humour me and undelete Ramsay H. Traquair? Carcharoth 02:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's recreated. -- JLaTondre 02:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be incredibly lame to argue over whether undeletion or recreation was the best option, so I'll just thank you for not humouring me. :-) (pedantically, the only difference is that my initial creation remains in my deleted edits, rather than my active edits. At least the redirect is still on my watchlist. And I suppose it was quicker for you to re-create a redirect than to write out an undeletion log summary.) Seriously, thanks for taking the time to deal with my questions. Carcharoth 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, it was the deletion of the redirect that prompted me to create the stub! :-) So that's a good thing. Carcharoth 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of speedys

Okay, I am a big offender, so let me start this off by examining the cause of why someone who inappropriately tags stuff as speedy might do that. In my case, a big part of it is my frustration with people deleting prod tags without really addressing the concerns in the prod. IMO, if you delete a prod tag without making any edits to the talk page, I view that as vandalism... but I don't think my position is backed up by Wikipedia policy. Anyway, that's one reason I get heavy-handed on the A7s... I see something where I am 80% sure the subject is not notable, I prod the article, and an hour later the original author deletes the prod without providing any sources or doing anything else to assert notability, or even bothering to visit the Talk page and tell me I am wrong. Getting an AfD going for each one of these cases is a major pain in the butt, and if you don't believe me, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimp Chapman. Ick.

Why else do we think that speedy is inappropriately applied? --Jaysweet 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think a major cause is misunderstanding of the CSDs due to popular abbreviations &emdash; people say that A1 is 'not enough length', A3 is 'too little content', and A7 is 'non-notable', which is all a bit of an over-simplification or downright wrong. A1 is not enough context to allow someone who doesn't know about the subject to get something from the article. A3 is no content apart from links, an attempt to contact the subject, or a title rephrases. A7 is people, groups, companies and web content with no assertion of notability; note that this doesn't mean no evidence, but more no claim. As long as people hear/see the 'length', 'content' and 'notability' summaries that float around, there'll be lots of misapplications. I base this on reasoning more than experience, though. SamBC 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are on the right track with that too. For instance, I only just found out like last week that A7 applies only to "people, groups, companies, and web content." I understood the part about reasonable "assertion" of notability being enough even if the assertion was BS, but I didn't realize that it didn't apply to, say, a non-notable book.
I think it might make a lot of sense to caution people against using speedies unless they are very confident of what they are doing and have a lot of experience.. but, then we come back to the problem that even a not-very-determined spammer or vandal can turn a prod into a really annoying AfD with very little effort (with a CSD, at least they have to be at their computer... with a prod, they can just come back the next day and remove it). --Jaysweet 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If you use Twinkle, that sets up AfDs at the click of a button now. I don't see why it's such a big deal starting an AfD, there's no real deadline to get hoax articles deleted, and I don't think any reader is gonna trust something with "this page is being considered for deletion" at the top of it, especially if accompanied by the {{hoax}} template.
I fully agree with what Sambc says about deletion summaries though - I've seen a few messages around about a script someone wrote called CSD AutoReason or something which uses preformatted, informative ones, although not actually I don't know much else about it. One thing which I really don't like is when the content of the deletion summary is just the content of the article, it gives no indication whatsoever to the creator and must lead to so many angry questions.
I also wish people would be more conservative about invoking WP:CSD#G1, which is applied all across the shop to badly formatted/foreign material and unclear prose these days; it's pretty much replacing WP:CSD#G3 with a gross splattering of bad faith assumption. It must be pretty harsh on new, good faith contributors who don't know the manual of style to have their contributions labelled as "nonsense". - Zeibura (Talk) 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The Chimp Chapman example seems like a perfect application of CSD to me. According to CSD G1, hoaxes are explicitly not speediable. You read it, you understood what it meant to say, it's not nonsense. Toynbee tiles are patent nonsense: "Toynbee idea in movie `2001 resurrect dead on planet jupiter." That's nonsense. "He had a rare disease where 15% of his bloodstream was composed of beef gravy." That's bullshit, but it's coherent. AfD is the proper venue for things like that because it draws more eyes. Supposedly, hoaxes need greater attention (I personally disagree and think obvious hoaxes should be speedied, but I digress) hence their specific exclusion from being a reason to speedy delete an article. BigNate37(T) 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I learnt during, and even after my withdrawn RFA, the CSD can be hard to follow at points, but I soon took action to burn the criteria into my skull after several apprehensions even after my RFA. Care is needed. Blatant violations. You need to be sure, else you PROD. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The method I advocate for dealing with problem articles is thus: edit the article so as to remove unsourced POV and weasel words. Then ask someone else to speedy it if you're changes removed the claim to notability (doing so yourself would be gaming the system—not recommended). Just because you're doing new page patrol doesn't mean you cannot edit the problem articles you see; this should be more than half the job of a good new page patroller. If your edits are resisted, it becomes a content dispute rather than a fight between spamming and illegitimate CSD. Straight reverts of your edits are easily defended by talk page comments and re-editing, and indirect changes are a step towards consensus. The main benefit to this method is you're getting a second pair of eyes on a not-quite-speediable article. BigNate37(T) 21:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let me suggest this: Maybe the part of the intro on the Project page for CSD that talks about how the criteria are "narrowly worded" either needs to be bolded and/or use stronger language. This might reduce erroneous CSDs.
Also, I think it would be helpful to people trying remember the narrow wording if the reasons for the narrow wording were included somewhere on the Project Page. For instance, like I said, my misunderstanding of A7... A7 applies only to entities who could potentially sue for libel, plus web content just as a practical concern. That's really confusing. It took me a long time to wrap my head around why A7 might apply to an article about a non-notable person who wrote a book, but not about the non-notable book that person wrote. That is a really confusing policy, and there is no attempt to explain it anywhere that I can see... --Jaysweet 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasoning is that people, bands, companies and web content have the most specific notability guidelines. Also, if there were an article about every website, person or group, Wikipedia would be unmaintainable. You could say the same thing about their products (books, albums etc.), but the base requirement that they have to be published makes it less problematic. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh... so see, I still don't understand the policy. ;p Plus that, even highly experienced users are prefacing their intepretations with "I think."
As a practical matter, if you have a very narrowly worded criterion but don't explain why the very narrow wording, you are going to get a lot of people applying it improperly. Comprehension aids retention[citation needed], I believe. --Jaysweet 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so reading over everything in this and the original discussion above, I have some thoughts and ideas, and refinements/restatements of stuff other people have said..

  • Emphasize narrow wording of criteria, and if possible clarify reasoning for specific narrow wordings.
  • Make non-criteria clearer, more visible, or encourage people to look at them more.
  • Clarify that violations of WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:NPV, etc are not criteria for speedy deletion, nor should they contribute.
  • Clarify that an article must absolutely meet (at least) one of the criteria to be speedyable, not almost-meet several.
  • Possibly highlight common misinterpretations of the criteria.

Well, that's something to be going on with. I don't know how to do those things, but they're vague ideas that might help. SamBC 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are a quite a few admins and taggers who do not understand what A7 covers, that patent nonsense only applies to essentially sheer gibberish, and so on. I know I decline many A7 speedies for albums, songs, movies, etc. But I think there are even more who know exactly what each cover and choose to ignore the letter of the criteria where they deem appropriate. I have mixed feelings on this because I think there are some who, when they choose to ignore, are almost always right, only tagging/deleting clearly innappropriate content that couldn't even theoretically survive an afd. But then, of course, there are others who tag/delete a lot of garbage but whose level of discrimination is too close the line, sometimes also tagging/deleting articles that might have survived to real content. The dilemma is the sheer amount of crap. I am willing to bet that if every article which hyper-technically did not fall into any criteria were all prodded, and only those deprodded were taken to afd, we still would triple the number of articles listed there. As an example, here's the text of an actual article that was speedy deleted with some redaction to avoid identifying the admin deleter. In my opinion this was technically an improper deletion, but a perfect example of something that did no harm by ignoring the letter of the criteria (except under a meta-analysis, i.e., "sets a bad precedent"):

<Xxxx> is a variation of English founded by <john doe> and <jane doe>. This language was invented in June of 2007 at the <name of high school>. <Xxxx> uses the same words and grammatical form as English, but it is spoken in varying tones of voice. When speaking <Xxxx>, the speaker stresses (in a high tone of voice) different words in questions and statements. Then the last word is spoken in a significantly lower tone of voice. Only the founders can speak <Xxxx> in the proper tone of voice. Everyone else speaks <Xxxx> incorrectly. It is difficult to master but being around the founders when they are speaking in <xxxx> helps you understand when, and what words and syllables to stress.

It has technical: context; it doesn't fit under A7; it's not patent nonsense as we define that; it's not vandalism, etc. Yet I defy anyone to come up with a non-frivolous argument why this WP:NFT rubbish shouldn't be deleted on site, except under a meta type argument I mentioned earlier. And here's where I technically trangressed, in a cowardly sort of way. I came across the tagging and thought "I should delete this shit"—but I didn't, nor did I remove the tag as improper. I took the easy way out and let some other admin delete is, as I knew it should be and knew it would be. What's the solution? I'm not sure, but it's not black and white. For the moment I am attempting to keep on the technical side of the line, but I am often tempted.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much such things would clog up AfD; I imagine that something like that hitting AfD would be closed within a day under WP:SNOWBALL. It might not be policy, but sometimes it's just common sense. The difference between that and a speedy is that it has visibility, so if it happens and stays happened people know that it's not the opinion of one person.
The point is that speedy deletions are a matter of agreement between two editors, sometimes only one. That's why there have to be criteria that are as objective as possible, so we can be pretty sure that there's no reasonable defence to a reasonable deletion. If it doesn't fit these widely agreed objective criteria, then the process has to have high visibility, even if it doesn't increase the real chance of the article surviving. SamBC 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with you that the criteria have to be objective (and narrowly-tailored) and I don't think many would disagree. I don't think, however, that afd could easily take a tripling in the number of articles listed. Both of these points are neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that day in and day out, articles such as the above, and less clear examples, are deleted, and from my experience, in not inconsiderable numbers. I think the vast majority of those deletions are of articles that would have been deleted as a matter of course if done through a different and technically proper process and that yes, there is some number, albeit small, that might have turned into good content. I don't think this is going to change no matter how well the criteria are worded because the premise I started with is that many of those who do these deletions are well aware that they are not following the criteria to the letter.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so here's a new question. Assuming that there is some way to reduce the number of technical misapplications of the criteria, even though we can't find one now, should we reduce the number of these misapplications? SamBC 23:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think that if two independent editors happen to agree to a twisted reading of a CSD and delete the article, it falls squarely within WP:IAR. "Obvious crap not fitting a CSD" should never be made into a CSD, but it will always remain there de facto. Either as G1, G3 or A7. (Incidentally, this is why I always felt that two editors should be involved anyways). — Coren (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, so long as there are two editors, they agree, and there's no ulterior motive, then that's fine. I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases there is no ulterior motive. So, that covers the technical misapplications which are still 'good things'. What about the less well-meant or beneficial misapplications and misunderstandings? Assuming that it's possible to prevent those, do we want to? SamBC 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to say that it would be always IAR, if two eds. agreed--or for that matter two admins. The question is the frequency, and I'm still working on the analysis, which is for various reasons proving much slower than I anticipated, as I should have known it would. I am finding a variety of what I shall for the moment term misunderstandings. DGG (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before as an aside, I'd be 100% in support of expanding G1 to cover blatant hoaxes. Would this help reduce the number of CSD/IAR combinations without endangering any more legitimate articles than already get deleted by misapplied criteria? BigNate37(T) 16:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of that, as long as it's specifically apples to blatantly implausible hoaxes. I understand why hoaxes were originally excluded from G1 (because maybe the subject is just obscure and the deleting admin is incorrect that it is a hoax), but the way it stands now, the "hoax" clause is almost a loophole to allow the unlimited addition of patent nonsense for the duration of an AfD.
Again, the recent example from my experience that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimp Chapman. For the better part of a day, two or three accounts (which I suspect to be sockpuppets, but have no proof) made edits to Chimp Chapman and R1D2 that were so ridiculous that normally it would have easily escalated to test4 and been reported to WP:AIV resulting in a block -- but because they were editing a hoax article, my hands were tied. In this particular case, it wasn't a big deal because they never moved on to any malicious editing of other articles. Still, though, better to nip that sort of thing in the bud. And anyway, there was some concern they might have been parodying a real person they knew, raising potential libel issues. All in all, this should have been dealt with quickly -- but because the article was technically a "hoax," three pure vandal accounts got free reign to write whatever they wanted for about six hours.
I guess I'm saying that I want clarification that the "hoax" clause of G1 is not a license to write nonsense as long as the nonsense is part of a hoax that asserts notability. If the hoax is 90% composed of nonsense, then it doesn't get hoax protection, it gets G1'd. --Jaysweet 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of G1

Proposed amendment to G1

This is a follow up from the last discussion around incorrect use of speedy deletion criteria (or speedy deletion with an application of the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and/or the "essay" Wikipedia:Snowball clause, under the label of CSD). Please edit the text below as discussion deems appropriate. BigNate37(T) 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed amendment CSD G1 (wording removed is struck through, wording inserted is bold and italicized):

Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content, or blatantly untrue hoaxes written as though they are true with no reliable sources. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or articles about hoaxes.

Discussion of proposed amendment to G1

I believe this would accurately reflect speedy deletions that already occur, that it comes up often enough to warrant addition, that it would prevent some of the inappropriate use of the criteria, and that it would endanger fewer legitimate articles than already get deleted by inappropriate CSD application. BigNate37(T) 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with user:BigNate37, and believe that this addition would reduce the number of inappropriate CSD uses. In addition I am not aware of a CSD that is for "blatantly implausible hoaxes written as though they are true", and see it very often while editing. I am all for the addition. Tiptoety 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur though the wording may need a little tweak. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I just want to reiterate in the official discussion section the example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimp Chapman, which is an article that should obviously have been speedied but instead survived for the better part of a day to the "hoax loophole." --Jaysweet 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Articles about hoaxes? Some hoaxes are very notable. Piltdown man would be a candidate for speedy deletion under this criteria. As for the blatantly implausible hoaxes written as though they are true," how does an editor know the hoax is "blatantly implausible" if they are written as though they are true? --Oakshade 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That'd be why that was put in the "does not include" part. — Coren (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider an article that says "Frank Thomas was the third president of Cuba and won three Olympic gold medals from 1788 to 1794." This is written as if it were true, and does not refer to the event as being a hoax; if you know the Olympic games started around 1900 or that Mario García Menocal was the third president of Cuba, then it is obvious to you this is a blatant hoax. The Chimp Chapman example talks about a man whose bloodstream was mostly beef gravy. Currently, neither of these examples are technically speediable but many admins would delete them on sight anyways. BigNate37(T) 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I Agree as well. I might suggest to add some wording to the effect that reliable sources disqualify the article as "blatantly implausible" (but not, obviously, from AfD), although that could be left for the clarification page. — Coren (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I Agree that adding something in the CSD that states that if the article has reliable sources you could not tag it for blatantly implausible hoaxes written as though they are true", the only trouble is deciding how a source is reliable. Tiptoety 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I just do not know if enough editors know that, i like the idea, but i think that it will just lead to more editors mis-using CSD. I still agree with the addition, just think it still needs some work. Tiptoety 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it needs a little tweak, but I can't quite come up with anything... somehow it needs to express that this not for hoaxes that are just dubious, it's for hoaxes that are entirely ridiculous and would be judged as impossible by any reasonable person -- but I am not sure how to say that in a manner that is both terse and unambiguous. --Jaysweet 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • yea, i agree, wording it is hard. Some how we have to say "blatantly a hoax's that would be judged as a hoax by a average/reasonable person, and that it does not clearly cite reliable source that would prove otherwise (prove that it is not a hoax.) Tiptoety 22:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with W.marsh) Okay, I just changed the wording. It now asserts that articles with a reliable source do not qualify, and hopefully the description is a little clearer as to what we're talking about here. BigNate37(T) 22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I oppose. Traditionally, what could technically be called "blatantly implausible hoaxes" have just been called vandalism and deleted under G3. I have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to do things. There's no need to make it overly complicated by saying something is a hoax when it's really just vandalism. There's an unwritten "shadow of a doubt" clause here, where if you aren't 100% sure, you don't delete. I was 99% sure Superior (proposed state) was a hoax, so I sent it to AFD and well, as you can see people unearthed some very obscure, but valid, sources. This is why we send suspected hoaxes to AFD, and getting away from that runs the risk of deleting legitimate articles. To come at it from another angle, this might be a problem in search of a solution. Is AFD right now bogged down with obvious hoaxes, and do almost none of them ever get proven to not be hoaxes? Hoax AFDs are not highly common, and a substantial number are shown to not be hoaxes during the AFD. --W.marsh 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like it, we really need more academic responsibility here, and deleting absurd and unsourced articles on sight is consistent with our existing verifiability policy. I don't see why an article about a cat who saved the world in 1972 should sit for all the world to see while it goes through AfD. As for what is blatant, there is consensus, and administrative discretion, and deletion review. Until(1 == 2) 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the new re-wording of the CSD, and in response to user:W.marsh your statement is somewhat true, but if you were 100% sure that an article was a hoax than why wait for a week for it to go through AfD? If you are not sure if it meets the requirements, than send it through AfD like you would any other article that you are un-sure about. Tiptoety 22:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Becuase anything you're 100% sure is a hoax is going to be vandalism, in reality. I don't see the need to add another rule that could potentially be mis-interpreted, it's just a needless complication of the criteria. --W.marsh 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What if the person who added it was stupid an truly believed a cat saved the world in 1972? WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not is very clear that unintentional misinformation is not vandalism. Basically the new amendment would not require a bad faith assumption. Until(1 == 2) 22:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
So we can call people stupid but we can't make the assumption that they're vandals? Meh. It's impossible to say what someone's mental state is from behind a keyboard, so if the article looks like vandalism and is not of any use to us, we can delete it as vandalism, even in the 0.1% chance that it somehow wasn't intended to be vandalism. Maybe someone's friend Joey really is gay and smells bad. We still don't keep the article around. --W.marsh 22:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I think I know that guy! But seriously one should not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance. Of course are correct that sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice. Until(1 == 2) 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that example would be considered a "hoax" and i would tag it as a attack page, the "hoax" that the person creates may not be vandalism, they may say that Microsoft's CEO owns a convertible and go on the explain how he went about making enough money to buy the car, how he moved up in Microsoft and they think it is true, when it is all really a hoax and not true (the page would not have sources). Now i do not consider that vandalism, that is a hoax, it is unintentional misinformation, and like User:Until(1 == 2) said it does not require a bad faith assumption. Tiptoety 22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Often people repeat urban myths thinking they are true for example. Until(1 == 2) 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless these are things that sound like an AFD would be called for. Maybe the information about the CEO is true. --W.marsh 22:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, scratch the convertible, maybe they say he has 45 Hummers, that would sound like a hoax to me, but it is not vandalism. I have come across many people who have been creating hoaxes and know that the AfD process for them can take a long time, a speedy tag would be nice. Tiptoety 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it all depends. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is something I've heard Capitalist Roadster say in reference to hoaxes. Extreme claims with no evidence greatly increase the chance that it's vandalism. "Bill Smith works at Arby's as a fry cook and owns 45 hummers", okay, vandalism. "Bill Smith just signed a contract with the Portland Trailblazers and owns 45 hummers (reference)" doesn't. Talking about this seems to make it more sound more complicated than it actually is... I've yet to see any real evidence that too many hoaxes going to AFD is a problem. --W.marsh 23:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's because they're not. They are being hit with things like G1 or G3 already, while being outside the narrow wording of those criteria. Hence part of the motivation for this change is to bring the letter of the law up to par with practice. BigNate37(T) 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: does not occur frequently, and too subjective - truth is stranger than fiction, and the implausible frequently turns out to be true with a little research. False information should be removed from articles - for example, if it says "Joe Jones won 20 Olympic medals in bungie jumping", then delete it from the article with edit summary "Olympics do not have this category of competition". If what remains does not claim notability, A7 applies. You always have the option of moving unsourced information to the talk page and asking the author to supply a source, if you don't want to research it yourself. Dcoetzee 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also oppose this. While I agree with the intent, it isn't currently worded in a way that allows objective judgement, I can't see how it really could be, and it is very important that criteria for speedy deletion be difficult to reasonably argue against when applied in good faith. SamBC 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions on how to word it? Tiptoety 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a good example of a page that would meet those requirments: Adam Lyal's Witchery Tour Party
I don't think that's a very good example... I recall nominating a similar article on a political party without much support, which I thought could have been a hoax, and during the AFD the article was sourced and ended up getting kept. Granted this article does seem to be a hoax, but not all articles that look like that at a glance should be deleted, let alone speedy deleted. --W.marsh 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, consider a one-sentence version of Official Monster Raving Loony Party. It would be equally preposterous, but true. I oppose this. We do not want or need (given G4) to delete articles that may be perfectly true. Prod and snowball AfD's will cover almost everything in time, and the things that should be done right now ("My math teacher killed seven muggers with his karate!") are BLP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I also opose this. This is a really bad idea. I have seen too many seeming hoaxs turn out not to be a hoax. Speedy Deletion should only be for things that have no chance whatsoever of remaining. PROD and AfD work well for this. Dsmdgold 01:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

okay, i think you guys got me, i am going to have to change my vote to oppose. Tiptoety 02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say, most of the examples given are not obviously false. I'm surprised by the feasibility of what people are calling "implausible", but it illustrates an important point. The wording of the proposed amendment relies too heavily on editors' judgement and it does not establish a clear cutoff for what constitutes a blatantly untrue hoax, making it inappropriate for adoption into G1. BigNate37(T) 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you also may want to look at WP:NOT#CBALL,Tiptoety 04:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose any CSD that allows speedy deletion for "Hoax" in any form, with the one exception of hoaxes confirmed as such by their creators, which are already deletable as vandalism. There have simply been too many cases where an editor in good faith tags an articel as being a hoax, where it has prooved to be real but obscure, or at least unknown to the editor involvbed. This is simply not a decison that IMO can be reliabely trusted to one or two editors, no matter how good thir faith or how accurate they usually are. This has been proposed before nd failed before, and it should fail again. DES (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)