Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 40


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Berry (musician)

Just got this on my talk page:

Hi there. Just a quick note, I think you have misjudged your !vote in this AFD. Reading this article, I think you will notice that a.) it makes assertions of notability and b.) A7 was previously declined by me and thus should not have been retagged. I don't want to scold you, but I think you might want to be more careful when following TPH who has a history of mistagging articles. Regards SoWhy 12:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? Is an assertion that an album will be released in late 2009 the same as an assertion of current notability? And should we check with an admin who declined a speedy before voting for speedy at an AfD? - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If an admin were to close an AfD as "Speedy delete" after another admin declined a speedy deletion under the same criterion, it would seem like the second admin overturned the first admin's decision, which could, I guess, be said to constitute wheel warring if the first administrator was not consulted. Possibly one could apply the same logic if an admin ¬votes for speedy deletion, thereby endorsing the closing admin to overturn the first admin's decision (again without discussion). decltype (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because an album may or may not come out, does not constitute a claim of notability. As to the other: AfD standards are different, and I don't think declining a speedy gives anybody a special role in a full-blown AfD; heck, I've declined speedies in the past where if asked I would have supported the subsequent AfD deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not but maybe the people who brought us per-page edit notices can add a similar "delete notice" feature to reduce the most serious mistakes. — CharlotteWebb 15:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea, Charlotte. Okay, this article may not be the best example now, because many sources have been added, but what I'm hearing is that admins shouldn't risk a wheel-war, that is, they shouldn't reverse a speedy or a decline without discussing first, including the case where an admin closes an AfD judging that the consensus was to speedy. AFAIK, I have never reversed an admin without discussion, except for a few G12s. On the point of the speedy votes in this particular AfD, I don't think it works to tell people (admins or not) how to vote, or not to vote "speedy" if they believe the speedy criteria are met, but once the votes are in and someone is closing, it's fine to give a rationale saying "I closed as X, and the votes for speedy didn't influence me much because I believed they were off the point". - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't make much sense to complain that an administrator declined a speedy out of process. If a speedy tag is declined then send it to AfD and talk it over with the admin individually. --causa sui talk 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed, and I don't think "speedy" votes at AfD should be taken as a complaint or indication that the decline was wrong. There will always be vigorous discussion about db-notability and db-spam, and AfD is one of many places to discuss the boundaries; almost every new article presents some new angle. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just an idea, but we have {{template:oldprodfull}} for talk pages for contested PRODs (which too many people forget to add after contesting but I digress), how about creating a {{template:oldCSD}}, then get the Twinkles and assorted Huggles to first add it automatically when declined including the declined criterion and the decline note for the admin actions, but also to check the talk page of the article for this template and either abort the nomination or at least warn and request input (which will be added to the edit summary for the renomination) if an editor attempts to re-nominate for the same criteria? MLauba (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Since User:CSDCheckBot/log starts today, I'd like to wait and see what the reaction is before thinking about other new ways of notifying people what's going on. I'll reply on your talk page in a week or two. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


I propose adding somewhere, probably at WP:CSD, a recommendation to add the {{notenglish|[correct language]}} template to any foreign-language article tagged for CSD, for languages that Google handles well. (You'll know if it's one of the others, Google will warn you.) There are pages that will attempt to figure out the language and translate, so it's not hard to do. CSD is a community process, and when only a few people can read the article, and the rest are either skipping the article or using different translation engines, then people are looking at different texts, and may come to different conclusions. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Declined G11 at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total licensing; it's an argument about what G11 means. - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't see any kind of argument over there. I am curious as to why you were decline a speedy and then pretty much state that it meets exactly the criteria for said speedy. This might not be the case if it hadn't been made by an employee, but that's what it is. An employee making an article with no notability or references to provide a reasoning for the article = spam. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that it was written by a company employee or that it was a partial copyvio of the company website. As I mentioned over there, maybe a partial solution here is for me to do more research before declining a G11. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy. And if it does, it is only because G11 is too vague and no concrete guidelines are provided for it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
As pointed out by Z-Man, it was a G12.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of orphan talk pages

At least one editor (Aleenf1 (talk · contribs)) is periodically tagging talk pages without corresponding articles for G8, thus increasing the backlog in CAT:CSD significantly. I am wondering, what others think about this behvaior. Is it a good thing because it identifies pages in need of deletion or a bad thing because it floods CAT:CSD with pages where immediate deletion is not needed, thus distracting admins from pages that do? Regards SoWhy 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good thing because it identifies pages in need of deletion. The "speedy" of "speedy deletion" means "with no discussion needed", not "immediate". Very few pages that qualify for speedy deletion need to be deleted immediately; perhaps only those meeting G10 and G12 do. +Angr 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I know what speedy means in the context but the question is, are those pages as "important" (for the lack of a better word) as other CSD taggings or is this unnecessary flooding because there exists a tool to identify them, with which any admin could find them as well? Regards SoWhy 13:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think they are as important as most other CSD taggings, except for G10 and G12, which should always get top priority. +Angr 13:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Which is why there are specific subcategories for the most urgent criteria. With the exception of attack pages and copyvios, WP:DEADLINE applies. If a user is prepared to volunteer their time to go looking for and tagging these pages, their work improves the encyclopedia, and we should thank them for it. Happymelon 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


In case someone edits it, the current version is "Weihenstephaner Hefe Weissbier German hefe weissbier Soft malt, with hints of carnation, coriander and banana. The Weihenstephaner Hefe Weissbier is brewed at the Bayerische Staatsbrauerei Weihenstephan in Freising, Oberbayern, Germany." I declined the db-nonsense and alerted the article creator and WP:BEER ... but suppose none of them come through? If an article appears as half-assed nonsense to many readers, even if in fact it's about a notable beer (there are lots of Google archive hits), should it be speedied? Although I personally don't care where we draw the line, I'd like to know where the line is. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • If it is notable, it should be translated, unless it already exists in a foreign-language wiki, in which case it is speediable (A2). I have posted it on WP:PNT, which generally has good turnaround. decltype (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that a trick question? Speedied using which criterion? Certainly not A1 or G11. What many readers?
    It's a notable beer here, and judging by the number of hits by gnews (e.g. in Toronto Star) clearly not only locally. Amalthea 05:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, there's always A2, but it didn't apply here. Good job fixing the article, by the way. decltype (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Wasn't really me. And the article was in English from the beginning, just had a lot of proper nouns. Amalthea 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
        •'re right, didn't notice that. decltype (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It lacked a few words in English, namely is a weissbier beer or something of the sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD it. Simple as that. Happymelon 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion during XFDs and G4

If a page gets speedy deleted (for example, A7) during an XFD discussion and then gets reposted in the same state, would G4 still apply? My reading of the criterion suggests that it wouldn't because the wording in G4 implicates that a full discussion resulting in a rough consensus for deletion has occurred (which if speedy deletion occurs during the XFD, that may not happen), and that criterion defends that consensus until another discussion occurs possibly changing that. MuZemike 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When tagging the article in question, I used a generic "deletebecause" tag and included both A7 and G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You have it right, MuZemike. If a page gets speedy-deleted while an XFD is underway, then we consider it speedy-deleted. A full discussion has not taken place, so a G4 on a reposting would not be valid. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, unless consensus at the AfD was to speedy. It would be odd if we could use G4 on the bad articles but not on the really bad articles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as odd. If it is a really bad article previously speedied, then a criterion other than G4 would apply (the same speedy criterion previously used, in most cases), so we don't even need to invoke G4. If there is some question then a full discussion may be warranted. Keep in mind that "consensus was to speedy" is somewhat of a contradiction, since the whole idea of speedy is that the article is so uncontroversially inappropriate that a discussion to determine consensus is not needed. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there were 3 articles at AfD today where there was consensus to speedy, and all were speedied. The point of AfD is to get more people involved; sometimes they inject new information (copyvio, hoax) that leads to speedy, sometimes they have a different opinion than the nominator, and sometimes the nominator suspects that the article should probably be speedied, but doesn't want to impose that unilaterally, for instance when the article has a long history with many editors looking at roughly the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's true. Sometimes information comes to light at an AfD that makes it clear that an article merits an uncontroversial deletion that meets one of the CSD criteria; sometimes it's helpful to get a chorus of editors agreeing. The point of a G4 deletion, though, is that it is not so clear that the article meets another criterion, so a full discussion is needed in order to apply that to a subsequent re-posting. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit of a procedural issue? As far as I can tell, most AfDs snowballing into speedies get the article tagged and deleted, and the AfD only gets closed afterwards. If the deleting admin only mentions the speedy rationale in the edit summary, there's no reasonable way to tag identical recreation as G4, as the NPPs wouldn't necessarily be aware of the AfD discussion. If instead the AfD gets linked in the edit summary (speedy A7 per WP:Afd so and so), it becomes a clear cut case in the deletion history of the article in question. Or am I seeing this wrong?
I'm the person who tagged it. (I rolled my own A7/G4 hybrid tag) I noticed it when reviewing an AFD log. AFDs closed "delete" shouldn't usually be "blue". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I mean, an AfD snowballing into a speedy has held a discussion and only decided not to go through the full 7 days. MLauba (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this AFD close...

The result was Deleted as a hoax, with the power of AfD (as in, G4 if it reappears in the future)

The closer didn't cite a CSD criterion but being deleted as a "hoax" after 1 day suggests he was thinking "G3" and the closing statement seems to suggest that G4 would apply to future recreations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"the subject" doesn't have to be the title, right?

Just deleted The Genius Series, which read:

The Genius Series In Chronological Order
1: The Genius Operation: Five Page Essay By J.S. Alexander
2: The Genius Operation: Science Fair By J.S. Alexander
3: The Genius Operation: History Fair By J.S. Alexander
4: The Genius Operation: SAT By J.S. Alexander
5: The Genius Operation: Senior Year By J.S. Alexander
6: The Genius Operation: Masters and Doctren By J.S. Alexander

I see articles like this deleted as A1, but I went with db-bio, on the theory that what's really going on here is that J.S. Alexander is asserting that he's a noted writer, even though he's not in the title. The same principle comes up occasionally with software; the company name will be plastered all over the article, and I get no Google hits for the company name. If an article looks like an attempt to make a non-notable company look notable, then it seems to me that that's probably exactly what it is, whether they put the company name in the title or not. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the subject is the title. --causa sui talk 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say stick with the criteria as they're written. Loose interpretations will always result in false positives, which we avoid like the plague wherever possible. For Then Genius Series, A1 would've been a better choice, as there's no need to use any fancy logic to arrive at the conclusion. For the second type of situation you described, it sounds more like G11 spam material to me than A7. A7 is deliberately narrow (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations#Articles, and I'm happy to explain the history if asked), and I suggest erring on the side of caution in its use. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'm fine with tagging these as G11 (unless there's so little to go on that A1 is better), but we're agreed that if someone is promoting someone or something that's different from the title, then we speedy, right? - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there can be any doubt about that. "... exclusively promote some entity ..." (emphasis mine). It's basically the same wording as G10's "... disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity ..." (emphasis mine again). decltype (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Routine review

In view of the examples shown during the discussion at the RfC: Even though the rule probably will not pass, we should be talking about setting up some system of routine review of deleted work, for the improvement of the encyclopedia by retrieving passable articles made by not just by those who know how to appeal, but by those who do not, and by those who may already have left. Of course, if this passes, we could do this too, but it would have a great deal more work to do. DGG (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that people ought to be patrolling Special:Log/deletion, but I think it should be on a volunteer basis just like everything else. I would be hesitant to make it into yet another layer of organized bureaucracy. By the way, if the proposed reforms did "pass", it would make it harder to delete articles, not easier. --causa sui talk 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
How would it be harder? Being optimistic that administrators would take their duties even more seriously with a more relaxed CSD policy is very much different from it actually being harder. Given that at least one administrator has expressed that they will disregard the current rules, I don't see how this would be better with more relaxed rules.  M  19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody was proposing that the standards for speedy deletion would be relaxed, and I'm not aware of any administrator suggesting he or she would disregard the rules. --causa sui talk 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"so that it does not imply that the policy is a firm rule", "Generalize the criteria", "further simplify the policy by reducing the number of criteria" - any one of these is a proposal to relax the rules for speedy deletion. Do you mean something different when you say 'standards'? Please answer my question - How would it be harder? Being optimistic that administrators would take their duties even more seriously with a more relaxed CSD policy is very much different from it actually being harder.  M  20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I tried to answer it many times in the RFC but apparently it never got through. I'll try one last time, and then if we aren't convinced (I'm not optimistic) then I hope we can both move on from this. The proposal would make speedy deletion more difficult since it would obligate every administrator to be ready to explain his or her deletions with a rationale for why it improved the encyclopedia in that particular case, rather than giving him or her a blanket to hide under by citing policy. I expect you'll probably respond to this with a counter argument, and so I hope you aren't offended when I don't respond. It's over with. --causa sui talk 20:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have an argument, just a request for clarification. I noticed you mentioned this once before, but didn't see it as important: is this different from the current situation? I thought that administrators had to be ready to do this even now - scrutiny and accountability, and all that. Or do you mean that they'd have to immediately explain this somewhere?  M  21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the literal interpretation of the policy -- which it is written to encourage -- wrongly encourages administrators to think not only that they are authorized to delete every article that meets the criteria, but that they ought to. Take a look at this article which I saved from deletion today. It was tagged as A7 and speedied before I could remove the tag, but since there was an edit conflict I restored it. It is much easier to explain why this article should not be deleted by appealing to practical considerations about why keeping it improves the encyclopedia than by parsing bureaucratic jargon on the CSD page. If the CSD policy were written to emphasize critical thinking, maybe administrators would think twice before deleting this kind of article. As it is, they act like robots. This is part of what baffled me so much about the opposition in the RFC, because again and again people thought this proposal was some kind of deletionist revolution. I'm probably the most rabid inclusionist who posts here, and the purpose of the RFC was to make it easier to explain why articles should be kept and harder to explain why articles should be deleted. But it's over now, I lost, and it's time to move on. --causa sui talk 22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm - I'm glad you didn't stop responding, since this clears things up quite a bit. What do you think of this change? I think there were two parts to the proposal - exercise judgment to keep, and to delete. All of the opposition was to the 'allow judgment for deletion' part. I see no problem at all with mentioning that admins need not, and I see your point about the use of 'should', though I wonder what we can use in its place that does not endorse judgment in favor of deleting.  M  22:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The reason I wanted to rewrite the policy to emphasize judgment was because I wanted administrators to have in mind when deleting articles "Is it good for the encyclopedia?" rather than "Does it fit the policy?" That's what I meant with the "too much power" part of my statement on the RFC, which I guess nobody actually read. I don't think that mentioning that admins aren't obligated to delete articles would solve the problem, given that the rest of the policy strongly subcommunicates that the criteria are to be applied in a mechanical fashion, but I'm honestly past the point where I think rehashing the debate would be productive. --causa sui talk 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ryan, the problem is this:
Imagine a person proposing that in order to reduce highway speeds, we get rid of Speed Limits and replace them with the notion that we trust drivers to use their judgment to drive a safe speed, "Because by posting 65 MPH, we are sending the message that they are allowed to drive 65." The person who makes the proposal may believe that this will encourage people to drive based upon the road conditions, because they are now responsible for justifying their speed. But in reality people would drive faster because there would be no requirement to slow down. This would be especially true if people knew that there were no police monitoring the roads.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That's nothing at all like what I was proposing or the rationale for it. Can we let this go please? --causa sui talk 00:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea here was that our sign says "you must drive 65". For roads, this is good, because slow drivers are dangerous too. But for us, the sign should say "you are permitted to drive up to 65 - though you may drive 5mph, if you want". The proposal suggested the other way too - "you can go over 65, but be prepared to respond" - at least this was the part that many people disagreed with. I agree with the 'as an admin, you aren't actually obligated to go around deleting these', though I disagree with the 'all admins always have sufficient judgment' and 'csd should not be an effective procedure' points.  M  05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A bit closer but still not right. You're talking about what the semantics of the rules should be. My objection was and is on a completely different plane. But there's no point in trying to understand it now, so I don't know why we are. --causa sui talk 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we understand your proposal, we just reject that it would have the effect that you think it will.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You most definitely don't understand it. --causa sui talk 23:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's also possible that you don't understand what you're proposing ;) Saying 'no you don't understand it yet' is a lot less helpful than just making an attempt to explain. You did manage to get some of your point across when you explained it to me above.  M  01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be helpful. I'm trying to move on. --causa sui talk 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Given that there appears to be consensus that IAR should only be used in a minority of cases, such cases should be reported separately (perhaps by adding an IAR flag to the deletion summary), and not mixed in to the general deletion log. Because this should be rare, it will not impose a burden on CSD. Either this will show that such deletions are inappropriate, or this will prove the point that such deletions should be allowed.  M  19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The consensus on that is 100%. Nobody was proposing otherwise. --causa sui talk 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New criterion: Deletion of article requested by subject who is of questionable notability

I propose a new criteria be added to the list. If the subject of a biography of a living person article requests deletion, and that subject is of questionable notability, the article may be speedily deleted. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please: It's a criterion, not a "criteria". You can propose two new criteria, but not one new criteria. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Best I can tell there isn't even consensus for that at Afd, I don't expect consensus to delete them speedily (Requirement 2). And how can "questionable notability" be defined objectively (Requirement 1)? Amalthea 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
But you might want to join in the discussion here---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
How does one determine what is "blatant advertising"? Everything requires judgment at some point. Jehochman Talk 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Which is why blatant advertising doesn't pass criteria 1 or 2. It is a poorly worded CSD criteria.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"Questionable notability" is hard to nail down. And speedying is probably too quick. Leaves the uncomfortable scenario where the President of Belize from 1975 gets speedied by someone who doesn't have an off-the-cuff recollection of Central American political history. Suggest instead that we propose new language for regular deletion criteria:
If the living subject of a Wikipedia biography wants their biography deleted, and that person does not have an entry in any reliably published paper encyclopedia including specialty encyclopedias, then we delete their biography upon request.
DurovaCharge! 17:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That would not hurt. It should be proposed at the appropriate page for further discussion. Jehochman Talk 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(ecx2)I strongly support either criteria. I think it's a reasonable excersize of judgement for an admin to determine "questionable notability" and an obvious excersize of discresion to determine the subject. The president of Belize from 1975 is obviously notable, and the statement that they were the president of Belize at the top of their article (see George Cadle Price "George Cadle Price (born January 15, 1919) was the first Prime Minister of Belize." An admin that speedy deleted that article would be subject to loss of bit for gross negligence. I support Durova's alternative as well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't like that at all because it would leave open the door to deleting a large number of articles. Susan Boyle is clearly notable today, but I challenge you to find an encyclopedia that lists her. Then there are those people who are notable enough for an article, but will never be covered in an encyclopedia. This would include most atheletes, musicians, politicians, actors, etc. Your proposal is much higher than the standards for N/RS.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If the subject is a private person and asks for the article to be deleted, why on Earth would we insist on invading their privacy? I hardly think massive amounts of articles would be deleted. Jehochman Talk 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If the person has no claim to notability, then A7 exists. If there is a reasonable claim, then it could go through AFD. But your proposal is failing in a key regard. Who verifies that the person is in fact the person the article is about? Is that the role of an admin? Do we trust somebody posting to the talk page under an IP claiming to be the subject? If the subject wants to contact the foundation and request the article is deleted, they can do so. They can provide the appropriate parties with the credentials supporting their claim and make the request. Otherwise, they can send the article to AFD with a note that they claim to be the subject and would like it to be deleted.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I oppose both Jehochman's original formulation (17:22, 29 May 2009) and Durova' alternative wording (29 May 2009):
  • Notability is not always easy to assess, especially for subjects from non-English-speaking cultures - someone could be very significant in e.g. (throws darts blindfod at map) Lithuania.
  • "does not have an entry in any reliably published paper encyclopedia ..." has 3 problems:
    • It assumes that whover is making the judgement has the latest editions of all reliable paper encyclopedias - how many $$$$ worth?
    • Why paper? I know Encarta's shutting down, but there are other online encyclopedias, e.g. Britannica, and others appear to be on the way.
    • If every encyclopedia is equally slow to react to the appearance of new reliable sources, because they're all waiting for each other, they all stagnate.
BTW the subject's privacy is not the highest good - keeping the public informed is more important, especially where politicians and officials are involved. --Philcha (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is to subjective for CSD. I agree with the concept as an arguement in an AFD setting, but as they say, the devil's in the details. These articles should have some community discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I definitely oppose both of the above suggestions as they seem designed to just get articles deleted where the community in an AFD would not support their deletion. For instance in this AFD that I recall there are lots of admins who supported deletion and I am sure would have used this criteria to just speedy delete the article but the community rejected this in the AFD as it has done in several other cases, while agreeing with deletion in other cases. These should go to AFD as there are many admins whose standard of "questionable notability" is far stricter than the communities and again the paper encyclopedia standard is far stricter than what the community supports. (If you think I am wrong on this then nominate them at AFD and let the contributors decide whether they should be deleted.) Davewild (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Also I remember a recent AFD where someone claiming to be the subject requested deletion producing an early consensus for deletion, however it later turned out that it was not the subject and the article was kept. Any admin would not on their own be able to tell whether this was genuine claim or not, while an AFD allows time to ensure everything can be verified. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Another thought that I have is that this is likely to make editors cautious about keeping BLPs to the Neutral Point of View and instead try to just keep only positive material in the bio thus ensuring that the subject does not request deletion. Wikipedia will gradually come to only have positive bios as this speedy deletion clause is publicised and more people come to use it. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The articles on George W. Bush, Barak Obama, David Duke and Sandra Bullock are not going to be deleted, regardless of how negative they get, or how badly Ms. Bullock wants it removed. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well as I had to quickly glance at our David Duke article to find out who he is, that is probably not the best example as a non American might include it. It shows how any one admin can't on their own make a quick decision on who is questionably notable and who is not. If a similar person from Pakistan, Kenya or Chile for example requested deletion then how many admins on their own could tell whether they have ever been in a paper encyclopedia, or if they are questionably notable? This is why we go to AFD for a decision. Perhaps it would not reach that level of notability but think for example where we include ten of the eleven players in a sporting team but remove the eleventh because they had a criminal conviction at some time and wanted the article gone. This is the sort of situation where I firmly do not want us to reach. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally things that are "questionable" shouldn't be deleted without discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I look at it the other way around. Questionable material in biographies should be removed. If the entire biography is questionable, and the subject wants it removed, it would be extremely rude for us to ignore their wishes. Jehochman Talk 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If the person is notable, then they have done something to garner the attention of the public. The subjects history are not defined by the subjects themselves, but rather the events leading to their notability. A person who commits a violent crime may not want his/her crime covered on TV, but that doesn't mean that the media doesn't cover it. A person who becomes a hero for jumping in a river when a plane crashes into it may not want to publicity, but the media covers him/her anyway. A soldier/firefighter/policeman may not deem their role in an activity any more notable than the rest of his/her unit, but for whatever reason, finds themselves in the spotlight. In other words, while I have no problem listening to the request of individuals, the individuals themselves cannot dictate if an article on them exists. And like mentioned above, if such a request were made, it would have to go through a process other than what we do here. I Jane Doe wants an article deleted about her, then she would have to prove that it was in fact Jane Doe making said request, not some anonymous IP claiming to be Jane Doe. This responsibility is frankly above the pay grade of most admins, it would be something they would have to do through the appropriate channels.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This proposal is based upon the assumption that administrators are able to confirm real world identities. This is a false assumption. Just because someone registers the account User:Elvis Presley does not mean they are the Elvis Presley mentioned in the article. Such a user, in real life, may not even be named Elvis Presley and administrator access does not provide the technical means necessary to confirm or deny this. Without the ability to verify real world identity this proposal simply elevates WP:IDONTLIKEIT to a speedy deletion criteria for anyone willing to engage in identity theft. --Allen3 talk 20:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what OTRS is for. Confirmation of real-world identity is easy if the person wants to do it.--Dycedarg ж 05:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
If someone from OTRS (who is also an admin) wants to delete an article because of something submitted that way, all they need to do now is drop a note in the summary saying that was the reason. Most admins, however, don't have access to OTRS, and needing to wait for OTRS isn't quite "speedy" the way speedy deletion is supposed to be. It's too much overhead. PROD and AFD are better routes. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No. If an article subject requests deletion of his or her article, send it to AFD to have the encyclopedic importance of covering the subject scrutinized and weighed against the subject's request to have it deleted. Subjects should not be able to have their articles speedy deleted on demand, because some of these articles are important to the encyclopedia, even if the subject isn't happy about being covered. --causa sui talk 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
First and foremost in any article or discussion about a Living person must "Do no Harm" when the subject asks for deletion the article obviously its doing harm, starting further discussions is only extending that harm. So we assume good faith in the request tag the article for CSD and let a trusted community member(admin) make a decision on validity. I dont think we need a separate criteria just an extension of A7 to include BLP's of unsourced notability. Gnangarra 06:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Our primary obligation is to our readers, not to the bio subjects. "Do no harm" doesn't mean that we suppress information that otherwise meets our policies just because a bio subject would prefer that the truth about one aspect of his or her life be not widely known. The bio subject's preferences are entitled to little or no weight. JamesMLane t c 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
suggest you take the time to re-aquaint yourself with WP:BLP Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Gnangarra 07:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the phrase "do no harm" does not appear anywhere in WP:BLP, and that, while it is a common phrase typed by those who support a strict interpretation of BLP, it has yet to be fully accepted by the community. I doubt that any proposal here will gain consensus before the larger issue is settled, and even then won't be uncontroversial enough for the CSD for a while. Cheers. lifebaka++ 09:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Citing policy as a bludgeon isn't a recommended way to win consensus, either, even if the policy does say what you claim it says (which it doesn't). --causa sui talk 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've no objection to deletion for this reason, but it would clearly need an AfD, not a speedy. Too much in the way of subjective opinion (and how do you search all "published paper encyclopedia(s)" anyways? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem like a sensible idea, because "questionable notability" isn't well-defined. Stifle (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Questionable notability is too hard to determine for speedy deletion, for example for offline, non-English, or alternative name spelling sources. Ordinary admins are not suited for identity verification. Some vandals learn Wikipedia processes and may create large numbers of socks to play whack-a-bio. Assuming good faith could get thousands of bios deleted by a few persistent vandals. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems like a simple matter. The people able to verify an individual's identity are going to be able to do so and then be able to speedy the article away. Other people are not going to be able to verify the identity, so any further debate is moot; if someone wants to bring an article to AfD and claim to be the subject individual then let them. If they are not then they get a one-way ticket to permaban. If they are then it would require a more in-depth look at the article and a case-by-case evaluation. However, I can't see a single way as to how a speedy criteria for this could be made, why it would be necessary, and least of all how useful it would even be.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This sort of deletion has happened, but it's a bad idea. Notability is not something one person can reliably determine, which is why it isn't on the list already. On top of that, this sets the disturbing precedent that the subject of biographical articles has a measure of control over them. More than once, I've had people request that an article be deleted merely because they felt embarassed, or wanted their website to be the centralised source for that information. If a person is upset about their article's existence, that suggests that it should be scrutinized for BLP violations, which should be promptly axed - any bio that comes under particular scrutiny should receive this treatement - anything more amounts to special treatment. Dcoetzee 04:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Amend T3

This happens once in awhile, but if anything, I think CSD T3 needs some amendment. Something, like this (new text in bold)

Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion after being tagged as such for seven days. This includes: substantial duplications of another template, hardcoded instances of another template where the same functionality could be provided by that other template, or navigation templates whose only other pages have either been merged into another article or deleted, and removal of the template would not effect navigation between any related articles

This happens alot with articles for television shows not notable enough to have stuff like this. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no obvious reasons to oppose this amendment.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, but I also see no obvious reason to add that explicitly. Seems, to me, that it's already covered. Feel free to add the example, but it isn't really a change to T3. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is {{PROD}} for templates, right? Is there some way to just PROD the template normally and follow that process rather than bringing it under the jurisdiction of the CSD policy? --causa sui talk 20:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is a fundemental change to WP:PROD we can't prod a template. Prod is only for articles lists, and disambiguation pages.-- (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should be proposing that change there, then? --causa sui talk 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't see why. It doesn't really give us any tangible benefit, and though the current system might be confusing to newcomers it isn't any better to confuse oldtimers instead. Of course, supposing such a change was made, T3 wouldn't really be useful anymore. You can try floating it at WP:VPP or WT:PROD if you like. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 05:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it would make T3 useless, since it's redundant functionality. T3 seems to be its own little mini-prod. I'm not worried about confusing existing users since they're the ones who are familiar with policy already and would have the least trouble adjusting. I'm not really invested in this topic, so I'm not going to push it, but I don't see why we have one PROD for articles and another for templates that backpacks on the CSD policy. --causa sui talk 05:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there such need for a change? I always have used G8 in those cases because it essentially is a page dependent on deleted or non-existent articles. After all, a navbox depends on multiple pages to exist and if there is only one page for the topic anymore (or none at all) then this dependence will not be met anymore. Regards SoWhy 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems unnecessarily specific, and is essentially covered by G8 or T3 already. Maybe add it as an example, yes, but an explicit prescription is probably unnecessary. Happymelon 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

G4 change?

I made a change here and self-reverted as a discussion is in order and WP:BOLD might not be the best call here. What I'm proposing is a change to G4 that makes it plain that we shouldn't speedy something when the policy/guideline that was cited as a deletion reason no longer applies. I don't really like my wording, and would appreciate all input.Hobit (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm reluctant to support this change, while it would limit CSD'ers, if an article was deleted via a proper discussion, then if the same article is recreated, it needs to go through DRV. Note G4 already declares that it only applies to articles that are substantially the same as the one deleted (eg total rewrites already do not have to go through DRV.)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a bit to vague for my liking under the "Uncontestable" clause of this page header. Editors will have good faith differences if a policy has changed (or the community's view of that policy) and that is why we have DRV to re-discuss the content in light of changes since the AFD. Adding it as a clause at CSD is a bit to vague from both the reviewing admin perspective and the editor re-creating an article perspective. MBisanz talk 05:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If an article was previously deleted at AFD because consensus was that it violated "policy foo" and "policy foo" is changed or repealed, I think it would be better to discuss the recreated article at a new AFD where participants can see the article then at DRV where they can't. (unless someone is kind enough to temp restore it) A DRV discussion in such a case is likely to be closed with a consensus to "relist" anyway. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking at the above discussion, I think the question is if AfD or DrV is the right place to figure out if policy changes allow an article to be recreated. I think that looking at the mandate of DrV it would appear to be the wrong place. Perhaps: "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." covers this case, though I don't think this is "new information". Further, I'd think that if policy does change we wouldn't want to flood DrV with all the requests. If we disallow speedies here then any objecting editor can send to AfD. If the article is recreated and no one objects, there is no need for discussion. If we feel that going to DrV first before recreation is the right thing to do (else they will be deleted under G4) we will be required to have a discussion before recreation even if it turns out no one feels it is needed. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My primary concern with the CSD proposal would be things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Englesi, the relevant policies and guidelines cited there included WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:HOAX, and WP:RS. If someone reformatted the way a guideline looked (as happens monthly [1]), it would be very difficult for the reviewing admin to re-decide the AFD given the diversity of opinions at it. If an article is identical to a deleted article under G4 and someone does re-create it under the basis that they believed the policy has changed, I believe DRV would be the best place to take it since we are re-evaluating the same content that had been discussed at the AFD, as opposed to a second AFD which would be appropriate for new content. MBisanz talk 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • So should the person wishing to recreate it take it to DrV? If so, and there are 20, should each go to DrV before recreation? Hobit (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I do see your argument. Something like that clearly should be able to be deleted unless the policy change is huge indeed. Ick. I don't like any of the options, but I do think BOLDly recreating is better than running each past DrV. Arg. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing as we handle 100+ AFDs everyday and major policy changes that result in large numbers of articles being re-created are rare, I wouldn't mind 20 DrVs each day for a few weeks after a major policy change (I'm thinking of bi-lateral relations and college coaches mainly). Certainly I think the community can manage that kind of workload. MBisanz talk 00:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. If it happens, I'll blame you :-) Hobit (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A great example

The other day, an article was created, the condition in which the article was created would not have passed an AFD. The article was nominated for CSD and then deleted. The article's creator contacted the deleting admin (who had gone offline) and then approached me about the article. I recreated it noting that it did not fit A7 or A3 (as it was deleted.) It was then taken to AFD. While the article would not have passed an AFD in its original shape, the article clearly does today. This is a perfect example of why the use of AFD is important to the project. It gives authors the chance to salvage articles that need help. It is why we should not delete the article because "we know it will be deleted anyways."---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good example, and this is a daily struggle for me, too. Yesterday, someone complained in #wikipedia-en-admins, why the hell did I bring an article (that didn't meet any of the speedy criteria) to AfD when I knew it had no chance of passing? Said admin then actually deleted the AfD page in protest that the whole thing was a waste of time, which it wasn't, there was good discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good example of "we know it will be deleted anyways" because a two-second search for sources would have shown it would not have been. The problem here is the failure to do the most basic search for sources before taking the article to AfD. That is what this a good example of. This is a bad speedy coupled with a bad AfD nomination. They have nothing to do with one another. The speedy should not have been done because it didn't meet any criterion. Full stop. End of that story. Then it was improperly brought to AfD when a momentary search for sources would have revealed that the subject was notable; not a valid candidate. At that point, the nominator could have done nothing, or added some material himself, or slapped a few maintenance tags on and called it a day. It should never have been taken to AfD. The problem comes in separating the good result from the bad process.

The fact that it was improperly at AfD did result in the article being expanded, sources added, notability shown in spades; all good things. But that is besides the point. AfD is not an article expansion brigade. There are many thousands of subs-stubs sitting out there which are invalid speedies and in the same boat, i.e., they assert enough importance to not meet A7 and don't lack context, but do not meet notability standards by their current text but are notable. All of those thousands upon thousands of articles likewise need to be expanded, rewritten, sources found, etc. The same process this article went through could as well have been done to them. I think, thus, you're drawing a false conclusion from the good result. Any one of these articles can be made into a real article. AfD is not the process to obtain that end. Here, I'll give you an example. Let me go to the random article button. A few clicks later...Murrayonida and Eva García Pastor. Shall we take these to AfD to get them expanded? It would probably work but is the wrong way to go about it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point User:I'm Spartacus! is making is how important it is for an admin working on the CSD backlog to examine and question every single article in that queue rather than just blindy trust the validity of the initial speedy tag. It's quite interesting in the context of the CSDChechBot's logs, which interestingly enough show that there are two different CSD admins out there, those who delete unquestioningly, and those who either decline or delete under a different criterion on a regular basis.
I find this quite fascinating, because in a recent RfA, one candidate specified that he didn't believe the closing admin on AfDs should weigh arguments but simply count votes. Something I disagree with more and more as time passes. To me, an admin in deletion matters is like a judge in a courtroom, and each nominated article is subjected to his scrutiny. He has the rules and policies as the book of laws and the jurisprudence, but in the end, every deletion should be accompanied by a judgement call on whether the nominator or the delete votes' arguments have merits.
AfD is not a place for cleanup or expansion, as you said. However, today, articles which had a speedy declined have no protection against admin-shopping nominators. Taking a borderline case to AfD is certainly one of the options we have to call community attention, immediately, on an article, and for borderline cases, to give it 7 days additional chances. There are others of course, but in the end, the article stands, and is way beyond stub status.
But I agree that the process merits improvement, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the first thing we need is a CSD equivalent of the {{oldprodfull}} template so that a declined speedy doesn't get renominated and then deleted under another admin's watch. That's the first step IMO.--MLauba (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As an asside, to your last bit; an admin that ignores the recent history and content of a speedy just isn't doing their job. Period. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
And sadly, when I've complained to the admins involved, invariably the response I get is "you're an admin, just restore it. no big deal." My desk still has dents from where I bang my head against it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, the point in this example is it is an example of why I don't trust admins to unilaterally use their own discretion. This was a bad CSD, but those happen every day. It was a dubious AFD. This would be, IMO, a perfect case for a PROD (again, I think PROD should not be removable by the authors primary contributors.) I could easily have seen an author deleting this (as was done) and justify it via "IAR." It is also the type of case where if it was discovered, it would not be a DRV candidate---as some suggest.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Said admin then actually deleted the AfD page in protest that the whole thing was a waste of time Huh? Is that even allowed? And I confess I have little understanding for the argument that "AfD" wastes time. If one feels an AfD is a waste of time, he could either stay clear of AfDs altogether or spend his precious time on another passion than Wikipedia. Last time I checked we had no deadlines on the Project. MLauba (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, I would love to know where that occured, that sounds like a definite abuse of tools.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this should have been posted to the noticeboard. --causa sui talk 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
@MLauba "today, articles which had a speedy declined have no protection against admin-shopping nominators" They do if I see them replacing the speedy!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
But unfortunately, the lesson people have learned is that if one admin declines a speedy simply restore it and somebody else will delete it. I actually had somebody tell me that they didn't care that I declined an article, it would be deleted by somebody else... and guess what, within about a minute, it was deleted by another admin.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This is part of why I regularly AFD articles after declining the speedy. --causa sui talk 04:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How much opposition do you guys think there would be against a policy prohibiting editors from restoring a CSD tag that has been denied by an admin? It really does seem like it is gaming the system in the same vein as forum shopping. Not that I don't think that admins shouldn't be able to delete articles that another admin has declined if they see a reason to, that opens the door to too many problems, but it should not be kosher for editors to repeatedly add a tag until they find someone who will delete the page.--Dycedarg ж 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
addendum: The same tag I mean. Obviously, if a G11 violation or something like that were found later, that would justify a new tag, but readding an A7 tag until deletion happens is what I think should not be allowed.--Dycedarg ж 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:WHEEL is already policy, we just haven't been enforcing it. I suppose you could call the tagger's action "aiding and abetting WHEEL" (that's a U.S. and Commonwealth term in criminal law; the idea is that if doing something is bad, then helping it happen is still bad, but deserves a lesser penalty), but now that we have your fabulous new bot to keep track of these things, let's focus on finding those CSD calls that have broad consensus, and then talking with admins who wheel-war outside of that consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd oppose this, of course, because I object to any notion that policy "prohibits" anything. --causa sui talk 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Ryan, the little bit that I've seen of your tagging, I haven't had any problem with it ... although I vaguely recall seeing one last week where you made a solid call but didn't give a speedy rationale. And I'm not talking about consensus, I'm talking about "broad consensus", which is a vague term meaning "something a little more solid than the typical consensus". But on the general point, yes, theren't any policies that Arbcom takes more seriously than WP:WHEEL; admins ignore it at their peril. (Again, this is not directed at you, just at your sort-of-implied position.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Saying it isn't "prohibited" isn't to say that it's not taken seriously. The two have no connection to each other. By the way, I've done some speedy deletions in the last few weeks that didn't exactly fit any of the criteria, so that might be why I didn't cite this policy; they are usually WP:NFT deletions. If you want to know why I deleted any article, feel free to ask me on my talk page any time and I'll be happy to explain. --causa sui talk 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that it seems that people need to be threatened with deletion to fix articles. Alas some articles are probably brought to AFD with the intention that people who support the article will fix it and if not the nom rescinds the nomination, usually without fixing it themselves. AFD give a DEADLINE and encourages people to work. Of course that's not the intent of AFD, but is is frustrating how it seems to be the only thing that works.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

er take a look at the edit history... in particular note the edit summary of the first edit and the time. Also, please take a note of the time that the article was deleted. Then please come back and revisit this discussion.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the reason why we have higher requirements for CSD than for AFD is for that exact reason. To give the authors a chance to salvage the article. First choice should NOT be to delete without thought or consequence, but rather to try to increase our coverage.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a terrible idea to take an article to AfD that isn't a valid AfD candidate, simply because you believe someone may retag. However, I have created a template to address the re-tagging itself in some measure: {{oldcsd}}, takes two parameters, the second optional: 1) the CSD subsection (required), and 2) the reason for declining (optional). So, for example, {{oldcsd|A7|the article cites to reliable sources, which is an indication of importance}} produces:

--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say noway, when I saw the rationale, because A7 doesn't require sources, then I realized htat it was something you added... which I then liked.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That looks very useful to me. Of course, among the admins who take a delete first, think later approach, I wonder how many of them will even look at the talk page? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That's definitely true. Many admins (especially those who are prone to indiscriminately delete everything and everything with a tag [two names come to mind]) may not look at the talk page. But the hope is that some will, and probably more critically, some CSD taggers who might have retagged will notice; especially since the edit summary upon placing this template will show up on the original tagger's watchlist, and that person is the most likely to be the one re-tagging. Also, think about this scenario. An admin comes along, they don't notice the tag on the talk page nor the decline in the article history, they delete—but then, what the next step? To go to the talk page to delete under G8. Upon maybe seeing this notice at that point in time, they may restore. I'll do the template documentation soon (maybe tomorrow) and I'll strongly promote placing an edit summary whne you use the template that acts to flag the issue to CSDers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Since my bot is monitoring CSD tagging anyway, I could potentially make adding this tag a future task after I've gotten the other task approved. With a delay of course, so a declining admin would have the time to add the tag himself if he wanted to.--Dycedarg ж 07:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Great idea, that would save admins the time to have to add it manually to every single page they decline (a tiresome task). Regards SoWhy 08:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That template is spot on, exactly what I had in mind, thanks. MLauba (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this, Dycedarg (talk · contribs)'s bot could send notifications when a speedy is declined but later speedied under the same rationale, to the administrator who declined the initial tag (for review), and to the administrator who did the speedying (so he could consider undoing the speedy himself). --causa sui talk 08:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Images are files

{{Editprotected}} I'm putting this here because Template talk:Di-no permission-notice redirected me here. {{Di-no permission-notice}} and {{Di-no source no license-notice}} still talk about images only, the other two templates have already been changed to refer to files. Please do the same thing for these. Thanks and best regards, --ChrisiPK (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


I'd appreciate someone checking my logic on this one. My edit summary was: "Only one independent source in a local newspaper, no suggestion that other sources exist, and no additional significant hits at A7: does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think an independent, reliable source, even only a local newspaper, constitutes an indication of importance or significance. A7 should not be used to delete stuff that might be notable. Regards SoWhy 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dubious speedy given the independent media coverage. I would have sent it to AFD. --causa sui talk 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too; it makes a credible assertion of being notable (in being different/revolutionary/whatever), and substantiates it with a reliable source, however obscure. No deadline, and no harm in letting it be discussed properly. Happymelon 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto, who knows what else might be out there. In the current shape this is a perfect example of an article that will fail at AFD, but should be given a chance.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Toronto Star is hardly a "local" newspaper. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The paper and the company are both in Toronto; it's not a small local newspaper, but it's local, and that usually makes a difference when weighing notability. Okay, well this is why I asked, I've taken it to AfD now. Thanks for the "speedy" replies! - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I would describe it as a Major Regional newspaper. "local" implies a small city. EG I have family that lives in Arvada Colorado. Arvada is a suburb of Denver. The Denver Post is a the major regional newspaper that serves the Rocky Mountain Region and can be purchased throughout most of the region. In Arvada, there is a local paper that deals with Arvada news.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Its also the most widely circulated Canadian newspaper. I certainly hope we're not requiring newspapers to be nationally circulated before we consider them significant... Mr.Z-man 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In other words it is the Canadian equivalent to the NY Times or Washington Post?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Followup question. Same issue, but a different article (Webgistix) and now it's a small local newspaper, the Olean Times Herald (in the references section), that ran an article on the company. All of the 12 Google archives hits are press releases or similar. A7? - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The question should not be "does this meet the policy?"; it should be "would speedy deleting this improve the project?" - In this case, the article doesn't look particularly spammy (though the author's contribution history is a bit suspect) and its well-sourced, albeit to "minor" sources. I don't see what we gain by speedy deletion. Mr.Z-man 04:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm confused. Last I knew all A7 required was an assertion of notability. The criterion specifically states that no actual reliable sources indicating notability are necessary, only that a credible assertion of notability must be made. Why are you running Google searches and checking sources? Isn't that what AFD is for?--Dycedarg ж 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"provides outsourced e-commerce order fulfillment" is not an assertion of notability. I use A7 if an article meets all 3 of these tests:
  • They don't provide any independent sources that in any way deal with notability of the subject
  • They don't directly state or indirectly imply that such sources might exist (this is the same thing as "asserting significance", but no one knows what the heck I'm talking about when I say that ... they understand when I put it in terms of the existence of sources)
  • What I see elsewhere, usually, doesn't change my mind.
I know that some CSD patrollers don't run this third test, but some kind of quick Google search has always been recommended for A7 (I prefer the news archive search for the most common cases), because we don't want to miss out on the chance to have an article on something notable just because the article creator didn't know what to say. Also, these 3 criteria are relatively objective, as compared with the wishy-washy "doesn't assert significance", which may be why I seem to be getting fewer complaints per article deleted than most admins get. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.--Dycedarg ж 04:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think adding a reliable source, no matter how local, always constitutes an assertion of "importance or significance", no matter whether the article itself makes any other claims to assert that or not. You can always PROD or AFD those articles but the whole point of A7's lower standard is that an admin is not able to determine the notability of a subject by him-/herself and thus should only delete if there is no reason at all to even begin thinking that the article's subject might be even remotely important or significant. Regards SoWhy 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeat after me: A7 has nothing to do with notability. Thank you. --NE2 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If I've deleted an article where they asserted notability (in your view), it shouldn't be hard to find. I'll help you look, if you'll tell me what you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean "asserted importance or significance". --NE2 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe what NE2 was referring to here is the fact that an assertion of "notability" as in notability, is not required for an article to be ineligible for A7 deletion. A claim of "importance" or "significance" is enough. For example, if an article about an actor states that he starred in one film, it makes a "claim of importance" (but not an assertion of notability, since the relevant notability guideline requires roles is multiple films). Thus, this should not be deleted under A7 despite not asserting notability. decltype (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
He's right. Some people here are using "notability" and "importance or significance" interchangeably, when the latter is a much wider standard than the former. --causa sui talk 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Same answer: if you believe I made a wrong call on A7 somewhere, it should be easy to find. Pull up my contribs or my deletion log, or read my talk page. I do a lot of A7s, so if I had some fundamental misunderstanding of A7, then my talk page would be full of angry taggers, admins, RFA voters, AfD voters, and article creators. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Take it easy bro. Nobody is saying you've made bad A7 deletions. --causa sui talk 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to invite discussion, and often the best way to get people to talk is to invite them to take a shot at you; people seem to enjoy it, and it doesn't hurt (much). Right now, it's not uncommon to see an article declined as db-copyvio, then when it gets rewritten, declined as db-spam, then declined for "not asserting significance" (which AFAICT we're nowhere close to consensus on), and then when the article gets over the speedy hump, it gets deleted at AfD. If the point is to frustrate a certain kind of contributor, then we're doing a damn good job, but at a cost. In most cases, what I'm trying to do is to give the contributor a clue with my edit summary what's needed for their article not to be deleted from Wikipedia, and that's what they are likely to care about, not why. It's harder to do than just slapping on the easiest criterion, of course, and that's why some people don't like my way of doing things, they don't want it to be that hard. (Another reason people don't like my work is that I occasionally suck at it.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of discussion you're trying to invite. If you want someone to peer-review your speedy deletions, posting them here for a second opinion is fine. I don't plan to go through your history to find speedies I don't agree with. If I want to do deletion review, I just look at the logs; but since 99.5% of all speedies are obvious and unambiguous, that gets tiring, too. --causa sui talk 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Works for me, I'll continue to post deletions and declines that are judgment calls. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your three criteria have nothing to do with A7 in letter or spirit. All A7 reqires is a lack of a statement like "my () is important". If I were a user and I created an article that was deleted due to failing to indicate sources exist, i'd complain. Read my lips: A7 has nothing to do with sources or notability. Your three criteria either demonstrate grave misunderstanding, or an attempt to rewrite the rulebook under the radar; both of which lead me to question your competence as an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I would point out that this discussion is in the wrong place. This talk page is for discussion of possible changes to the associated project page, not for a general discussion of application of the policy given in that project page. Perhaps the Village Pump is the right place for such a discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

db-nonsense and CSDCheckBot

Now that User:CSDCheckBot/log is being tested, we've got a tool to deal with the debate about db-nonsense. Full disclosure: my position is that deletion summaries are useful for communicating with editors, taggers and admins, and they should be optimized for that purpose; not everyone agrees. I still don't like using G1 at all as long as the various messages talk about "gibberish" and "nonsense". I would find it useful if the deletion summary said: "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", and if it were used in cases where (like db-vandalism) it's apparent that the editor should have known better than to post that stuff, it's not just a case of fumbling around, but (unlike db-vandalism) we don't want a deletion summary that smacks them over the head. The (valid) counter-argument has always been that deleting admins are going to misapply G1 if it has a bland default deletion summary; but now we've got CSDCheckBot, and I'll be happy to keep an eye on odd applications of G1. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

if it says "content not suitable for an encyclopedia" then the admins --or some of them--will start using it to delete every article any of thinks unsuitable for an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In which case, I'll catch them and ask them to read WP:CSD#G1, which will make it clear that's not what G1 is for. As I say, some believe that the best use of deletion summaries is to communicate just with the admins. I believe that the best way to communicate with admins is to talk with them, and that it's better to use deletion summaries to communicate with the people they're meant for, the people who are watching the article and want to know why it was deleted. I believe "Vandalism" and "Gibberish" are bitey. I do understand that my plan doesn't work unless you have a volunteer chasing admins when they get it wrong, and I also understand that, theoretically, talk page messages can take the place of deletion summaries. But then you have the same problem, on a much bigger scale ... people aren't leaving suitable talk page comments, usually, and the number of taggers is 20 or 30 times the number of admins, and they're harder to persuade. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. An "abuse filter" that reminds admins the first time they delete per G1 to read WP:CSD#G1 might help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Since we now have the logs to quickly find all those G1s, and you admin folks can read the deleted content, I'd be really interested to know what proportion among the articles deleted as G1s could NOT have been deleted as G2 or G3 instead. MLauba (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK there were only two nominated G1's deleted as G1's. Dr. Von Schticklebaknumeyer was not nonsense but a hoax or BLP violation. Creagle was really an A1 - not enough context to tell what it was, or possibly test page. So there was no genuine nonsense in the test run. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing of the title?

The only content in Mexican Federal Highway 9 is the title, a rephrasing, and a translation to the source language. Does this qualify for criterion "A3", and why or why not? --NE2 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the declining admin and conversation about the decline is on my talk page, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to respond here, as this page will undoubtably be seen by more, and I think this is something where wider input might be viable. But believe it or not, I tend to side with NE2. Having a citation that says "A = A" is not adding context to the article. This article is nothing but a rephrasing of the title with a citation saying that that the title can be rephrased. IMO this is an A3 eligible candidate.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated on my talk page, I don't think this meets the criterion but I am ambivalent because I don't think these sub stubs are useful. That is an entirely separate issue of course. Anyway, I think the creator should be informed of this thread and will do so now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just notified the highway project of this discussion---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it's a valid case in the spirit of A3. Yes, A = A is unfortunate to have but since you cannot use a less descriptive title in this cases within the naming guidelines, then rephrasing the title in this way creates a valid stub. But if it's a valid stub, it cannot be A3ed. Fuhghettaboutit is correct that this kind of stub might not be useful but it should not be speedy deleted. The point of A3 is not to delete stubs, even if they are rephrasings of the title. Regards SoWhy 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It probably does qualify as A3, and it probably should be kept anyway. ausa کui × 20:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with Causa sui in this one. Just because it technically qualifies for one of the speedy deletion criteria does not mean it must be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Let's parse the language and then do some analysis. First the section states "Any article consisting only of". "Only of" being the key language here. This stub has an inline citation. On my talk page NE2 argued with respect to it that "it's more of a meta-tag, like a category or stub template." I disagree, fundamentally and profoundly. What is our biggest obstacle on Wikipedia? Well I think it's lack of citations, getting people to use citations; reliability and use of citations and related matters (which has everything to do with reliability). To me a good inline citation is not just content but the heart of content, the direct and necessary counterpart to the prose. I often see A7s applied to articles with multiple inline citations to putatively reliable sources but no indication in the prose of importance. I shake my head in wonder and decline. The citations to reliable sources are a better indication of importance than any (uncited) indication in the body text. (I am not mixing up A3 and A7 here, I am making a point about the importance of inline citations using A7)) To me an inline citation takes it out of the ambit of A3. The criteria are intentionally narrowly-worded and this is not just outside its stated coverage, but is not analogous to them.

    A3 goes on to say. "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion." I fail to see how this doesn't have context, and the quoted statement, starting with "however", tells us it doesn't matter if its a rephrasing of the title if it has context. We learn from this stub what it is called in Spanish, it's name in English, what it is and where it is (and that it is verifiable). It doesn't lack context.

    Finally, we are here essentially on whether this meets the language of A3 but let's be clear. The speedy deletion criteria are not a mandate to delete if they are met. They state those occasions when speedy deletion is permissible. Just as I will IAR a neologism, "made up one day", I will decline a speedy where I think keeping it is the right thing or controversial or fails to meet the criterion stated or would hurt the encyclopedia, or would cause more drama than declining, and on and on. Speedy deletion (and tagging) should never be done reflexively.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

    The people who wrote this policy were not lawmakers. I'm going to suggest, somewhat controversially, that you should focus your thinking on what is best for the encyclopedia than parsing bureaucratic language on the policy page. It's much easier that way. ausa کui × 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm going to suggest that you did not read my last paragraph, because your post doesn't make sense in its reflection.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    I did read it, though it's possible I misunderstood you. ausa کui × 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps this is going to be considered an aside, but it is mostly in response to the thoughts on keeping this article. So if I pick any street whatsoever, and then do an inline citation from a federal PDF to prove it exists, that somehow gives it merit enough even in the face that nothing is said about same road? This, to use a phrase, does not compute. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, but merging it to some larger list-type article would probably be better than deleting it (including creating such an article, if it doesn't already exist), in this case. Same should go for any other state or national numbered road. For roads lower down than that, such as local streets and the like, I don't believe the situation comes up often enough for it to really matter if we send them to AfD, so there isn't any pressing need to delete them using another method. But, like I said, it's just a thought. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly not an expert on notability guidelines for roads, but the point I was getting at is that shouldn't there ("isn't there"?) be something a little better than "show that it physically exists"? I don't know what you could include for the majority of roadways, but I'm sure at least some could fall under notability for reports involving construction, maintenance, debates over making it a toll road, etc etc... but the simple fact is that most will have nothing like that. So since the basis (in this specific case) seems to be that it is retainable because it has a single line and a source that simply verifies that it exists, is this based in any kind of notability guidelines like every other article is subject to? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We're not here about notability. We're here about CSD A3. Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion and is not implicated under A3. The notability of the subject would be a subject for AfD where we don't just look at what's in the article to determine notability. But yes, if all that could be found on some road was something that confirmed its existence, it should and would be deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, hence why I called it "an aside" originally. Consider it late-night simplification of both the question and hunting down if there was a more relevant place (made less relevant by the fact that the topic was already somewhat entered here). But yes, I do get the topic on A3. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Going by "what is best for the encyclopedia, since all national level highways are usually considered notable, and basic information on them is easy enough to find, the article is so readily improvable that the stub should be kept. In fact, it just took me less than a minute to add some information. More is obviously needed, but more will come. DGG (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Aisha Karen Wazir Scholarship

This was tagged as db-spam, and I just deleted as db-bio. It's okay to delete as db-bio when the person's name is contained in the title, right? I know I could theoretically db-spam this one, but I'd rather not call the article "advertisement or promotional" ... I don't think this poor man who's established a $25000 scholarship in India Pakistan in his wife's name would understand why I'm accusing him of spam. Also, and I'd like feedback on one of my guiding principles: I think speedy deletion per db-spam serves an important function for the wikiprojects, discouraging people who are likely to soak up their time and offer nothing. The thing is, different wikiprojects have different tolerance levels for promotionalism; fashion and music editors tend not to think of a little promotionalism as a mark of the devil, but it tends to offend most academics, and I try to respect some of these differences. I don't think WP:PAKISTAN would think of this article creator as one of the bad guys, so I decided to go the slightly more gentle route of db-bio, and leave him a nice note; there were only 2 minor Google hits, no Google archive hits, and no references. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here ... sigh, what do I do with Castellers de Vilafranca? COI username, no references, but such a fun article. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow... COI is an issue, but the writing it it doesn't seem to make that an issue. References doesn't seem like it would be the greatest issue, and I don't think it fits into spam. Yes, it largely details an organization and has COI issues with the creator, but it does provide decent (albeit unsourced) info of several kinds in it.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
COI is not a reason to speedy delete, it raises the possibility of spam though. I think that Dank may have strethc db-bio a bit far, and a prod would have done in this case, someone else may have found that the scholarship was more important than the person it was named after. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've prodded. On the general point of stretching db-bio too far: if we db-bio a new page called Mr. X, could the uploader re-create the same text and make it exempt from db-bio by renaming it to Mr. X's house and adding some information about the house? If the article is such that there's a consensus among Wikipedians to get rid of the article quickly for some reason, wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the second article? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Castellers de Vilafranca should have a reference found and nominated at DYK! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A7 applies to organizations as well. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Is a scholarship an organization? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Castellers should be marked as unreferenced (just did so), and whatever other maintenance tags affixed as appropriate. That's it unless you're going to expand it yourself. There's nothing remotely speedyable about that article (except if it's a copyvio of course). And they are quite notable by the way. As for DYK, inline citations would need to be added throughout the article before the five day cutoff. That's the strong recommendation and de facto rule at DYK.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To get back to a general point ... are we agreed that the rules for db-spam vary a little depending on the type of article? I see a lot of music and software articles marked as db-spam ... but when I compare them to the music and software articles by new users that were not marked as spam, I see very little difference in the tone. Whether these articles get marked as db-spam seems to have a lot more to do with the personal distastes of the tagger. In practice, I generally A7 these if they're A7'able, and either prod them or add maintenance tags if they're not. - Dank (push to talk) 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

the rules for G11 are almost non-existent--it's a matter of judgement how much editing will be necessary to save the article. If I see an article which might fit A7 and G11 both, I tag with both reasons. If I patrol and see a G7 or G11 to delete, and the other reason would apply as well, I add it. Avoids a lot of user complaints, & they are more likely to get the general idea of what's wrong.DGG (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Template talk and G6

If I'm not mistaken, most template talk pages can be deleted under {{db-g6}} if they contain nothing useful (for example, a lone talk page header (like Template talk:Alicia Keys)). I say this because I remember it being discussed somewhere, and the fact that a lot of templates like these had their talk pages deleted. Was there a certain discussion where consensus was made to do this? — Σxplicit 18:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a fine G6 to me. Next time, try {{db-g6|wording=it is bluelinked for no reason, simply a talkheader. see [[Template:Talkheader]] usage notes}} or something of the sort. –xenotalk 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted a large large number of these, rather routine. MBisanz talk 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the note, Xeno. And yes, I specifically saw you delete a handful, MBizanz. I just wanted to make sure, as I found nothing to back up my argument when I searched. Thanks, both of you. — Σxplicit 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

G8 addition

Several times I've found templates that consist entirely of red links because their parent articles have been deleted. I've never had any trouble getting these deleted via G8, but I think it would be better to make a new subset of G8 that includes something like "templates consisting entirely of links to nonexistant or deleted articles, with no transclusions." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 00:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You see these at TFD a lot, and you do see the argument that they're going to be fleshed out in the future. So maybe have a grace period if this does go through. To me it doesn't seem that necessary, seems like enough of a judgement call that it could go through discussion. delldot ∇. 00:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the ones I've seen are cases where the parent article is deleted too, and there's no "but it'll be fleshed out"; they're unambiguous "delete, since the parent article was deleted." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is frequent enough to be a CSD. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

G11 fails our guideline criteria 1 and 2 for inclusion

The more I look at G11 the more I have a problem with it. I personally avoid G11 like the plague because I find the criteria to be too vague and undefined. Today I've run into two articles at AFD where people are advocating G11 deletions, but in both cases I completely disagree with the rationale. Criteria 1 says that the criteria should be objective, most reasonable people should be able to agree whether an article meets the criterion. Often this requires making the criterion very specific. I don't find this to be the case with many articles. Simply listing the products/services is not advertising, which is how many people seem to view the criteria. Criteria 2 says that the criteria should be uncontestable: it must be the case that almost all articles that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus. CSD criteria should only cover situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Don't forget that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect if not carefully worded. I don't find this to be the case with a lot of the articles that I review while monitoring G11 nominations. Most of the time when I see an article labeled G11, I think that the article should be worked on/improved, but is not so irrideemable as to be unworkable. The only time I personally delete G11 articles is if the article is so blatant in making claims such as "we are the best provider of" or "our experts are the leading." Cases where the article is clearly written by somebody in PR and almost definitely a copyvio! If it doesn't have that copyvio feel to it, I'd rather leave it at AFD. In short, the line between too spammy and a decent start is too murky when dealing with G11. G11 fails two of the four criteria necessary for a Speedy Deletion Criteria!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, I see G11 get misused a lot. –xenotalk 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be defined. For example, every time I've seen a G11 that I agree with it is actually a G10 or obviously lifted from the company's website. The criteria are just too vague.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe making it harder to delete spam would be actively harmful to the project as a whole, reckless, and irresponsible, especially for such policy-wonkery reasons. I see spam on a similar level to attack pages. Unlike A7, where the pages are a mere nuisance, spam is a deliberate attempt to manipulate Wikipedia for personal or corporate gain and/or a blatant violation of one of Wikipedia's core policies - WP:NPOV. If you don't feel comfortable applying it yourself, that's fine, but please do not make it harder for others to rid the project of spam or easier for people to spam us. Mr.Z-man 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not just about pages; it also useful to frustrate people who will only harm the project. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that ABF, I mean a lot of times, these articles are created by people with good intentions. They are generally not vandals and yet your comment implies that they are no better than a vandal.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
ABF is built into the fabric of Wikipedia policies already; it hurts to have someone delete something you worked an hour on with a summary that they interpret as "We've decided you're really not all that great; get lost." Our policies have the effect, intentionally or not, of chasing away people who post certain types of pages. Institutional ABF is okay (and even if it weren't, that's a whole different subject for another day); but whenever an editor contacts me, I AGF. It's two-faced, but it's how we've done things since Day 1, and it seems to have succeeded in building the world's second-highest-traffic non-portal website (after YouTube). I don't like to screw with what has worked unless I'm really sure that I've got a better idea, and I'm rarely sure of anything. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - Regardless of what the intentions are, the effect is still mostly the same - free advertising for the company, and a blatant NPOV violation for us. While the intentions may be a factor in how we deal with the author, they should not have a significant effect on how we deal with the content. Mr.Z-man 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And having an article that is tagged for deletion citing POV concerns for a whole week would obviously shatter the fabric of the universe! Seriously, this goes back to our fundamental purpose here, to write an encyclopedia. Most of the articles that I've seen tagged for advertising could be deleted per A7 or G12, and be deleted with a better tag in either case. G11 is the criteria where we have ZERO guidance on what it means, which basically means that anybody can decide that the article is Blatant Spam and delete it out of hand, without discussion or giving the author a chance to salvage it. Leaving an article on the project for a few days while giving the author a chance to salvage it is a good thing. I do not see the urgency of getting rid of an article immediately.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(ecx4)So please, tell me how the criteria currently fulfills criteria 1 or 2? What is Spam? Where is the line? What is the difference between an article that might be salvagable and an article that is pure spam? I don't see it in many of the cases that I've reviewed? The only time that I've seen articles that are clearly over the line is when you can also point out a website where the information came from---in which case it is a G12 copyvio. Other than that, I see a lot of articles getting deleted without giving anybody a chance to salvage said article because they have unilaterally determined it to be SPAM.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the "unilateral" has to go. Let's work on it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would rather get rid of criteria 1 and 2 than remove or weaken G11. They may be "salvageable" in some form, the question is whether any of the current content would be usable in a salvaged article. I disagree that we need a bright line. Bright lines generally lead to rules-lawyering and poor decisions. We get thousands of new articles every day and delete dozens of them as spam. Any sort of bright-line rule is almost certainly going to end up with people deleting things they shouldn't because policy says they can and people not deleting things they should because of some corner case that wasn't considered or was ignored when drafting the policy. Bright-line rules work for the mechanical maintenance tasks that are on CSD because they're so totally uninteresting. For things that actually matter, they can be pretty terrible. Mr.Z-man 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If we declared today "there is no more G11", then that would multiply the G11-type articles I'm bringing to AfD by 10, and the reaction at AfD would be much stronger than we're getting now. In a few days, I'll put together a list of phrases and situations that trigger G11 in my mind, maybe we can get some kind of consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
To me, it basically boils down to was the article lifted verbatim or near verbatim from the companies website. EG a slackened use of G12. If the article was basically a copy vio, but might not quite reach that level, then delete it speedily. Otherwise, I have trouble with this criteria as it is not well defined.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My rule of thumb to nominate a G11 today is: if it's written in 1st person, it is a clear PR action and I tag it. If it's nothing but a true genuine 100% spam "Gold lottery: win prizes, visit", I tag it. In most other cases, I try to look for WP:RS to see if the claims can be supported in some fashion (verifiability, not truth). If there are none, it's either G11 or AfD. I don't think I've ever had a G11 declined so far (but might misremember). MLauba (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of "rule of thumb", my own guideline for these cases is whether or not the wiki article is more notable than the product itself. This isn't something I generally go out looking for, but have come across it a few times. For instance, there have been a few cases where the wiki article is the first result (a newly created wiki, at that), for searches on said product or business. As far as I'm concerned that is an obvious sign unless there are references that speak for the notability. It helps that I'm not the ultimate decider, just the tagger; if someone decides that the speedy tag doesn't fit, then I can either see if it can be improved (sometimes just rewording) or needs a more lengthy process for removal. It would be nice if there wasn't so much "personal opinion" required with that tag, but anything I think of in my head right now to fix that only makes the tag less useful in proper situations. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I support retention of G11. Not all G11 = G12, some is uniquly tailored to the wiki. I think that an article does not have to openly sell something to be spam. An ad or press release may simply get people interested or be used to build off other ad campagins. The reason spam is a CSD is that it's a blatent abuse of the site. By creating a piece of spam, the account has already demonstrated "Evedence to the contrary," invalidating AGF. Therefore, deletion of the article and driving off of the user is warrented. --Ipatrol (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In the extreme case, its really clear. The problem in defining whether the article could be made to pass by normal editing. How much work a normal editor would spend, depends somewhat on notability--if it appears not likely to be found notable, nobody is likely to bother. But if I see a G11, even if its horribly promotional, if the organization might be really notable, i usually stubbify if I don't have time to rewrite. DGG (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ipatrol, I agree. People often forget that we aren't required to assume good faith when there's clear evidence to the contrary. It's about giving people the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, there is no doubt. Gigs (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
But the challenge is where is that line. I see a lot of articles tagged with G11 that are not copyvios/first person narratives, but rather an attempt to explain what the company does/offers. Since it is describing the company, it is "obviously" a G11. Now a copyvio or page which is entirely first person narative, yeah, I have no problem deleting those. But I do have concern with many other G11 deletions. G11 is VERY poorly worded/defined. It is not uncontestable nor is it objective---it is entirely subjective.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm taking and declining quite a few of the G11's, so please let me know if I'm leaning too far one way or the other, or not doing a good job of communicating. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with G11 is that it is too vague, thus impossible to let you know... too many people will have vastly different takes on articles that are nomed g11.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would love to find a more precise way of wording the criteria, but I have not been able to think of any. Any suggestions? DGG (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that the original creators of advertising in articles' clothing are always welcome to rewrite their content and resubmit it in a more acceptable form. Advertising copy is rarely a good starting point for an article about a corporation or product, and more often than not articles that get G11ed are verbatim copies of press release or annual report boilerplate. The presence of G11 puts the responsibility for cleaning up the mess on the original submitters of content, where I believe it belongs. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Honest policies and pre-emptive redirects

An apparent policy on this page includes this:

redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets

I say "apparent" because this apparent policy was created four years (and two months) ago without proper public discussion and consensus, by people who denied the existence of those who disagreed.

In the interests of morality we should remember from time to time that this "policy" was not created honestly.

I've recently written to Brion Vibber about bug #378 and re-opened it. That bug makes links to redirects with non-existent targets appear as blue links rather than as red links.

If that bug does get fixed (some day?) I will propose abolition of the destructive (apparent) policy against pre-emptive redirects. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"by people who denied the existence of those who disagreed." - diffs please? --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Having read the bug, it appears that the only thing it would change is that if you have a redirect A pointing at a redirect B which points to some nonexistant page, redirect A will also show as a redlink. There isn't another case that bug would change, looks like. Also, bug 378, for reference. lifebaka++ 14:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. If an article links to a redirect with a non-existent target, then the link in the article appears as a blue link. If the bug gets fixed, it will appear as a red link. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The implication that this has guideline not been discussed or is in some way dishonest or amoral is, to say the least, disingenuous. Michael has tried to raise this issue a number of times in the past, to no effect:
And the criteria has come up in other discussions as well:
For the record, the criteria was added with this edit on 9 April 2004. While consensus can change, the fact that there have been relatively challenges to that guideline in all the time since then is a fair indication of acceptance. olderwiser 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it was this page or the WP:Redirects, but there was a time when policies recognized the legitimacy of pre-emptive redirects. Discussions then took place not on the policy's talk page, but through other channels, and it was repeatedly denied that there could be any reason for wanting pre-emptive redirects, by people to whom it had been patiently explained why pre-emptive redirects are valuable.

And, please: The criterion was added. Or the criteria were added. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify (since I had to look up this bug yesterday), it doesn't only effect redirects to redirects. It effects any redirect that goes to nowhere. So if on Article A you have Link A, the contents of which are a redirect to Nonexistent Page A, then Link A will show as blue instead of red even though it should really come up as red. All other comments aside, it would be a good bug to fix.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to fixing the so-called bug, but that is distinct from the CSD criteria. I don't think redirects to non-existent pages are a good idea and remain firmly opposed. Until Michael can find something more definitive than a hazy recollection, which may reflect nothing more than wishful thinking, the criteria has been existent with relatively few objections (the primary of which is Michael), since very early in the history of Wikipedia. He can try to change consensus, but casting it as amoral or dishonest or undiscussed is improper. olderwiser 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If the bug is fixed, then what is the problem with them? Ignoring Michael's methods, he does raise a valid point. If a topic worthy of inclusion is known by two synonymous terms and we don't currently have an article on it, why not allow the redirection of one term to the other? It would prevent the creation of duplicate articles and, more importantly, would ensure that when an article is created, it is already linked to under both terms. They would still show as red links which removes the problem that the "false" blue link discourages new article creation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If the bug is fixed, there is really no good objection to redirects to nonexistent pages that I can think of, but I agree with the status quo if it is not fixed because I object to having blue links that go nowhere. We should see first though whether or not the bug is fixed though, if it is not fixed this discussion is rather moot. I remain skeptical about its chances because the bug has been sitting there with no real hint of progress for the past four and a half years, but we'll see.--Dycedarg ж 19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of problems with allowing redirects to non-existent pages remains even if the bug is fixed. 1) There is no assurance that the intended topic will be created at the intended target. 2) Allowing some redirects to non-existent topics places a greater burden on distinguishing between redirects to feasible targets and more-or-less nonsensical redirects. I don't see that the benefit outweighs the impracticalities of maintaining such ephemera. olderwiser 02:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What exactly would be the problem with having a redirect that goes nowhere that is either implausible or has an implausible target in this situation? They wouldn't turn red links blue, to the best of my knowledge they wouldn't turn up in search results, and they take up no more space in the database than they would if they were deleted. So we would have no reason to "maintain" them, we could just leave them alone until an article was created that they redirect to and deal with them if they were implausible then.--Dycedarg ж 18:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If there is support that redirects to implausible and nonsensical non-existent targets are no longer subject to speedy deletion, then what can I say. If this criterion is to be removed or modified, the crux of the issue becomes determining which redirects to non-existent pages are worth keeping and which are not. As it is currently, the criterion is simple and requires little or no analysis. olderwiser 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In fact it could force article creation under the right subject name an issue that happened with German municipalities before they all created as stubs. Agathoclea (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Prior to Angela's edit adding redirects to empty pages to the CSD, such redirects were being deleted routinely under the aegis of the "no context" criterion. Her edit codified existing practice. While I think the CSD is valuable, I would like to hear more about Michael Hardy's suggestion that redirects to nonexistent articles may be useful. It seems to me that such discussion probably belongs elsewhere, with the CSD updated as necessary once a decision is made. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Essays etc

I'd like to nail down how we feel about apparent essays and WP:OR that comes across as childish. We don't have 100% agreement, but we've got consensus something along these lines, I think. There's no "right to speedy" and no CSD criterion for essays. Nevertheless, 90% of them get speedied, because people are a little tougher applying the other criteria to this stuff:

  • db-spam, if it looks like it's probably intended as promotional (even if they're not doing a good job of it)
  • db-context, if you're not sure what the subject is
  • db-vandalism (and some like db-nonsense, but I don't) if it's a reasonable guess that the childishness was deliberate
  • db-test if it's along the lines of "This is my story about unicorns. Unicorns are great! The end."
  • all the other criteria, when they're applicable.
  • Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think (hope) essays are really speedied that often. Your G2 example is okay IMHO, but the others I think should be applied very judiciously. I do not think one should try to "force" an essay to fit into a criterion that is really intended for something else. While I endorse WP:DENY, I think that PROD is often the only right option, followed by AfD if necessary. decltype (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been focusing on db-spam lately. Sometime soon, I'll dig up a list of articles that fit this description so you can tell me if I made the right call. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

db-spam for performers

Bottom line: I don't wanna do it. All first-time articles for performers say the performers are great; if I delete the articles that say the performers are really, really great, and keep the ones that only say they're great, I don't think I'm performing any useful sorting service to Wikipedia. I typically decline with an edit summary something like, "Declining band-related {{db-spam}} speedy deletion, adding {{advert}}. For first-time articles about performers (which are usually promotional), try discussing with a wikiproject, rewriting, WP:PROD, or WP:AfD". Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I also check Google archives (on the name plus the name of a prominent song or album, if it's impossible to search on just the name), and if I'm getting nothing and significance is not asserted, I db-band instead of db-spam. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
A7 can often apply too here. "I just created this band yesterday and it's the most awesome in the world!!!!!!!111one" is speediable. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand Dank's point. On the face of it, Dank seems to be saying "Although Wikipedia policy, based on consensus, is to speedily delete any article which 'does nothing but promote some entity', I have chosen to ignore this policy and substitute my own policy in the case of unknown performers". However, I can scarcely believe that that can be what is meant: have I misunderstood? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Band articles by new or new-ish contributors are never written in neutral language, so a decision to speedy all of them would be the same as a decision not to have any new band editors. That's not my call to make. And the speedy criteria don't require us to speedy anything; tweaked most cases of db-attack, db-copyvio and db-vandalism need to be handled quickly in some way, almost always by deletion if they were properly tagged, but any article can be stubbified or edited if that fixes the inherent problem. On the other hand, don't read that to mean that I'm some kind of "speedy inclusionist" ... I'm not. I see my role as seeking and building consensus, while I mop. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that the policy is that any article which "does nothing but promote some entity" is eligible for speedy deletion, not must be speedily deleted. Long term consensus has been that no one is ever required to take an action, just that some actions (such as quickly dispatching attack pages and copyvios) are strongly encouraged.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point ... even for db-attack, it's not the criteria that require anything, just consensus. I'll reword. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
A7 doesn't get negated just because the article says the subject is great, so I'm not sure what the issue here is. EVula // talk // // 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it was, see the P.S. (second paragraph in this section). - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I should have mentioned the exception for COI ... I just db-spam'd the band page User:Blues Attitude; I think everyone db-spams bands when both WP:COI and promotional text are evident. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to A7

Okay, I have just made what I believe is an inherently non-controversial change to A7. Of course, there is no such thing as an uncontroversial change to A7, so I am posting a rationale here, pending reversion of my change. And as we all know, after "B" and "R", comes "D".

I will refer to "claim of significance or importance" simply as "claim".

Q: What exactly is changed?
A: While the old wording made it clear that A7 does not apply to articles that make any credible "claim", the new wording says that A7 only applies to articles which make no credible "claim". It's a negation, of sorts. (Diff)

Q: So what difference does that make?
A: The old wording didn't explicitly state whether A7 could be applied to articles with a clearly non-credible claim. The new wording makes it clear that A7 can in fact be applied to such articles. Articles judged against A7 can be roughly divided into three categories:

  1. No "claim"
  2. Non-credible "claim"
  3. Credible "claim", or "claim" whose credibility is unclear

From A7, one can easily deduce that #1 articles may be deleted. It may be strongly implied that #2 are eligible as well, but not explicitly stated. It is also clear that #3 articles may not be deleted (and the change does not attempt to remedy that in any way!)

Q: Is this a sneak attempt at broadening/narrowing the scope of A7?
A: No. The old wording was added back in 2006 to explicitly allow the common practice of deleting articles containing claims which no one would deem credible. "he also has x-ray vision" was used as an example. And from my experience this is how A7 is being enforced in practice. Ridiculous claims that no one would deem credible (in the same vein as G3-able hoaxes) are disregarded. I therefore think that the change better reflects current practice, and the original intent of the clause.

"Q": This is just common sense, there is no need for further complication of the policy.
A+Q: That's a reasonable point of view, but the change does not make the policy more complicated or detailed. At the same time, it resolves what may be conceived as a slight ambiguity, so what's the harm?

decltype (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright lets talk A7! First and foremost it did not appear to me like your changes made any difference to the interpretability of A7, but there was a confusing structure: "no claim" followed by "such a claim" if you see what I mean. A better wording is suggested, but I want to review your proposal for a little while longer before commenting further. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 18:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it would read kind of funny I think:
...The criterion applies only to articles that make no credible claim of significance or importance. Such a claim need not be supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is...
Perhaps something like this?
...The criterion applies only to articles that make no credible claim of significance or importance. If such a claim is made, it need not be supported by a reliable source. If any claim's credibility is...
But I don't actually see a reason to change it this way if the interpretation will remain the same. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you are right in pointing out that the proposed change may be grammatically flawed. Your amendment retains the intention of my original proposed change, and I think that there is indeed a difference, which I tried to explain above. The old wording made a statement that a certain subset of all articles are not eligible, namely all articles with a credible "claim". But that says nothing about whether an article outside of that subset is eligible or ineligible. The new wording states exactly which subset is eligible, and at the same time states that every other article is ineligible. decltype (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the new version. I think the positive wording is clearer. If there are difficulties with it, we'll see as they develop. DGG (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ipatrol (talk · contribs) restored the version which is grammatically flawed without discussion yet (though he may just be working on it). While I agree with the decltype (talk · contribs)'s goal here and respect the boldness, I don't think the way it stands should remain in an official policy for any period of time. The game of WP:BRD probably should not be played on these pages. In the interest of WP:1RR, I won't revert it back. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that was an honest mistake on their part, looks like a plain rollback, which I don't think is appropriate under the circumstances. I'll ask Ipatrol to self-revert. decltype (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. I can't see any difference in meaning between the two versions: they both say the same, including in relation to "a clearly non-credible claim".
  2. The original version is clearer to follow. The second version at first glance could appear to say that "a claim need not be supported by a reliable source", which is, of course, not the intention. "Confusing structure", as ZabMilenko said above.
  3. The above discussion has not produced a consensus for the change, so there is no justification for its proponents continually making the change. Indeed, before this discussion the original wording had been accepted by consensus following a long discussion on this talk page, and the onus is on those who wish to change the wording to show that there has been a change in consensus: a brief discussion with no consensus is not sufficient.
  4. (A minor point) Unless I have misunderstood, decltype appears to be suggesting that the existing wording dates from 2006 or earlier. I have searched very extensively through the records for 2006 and moderately extensively through 2007 and 2008, and it seems quite clear that the sentence originated in December 2008, proposed by Somno in the course of a discussion, and, once consensus had been reached, inserted into the project page by davidwr. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to #2, the intention of both the old and the new version is that a reliable source is not needed. As for #3, I agree 100%, and I consider User:Ipatrol's rv unfortunate. As for #4, Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_8#A7 - how believable does a claim of notability have to be? is the oldest instance of any discussion related to "serious/credible claims" wrt. A7. You are right that the exact wording has been changed later on. As for the difference between the new and the old version. I have attempted to explain here, but I realize it is subtle, and my explanation is probably not the best. decltype (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses to my comments. I now see that my wording in #2 does not convey what I intended. What I meant to say was that a casual reading might not give enough weight to the word "such": i.e. it might be taken as meaning that any claim of notability need not be supported by a reliable source, whereas it actually means that for the purpose of avoiding speedy deletion a reliable source is not necessary. Sorry for my unclear wording. As for the difference between the two versions, I think your explanation is quite clear: I just disagree, as I think the meaning you intended to convey is already there in the old version. You are right in saying that the old version does not "explicitly state whether A7 could be applied to articles with a clearly non-credible claim" (my emphasis), but it seems to me that no reasonable reader could fail to see that it implicitly states that: there is no reason one would use the wording "any article that makes any credible claim of significance" except to indicate that credibility of the claim is necessary.
Despite my opinion on this, since clearly some people think it is desirable to make explicit reference to the case of a non-credible claim, and since some of us think the proposed new wording is unclear, how about leaving the existing wording, and adding a specific statement about non-credible claims? This would have the further advantage of putting more emphasis on this point, which I think is an important one. Something like:
The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. However, it does apply if a claim of significance is made which is not at all credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
Any comments? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "not at all credible" should read as "not credible in any way" for clarity? ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. However, it does apply if a claim of significance is made which is not credible in any way. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
Fine by me: I have no strong preference one way or the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see. However, I don't think it's really that confusing, because it is already stated that A7 is distinct from WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Therefore, the statement about reliable sources should be interpreted strictly in the context of CSD A7, and not as a general statement about RS and notability. That said, while I would personally endorse your latest proposed wording, I believe some will argue that it makes the policy overtly detailed, similar to Q4 in my "FAQ" above. decltype (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Certainly you are right in saying that the statement about reliable sources should be interpreted strictly in the context of CSD A7, and not as a general statement about RS and notability: I merely thought that a casual reading could take it that way, and so confusion is possible. In fact when I first read the proposal I had to read it a couple of times to be sure what it was saying. I think a wording which does not require such careful attention is better. I agree that it could be argued that it makes the policy overly [presumably what you meant?] detailed. However, if we are to make explicit rather than implicit the case of non-credible claims, I feel this is a more readable way of doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I definitely see where you are coming from with that. I'm all for that the policy should be as detailed and unambiguous as possible, but I acknowledge that many others do not feel the same way. I presume that English is your first language. I was pretty sure my use of "overtly" was correct in the context, but accidents do happen when I try to use words that belong in my passive vocabulary :) I just looked up the word over at www.dictionary.comWiktionary, and it seems to mean what I thought it meant. I'd love to hear how or why I was wrong, but this may not be the right forum. If you'd leave me a message I'd really appreciate it! decltype (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Floating an idea: extension of G6 to add db-histpurge


There's a discussion underway at wikiproject copyright cleanup about articles which have been started as copyvios but later rewritten or stubified to a non-infringing status. For cases where an admin is investigating a report, they have the means to remove the infringing past from the article's history, or simply delete the entire article and start over. Non-admins however do not have that possibility. That either leaves G12 for content which is no longer infringing, not exactly a suitable solution, or leaving it, something which is currently within practice and policy but still not really ideal.

In order to give non-admin copyright investigators a tool to deal with such cases, one idea would be to expand G6 to a new type, history purge. This would enable us to flag an article which we found salvaged or stubified ourselves for final cleanup without clogging up WP:CP further or trying to get hold of the relatively few admins active at WP:COPYCLEAN to sort it for us.

The counter argument would of course be to simply tag G12, wait until the article gets deleted and start over. This is however a bit unpractical, in particular when working down eg the backlog at WP:SCV - in general we'd investigate one article, take the appropriate measures, perform some article actions and then move on to the next article on the list. Keeping track separately of articles we tag for G12 with the intent to rewrite them later will eventually become complicated, doesn't prevent the re-creation of the same article back in an infringing state before we can recreate a non-infringing one (whereas the presence of a modified article is probably not only a good safeguard against that, it also leaves a non-infringing version to revert to if needed later on), or loses GFDL contrib history in case the stubification was made by others before we investigated.

The tag would by default indicate that the history up to the present revision is to be purged (stubification by investigator) or the diff prior to which the purge should occur (stubification by others).

Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of "expanding" G6 explicitly. If this activity is uncontroversial and has consensus, it's already covered by G6. If it's not, it shouldn't be covered by G6. If you want to create a new template for it, go ahead. Happymelon 10:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to MLauba for calling attention to this. However, my view is that it is unhelpful to have two different discussions on one topic in different places, so I feel it is more helpful to respond on the original discussion on this question. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-proposal: move to a standard of userfication in some CSD cases

I'm going to immediately caveat this with a warning that I have not ironed out or thought through the implementation details of this proposal. I can see some issues that this solves, and some issues that it creates. Bear with me, and consider this a start for some pondering that might lead to a proposal, rather than being a proposal in of itself.

Some of the issues that I see raised frequently over CSDs are the risk of driving away new contributors and the fact that article creators may find their work tagged within seconds of creation because they build it up in stages. The standard reply to this latter point (which I admit to using myself in the past) is that users should create pages in their userspace first and move them when ready, a subtlety that may be lost on very new contributors.

My basic idea is that for certain CSD criteria, the action of the reviewing administrator is not immediate deletion but userfication, with caveats. This is best illustrated by an example: An article is created that might be viewed as CSD A7. It is tagged as such by a new page patroller, and an admin reviews it and asserts that it meets the criteria. The admin then moves the article somewhere - I am suggested userspace, but a separate, temporary holding area could be created. The article creator is notified, and the article tagged somehow for further review after a fixed period of time (place it in a category, remove it, place it is a Wikipedia space subpage and move-protect it so that it can't be pushed into mainspace unilaterally). If it is sufficiently improved that it no longer meets the criteria, it can be moved back to the mainspace; if not, it is deleted.

The advantages are:

  • CSD is less of a rush and panic for the article creator.
  • There is enough time to explain to the article creator why the article needs improvement
  • We still get crappy articles out of mainspace, and we can make sure they're NOINDEXed if Google is an issue. the delayed deletion is important to prevent cluttering up Wikipedia with unsalvaged articles in another namespace.
  • We don't disillusion potentially good but ill-informed editors
  • We don't lose potentially good articles
  • There is the potential to expand some of our current criteria slightly, given that the articles would not be immediately deleted.

The disadvantages:

  • More work for administrators. Essentially, some articles have to be reviewed twice, although such a burden is not, in my opinion, particularly onerous - work is not compulsory and the CSD backlog is rarely large these days. Scripts could assist by automating the process, as is done now.
  • We'd have to select the appropriate criteria carefully, and possibly rewrite some of them. Clearly most of the G-criteria should not be moved under this process, thinking particularly of G10. Specifically, under our present system I would imagine this applying to A1, A3 (except completely blank pages), A7 in the first instance. There is the potential to split existing criteria into two branches - one where deletion is preferred, and one where this "holding pen" is preferred, but that sounds too complex, at least in this initial pre-proposal.

I've only got these two disadvantages (I'm sure there are more), but I'm convinced that with discussion, we could work out a system where these are mitigated to the point where this system of moving articles to a holding pen with a delayed deletion is a net benefit. I know that this technically means they wouldn't be criteria for speedy deletion, but they would be criteria for uncontested deletion - in that, unlike a PROD, the article creator couldn't just remove the tag and ignore it.

Lots to discuss, anyway - please don't just support or oppose the above - I'm not interested in either being beaten down or having my ego stroked! :) I genuinely just want a discussion about the possibility of altering our system to overhaul our non-AfD deletion process (which may include amendments to our proposed deletion process) and make deletion seem less hasty and hostile than it currently seems to appear to our newer editors. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: While it is not such a common practice, under the current system it is perfectly acceptable for the new page patroller to perform a userfication instead of tagging the article for speedy deletion. The remaining redirect can be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-r2}} or {{db-rediruser}}. At first glance, this methodology seems to have all the benefits you outline above. decltype (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I know - but as you say it rarely happens - this could, in theory, almost be an admin-free process, depending on where the pages are held "in limbo" and how they are prevented from being moved (i.e. if move protection is required). The issue here is to formalise such a process so that it becomes the norm, as opposed to the current situation where I don't believe this really happens at all Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Only a tiny percent of userfications ever actually result in saving articles ... on the other hand, even though it rarely does any good, userfication is likely not to get the same angry response that deletion sometimes gets. So, as long as we build into the system the expectation that it's not going to result in any new articles, only happier newbies, I'm all for something automated ... but not for people who have created db-attack, db-spam or db-vandalism articles, coming across as solicitous and welcoming with these contributors only makes the problem worse. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree - I'm only proposing A1, non-empty A3, and A7 for this. Moving to userspace should be ok, provided we're not going to get trapped by the provisions of WP:USER, which is why I left the door open for a project-accessible space to be created - also centralises it for anyone else who might want to lend a hand to reviewing/improving potentially good material or helping newbies who don't understand. I expect some good can come of this at little cost, including the potential for not scaring off new editors or getting useful content that is CSD-able at first glance Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This is basically Wikipedia:Soft deletion, which failed to get consensus last time it was proposed. Also note Wikipedia:PEREN#Deleted pages should be visible, "This proposal has been explicitly vetoed by the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel". Gigs (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This is neither of those things - the pages here are ultimately hard deleted if they fail our policies, whilst the examples you cite are policies to remove hard deletion all together, which would be madness. This is a closer to a crossover between PROD and CSD. This isn't about replacing deletion, it is about slowing it down. Please re-read. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
So it's temporary soft deletion that effectively doubles the CSD workload? I don't think that invalidates most of the discussion on soft deletion. They even went through the CSD looking at which might be soft deleted. Wikipedia talk:Soft deletion (failed proposal)#Stab at categories to be hard-deleted Gigs (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it doubles the workload given that it wouldn't apply to any but three CSD categories - I've done a reasonable amount of CSD work in my time - this has a purpose beyond simply hanging on to the articles indefinitely. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just saying, you'd probably do well to link those existing failed proposals in your proposal and then carefully explain how yours isn't the same. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - my words above appear, on review, to have a more combative tone than I intended - sorry about that. I'll go take a break, and follow through on your advice later Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

←Gigs, the links don't seem on-point. I don't know yet what solution Fritzpoll would consider ideal, but for the sake of counterargument, suppose we're talking about an additional tag that an admin could add to an article that's been tagged for speedy deletion, resulting in a bot userfying the article, leaving a message for the article creator: "An admin has requested that this article be moved to your own userspace temporarily to give you a chance to read WP:Your first article (or whatever). (For non-IPs) Please ask at WP:N? for help if that doesn't answer your questions; if the article isn't edited for one week, this bot will remove the article". You would think that that wouldn't help much ... surely they would edit just to stop the article destruction ... but in fact, 90% won't read anything and won't edit the article. Anything that reduces the workload by 90%, while avoiding the sometimes angry reaction to a quick deletion, might be helpful, even if this proposal winds up saving no articles at all. Btw, Fritzpoll, some discretion would be required for A7 articles; we don't want to be solicitous towards every creator of an article that gets tagged as A7; some of those articles have the same issues as db-spam articles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to give them 7 days to fix the article, you could reject CSD and add a prod instead, right? I mean, part of Fritzpoll's idea was that a single edit wouldn't save the article, that it would be reviewed by a human at the end of the period. Gigs (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Gigs, PROD would be better in many related A7 cases. I'm not hot to add an extra option, I'm more-or-less okay with the options now, but my feeling is adding something involving userfication with some degree of automation (otherwise it's not worth the hassle for so little gain) to the mix would help rather than hurt ... if the admins making the calls make the right calls, and that might be a big "if". - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
This would assuage the legitimate annoyance of those who have put in a considerable amount of typing, and sometimes research, to find it suddenly gone - sometimes when they are asleep. I think the objections here could be met by saying that admins may or should consider moving to userspace - they should do it when they think the material can be salvagable; possibly invoking a bot, possibly not - it depends on whether anybody wants to write one.
In fact, anybody can userify material instead of CSDing it: three steps: move, notify the author, and CSD the cross-namespace redirect from the move. (Anybody who wants to centralize discussion of the userified article can mention it on the talk page: Stub on this article at User:Fubar/subject, moved to userspace because it had no context; it may be worth looking at before recreating an article on this subject.) What this proposal really needs is a notification template, advertised on the project page and at WP:TEMPLATES.
Prodding stuff in userspace is another matter, best discussed at prod I'm not sure we want to do that, but it should be independent of this proposal - if we do want to do it, we will want to do it for lots of hopeless stuff which has never been in article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please be sure that any policy change affecting Wikipedia:Userfication is accurately reflected on that page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that we need pointers to this discussion from WT:Userfication and at WT:PROD to sync everything up before any actual changes. We also have to answer the question of who's going to check to make sure that admins are handling the extra option correctly, because if it's good in theory but not in practice, it will make things worse (I'll volunteer to do my share). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the impetus for this is that with some articles tagged for CSD, I hesitate to PROD them because I want to send an unambiguous message that the article in its current form isn't acceptable in articlespace (but I don't want to make the change myself for various reasons); and I hesitate to delete them because some obvious effort has gone into the article, and maybe there are signs that the article creator has actually read some guidelines and is trying to comply, and I don't want to destroy their work; and I hesitate to userfy them without an automatic process of some kind that will result in deletion if nothing is done, because that sucks me in when I don't think it's terribly useful to get sucked in, since most of these articles will not in fact be improved, and all I'm likely to get is an argument. Perhaps the correct "automatic" process would be to allow PROD to be used in these cases in userspace, and userfy and PROD them at the same time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Userfication rarely works. Doing this for A7 speedies, the most used criterion, would just be a disaster. We can put a {{NOINDEX}} tag on it, but there's no guarantee people won't remove it and that doesn't stop people from linking to it elsewhere, using Wikipedia as a webhost. Given all the extra work (move the article, add a template, protect it, wait some time, review it) you might as well just use AFD as the amount of work required is pretty much the same. Mr.Z-man 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Although I don't agree that there's no useful counterargument or counterproposal, your data is beautiful, and really nails it home for people who didn't know already: this is not about producing useful articles. It almost never works. If there's a useful proposal here, it's about the best way to deal with newbies, not about articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And even Z-man's list shows it works sometimes. (Granted, the resulting stub has now been merged into a larger article, but it has been included much as it stands in the diff.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case it was userfied for an experienced user, who is now an admin. For new users, the success rate is pretty terrible. I didn't really run any numbers, and the data is now about 5 months old, but I'm guessing the percentage would be in the single digits, if not less. Mr.Z-man 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Besides the possibility of the users removing {{NOINDEX}} or linking directly to the userspace article, mirrors that mirror userspace will still display these articles (and generally don't honor NOINDEX), and will still provide lots and lots of free search hits. Further, if userfication becomes the usual response to these articles, spammers and such will just create the articles in userspace to start with, without NOINDEX. I'd only support userfication as a first line of defense if all of userspace were noindexed and if we stopped providing dumps of userspace. (I don't see either of these happening anytime soon, and don't really support them anyway.) —Korath (Talk) 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea a lot, and frankly I'd be willing to personally take on a share of any extra work to make Wikipedia friendlier to newbies. An automatic deadline (yeah, no deadlines, blah blah blah) would be important to me (I'd like to see longer than 7 days since we're often dealing with noobs -- perhaps 14?), because the vast majority of the articles I userfy (and I only userfy if I've gotten some kind of indication the editor is willing to make improvements) languish without any work. On a related note, I tried and failed miserably to make a template that would let me suggest to a noob who has had an article speedied that they first create it in their userspace. (The failure was more related to a lack of time on my part than anything hard about the template). Basically, it was along the lines of my standard spiel. Suggestions for improvement on my spiel are welcome, as is assistance with making it into a template.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Shows was a good night's sleep will do. I've managed to turn it into a working template that uses a parameter of the suggested article name.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
\o/ for templates. Maybe a template to start, and then a PROD template 7 days later? Kind of a "second notice" before the bill comes due. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if there was something we could add at the moment of userfication that would at least put it into a review-by-date category. After xx days, anyone (admin or not) could come along and see if progress has been made, then either prod, drop the user a note asking if they need help, or some other action.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Prod in userspace is likely to be highly controversial. Gigs (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
How about a message on the creator's talk page that has some of the same ideas and effect as a prod? - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Such as? Why would we need one? We already have a procedure that accomplishes this, which is PROD. I think an additional procedure will just add additional confusion and complications to a procedure which already baffles the newcomers, and where even the experienced admins keep making mistakes. DGG (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
If it's controversial, then we can always clog up MfD. The idea is that this will only happen for articles where we think there might be a ghost of a chance for saving the article if the original author is willing to put some work in it. Honestly, that's a really small percentage of speedies. If I increased the number I userfy by tenfold, that would still be maybe one a day max, and probably fewer. Yes, there are other admins working speedy deletion also, but by no means will all of them be willing to userfy (or userfy more than they are) just because of this proposal. And I doubt a lot of the NPPers will userfy -- NPP seems to attract a large number of editors who like applying speedy tags more than they like saving articles (or at least, that's the impression I often come away with). What do we gain for this extra work proposed? Fewer pissed off newbies, one or two potentially good editors who might have been discouraged by their first experience with Wikipedia, and less stress on the admins who userfy, because there will be fewer messages on our talk pages along the lines of "You moron! How could you delete my page? I wasn't finished with it you twit!"--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting thing that comes up a number of times here is that in most cases, CSD does not actually create an obligation to delete. Though copyvios, spam, and attack pages are in fact required to be deleted as noted by the Wikimedia Foundation legal council, if a CSD article can be improved, anyone is free to do so. I once even rescued a partial copyvio. If an admin feels userfication is an appropriate alternative course of action, the admin can userfy most CSD pages. Therefore considering how bogged down this proposal has become with all the perennial debates and side propositions, I propose that we simply make an unofficial footnote that userfication is often a good alternative to deletion for most speedy criteria.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any mandate from the foundation for attack pages and spam. But in any case, userfication is not a good alternative to most criteria, its a halfway-decent alternative for some cases for a small subset of the criteria (maybe 3 or 4). Mr.Z-man 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider for new articles whether the page could be moved into the user space of the creator, after moving salt the article name with a link to the userfied article.

This sets an instructional option for the admin which is sufficiently open that they can make a choice either way, the only real issue is a as already raised what happens in the long term to these articles if there is no further edits? Can we create a CSD option that says userfied csd article that hasnt been expanded since userfying. Gnangarra 07:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed wording. Expanding Prod into user space is another discussion, best at WT:PROD, since it will require careful wording (for example, it would desirable to notify the user; should it be mandatory?). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with this sensible idea.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Then let's do it, unless there is an objection by tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be happier if the wording specifically stated that this should be considered if the article has a good chance of being rescued (not necessarily in those words, but something to that effect). You may think that this is pointless, because that would obviously go without saying, I have noticed a growing tendency recently for people to think of user space as a sort of open space where anything goes: it isn't, it is a space for work that is aimed at contributing to development and improvement of articles in main space. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A tools based approach, instead of policy based

What if we just made it easier to userfy, with some javascript to do all at the push of a button. I imagine a tab at the top "userfy" which moves the article to the creators userspace, notifies the creator, and then if the user is an admin, just deletes the redirect, if non-admin, tags speedy on cross space redirect. It would refuse to do this on any article that has significant contributions other than the original editor. What do you all think? Gigs (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC) edited to simplify process 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would worship the ground you walk on if you made such a magical button. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a morebits script, why don't you work with AzaToth on that?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And what to do after it's been userfied

As pointed out above, we already have the ability to userfy, and now we have a kind offer of a tool to help. So we're left with the issue of what to do when the article isn't touched for xx days/weeks/months. Seems to me the options are:

  1. Ignore or let the userfying admin deal with it however they want (status quo)
  2. Make a new speedy criterion for userfied articles with no improvement for xx days/weeks/months
  3. Suggest at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion that prod be expanded to cover these articles after xx days/weeks/months
  4. Take them to MfD after xx days/weeks/months

For the last three options, it seems it would be helpful to have a category or bot listing that would let people find pages that need review. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Any preference on which option? Or is this an "all of the above" opinion? :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, a category or bot listing (either) would be very helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
A category would have the same problem as prod; that is, unless someone is watching the page the whole time, there's no way to tell if the category is removed from the page. And once its removed, it just falls off the grid. Mr.Z-man 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
That's why a bot listing would be nice. But I don't have the skills to write one. If someone volunteered, it would be super.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
How long to allow depends on the situation. I don't think it would ever be a matter of days--after all the AfD runs for 7 days already. I think everyone agrees it should not be years. The place to discuss ones that are challenged as being kept too long appears to be MfD. Normally in discussions there I see that a time of at least one or two months is usually allowed if the user appears to be in good faith. DGG (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of months would be fine with me. An editor certainly couldn't complain (well, they could...) that they hadn't had enough time. And it could always be restored at WP:REFUND or WP:DRV. Certainly better than what we have now, IMO.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I could write a bot to keep a central list so that it wouldn't be a matter for the article to have to reference itself. I'm glad this idea of mine has evolved and gained a bit of traction in this new form by the way. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So the concrete proposals I can glean from this are: Gigs has offered above to write a script making userfication easy. Fritzpoll has offered to write a bot to keep a central list of the userfied articles. After two months with no edits, any editor who wishes can send them to MfD. (If MfD starts to feel overloaded, the community can always look at a prod/speedy option.) Objections?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Make it so. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rules for speedying something at XfD or DrV?

Hello, There have been a few speedies of articles/images being discussed at XfD or DrV. Certainly in some cases that's needed (BLP issues, non-free stuff for example) but I'd like to propose that A) such a speedy should immediately be mentioned at the current discussion B) should be strongly discouraged unless there is an extremely pressing issue. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's been any flavor of keep !vote, it would no longer be uncontroversial, so it wouldn't be eligible for speedy. If it clearly fits the criteria, and there's no reason expressed at XfD why speedy isn't appropriate, why not speedy it?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The only exception I can think of to "it wouldn't be eligible for speedy" is when there's a clear consensus for speedy by the AfD voters, even if there's a dissent or two. I'm thinking of db-spam. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd probably only put copyvio in that "a dissent or two is okay" category. If I saw a couple of good faith, policy oriented dissents on a spam page, I'd be more inclined to take the time to attempt a fundamental rewrite. (And post note that I'd done it at the AfD).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
it is usually uncontroversial to speedy it for copyvio, either specified in the nomination, or discovered during the discussion. Otherwise, It has to be justified by the previous discussion. Sometimes someone will send up for AfD an article that is hopelessly incapable of showing notability and fits one of the classes for A7, and a speedy as A7 can be justified. Obviously, just as Fabrictramp says, it cannot be done if anyone objects in good faith. In some of the cases I've seen, its been pretty questionable. My view is that if it got this far, we might ass well do the full process & not have to justify it afterwards.
I was about to punch "keep" on this AFD but decided to take a look at the article and it seemed to have a "copypasted" look. I plugged some text into google and *BOOM*, blatant copyvio. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This: [2] is the most recent case of this occurring. I guess I should have contacted the admin (who I know, respect, and supported for admin) but I wanted a more general policy solution rather than a 1 off. It has happened a few times recently. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's difficult to make a general rule for this. Technically, speedy deletion criteria apply all the time, regardless of any ongoing discussion about it. But if the discussion indicates that disinterested users are with full information suggesting that it should be kept, then it would be clearly controversial to speedy delete. Between these two extremes, it's a judgement call. Dcoetzee 05:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that an article deleted on the merits has a different affect with regard to a repost. If there has already been quite a bit of discussion saying this doesn't appear notable, but then its A7ed, G4 will never apply. If a new article is posted that doesn't meet A7 but the topic is not notable on the merits, by mooting the AfD early with a speedy delete, we create the need to redo the process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If the article is substantially different to the one discussed at AFD, G4 wouldn't apply even if the discussion did go the whole time. Mr.Z-man 06:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes we're all experienced hands here, but that is often not the case. An article that would have been deleted after a full AfD discussion on the basis of failing on the merits to be on a notable subject because no reliable sources sources could be found, which happens to also have contained no indication of importance, would not be an invalid G4 when reposted because it makes a putative claim to importance, but still contains no sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
My position (but I'd appreciate input) is that if the AfD discussion is focused on "no reliable sources", and for some reason an A7 deletion happens on the 4th day of the AfD, then you don't have G4 available even if the identical article reappears, because you can't say that sources wouldn't have been found in 7 days. But if there's a unanimous opinion (apart from the article creator) at AfD of "Ugh, spam, take it away", and the article gets a G11 deletion on the 4th day based on that consensus, it's hard to make the argument that if it had gone 3 more days, the perception of the article would have dramatically changed. Probably some feel that G4 would apply if the article shows up again in the same form and some feel it wouldn't ... it hardly matters, since it would be eligible for G11 ... but in this situation, the second time the article shows up, I'd be more comfortable listing both G11 and G4 in the deletion summary, to point people to the previous consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, lucky timing, this is exactly on point, I think, and feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In the example you gave I'd have been fine with a speedy, particularly because you specifically mentioned that as an option in your nom. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I want to know is if there is a guideline or policy about at least commenting at the XfD if you speedy something that is currently being discussed. If not, should there be? Hobit (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If the article is speedily deleted, it will be blindingly obvious that the article is now a redlink. So even if it's not explicitly said, people will know something happened. If it's only tagged for deletion, common courtesy seems to be to mention it, but I've never seen a policy. I'm not sure it's a huge problem though at least for AfD -- certainly if I'm interested in an AfD I watch list both it and the article. Other flavors of XfD are more difficult to watchlist because an entire day's discussion happens on a single page. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Noindexing in CSD tags and other deletion templates

Is there any technical barrier to placing noindexing (__NOINDEX__) in all of the csd tagging templates (and {{hangon}} and {{prod}} and {{afd1}}) such that when placed those templates on a page, that page will no longer get indexed by Google and other search engines? If not, why wouldn't we want to do this? It seems to me so many apparent benefits would run from this. Just as an example it is likely to reduce the creation of some inappropriate content as there are some people that are aware that they are creating pages that won't last long but are hoping to get some 15 minutes of Google indexing fame out of creation. It would make attack pages and copyvios less likely to leave a weeks long trail in their wake of visibility outside of Wikipedia, even after deleted, for which there is always an increased risk of legal liability. There's more benefits I could list but I just wanted to broach the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should be OK to noindex. But only Speedy. I have landed in an article from Google that has an AfD tag, and then participated in the AfD discussion subsequently. Similarly, an expired prod literally means that no one cared enough to object to the deletion. If we also hide prod tagged articles from view, we have skewed the process toward deletion. So I support noindex on CSD, but not on prod or AfD. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The NOINDEX function is disabled in the aritclespace, so adding a template with it to an article won't do anything. It would only work for deletion tagging in the other 15 namespaces. MBisanz talk 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the reason for that? Can it be changed? Gigs (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It was done by the developers when it was turned on, it can be changed, but it is their choice. MBisanz talk 14:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so there is a technical barrier. I don't think I want to go to bat for this one, but I do think it would be a very good idea at least for speedies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Noindex isn't like a lightswitch, where adding it has immediate results. If the page has already been indexed, adding {{NOINDEX}} won't cause it to be immediately removed from Google results. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It takes many days for a change to indexing to propagate. As such, preventing indexing is only remotely technically feasible for AfD tagged articles, for which they are also a bad idea - so there's nothing to do here. Dcoetzee 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand that noindex would not cause an indexed page to be unindexed immediately and forget AfD. The thrust here is articles just created, which have not yet been spidered, and applying noindex via the speedy deletion templates. I accept there's a technical barrier to that, but application of that is the essence of this thread.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea, if it becomes technically feasible. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess my question is, what if any is the downside? Having the old version from before the tagging on other servers will happen, but is that a negative? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a fairly recent discussion about this regarding G10, when someone proposed that the G10 template should automatically noindex the page, and hide all the contents using CSS trickery. However, it was pointed out that noindex wouldn't work, and the solution would only appear to hide the contents from search engines. From what I've seen, the practice of simply replacing a page's content with {{db-attack}} has now been widely adopted. As for copyvios, I don't think there's any risk of legal liability. Think about it: Copyrighted material is copy-pasted into popular articles on a regular basis, and is retained in the page history for everyone to see. Many articles now deemed acceptable were originally copyright infringements. Only in exceptional cases does deletion or oversighting of individual revisions take place. decltype (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Q on G5

Raised at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Judge_edits_independently_of_editors.3F. What is, precisely, the rationale behind G5? NVO (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. I suggest you take it up at WT:BAN if you'd like to see it changed, the text here mostly just mirrors the other policy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be counted in G12 or not but...

Since we cannot accept GFDL-only licensed text content now, I suggest we add an additional criteria or amend G12 to allow speedy deletion for this situation when the entire page consists of GFDL-only content:

Incompatible licensing, a page primarily consisting of text content that is only licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and not licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license at all as dictated by the terms of use, and has been tagged as such for 7 days. This does not apply to media files.

Any messages sent to users would provide appropriate instructions telling them to make sure they have OTRS permission for the content. There would also be a dated template similar to the ones used for stuff like no permission in the file namespace that it can be tagged with during the waiting period. The 7-day wait is to ensure that attempts to get the proper permission can be made. Something like this would be good, right? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CP is already set up for that kind of thing. I'm not sure we need a new category of speedy. The seven days pass automatically when the article is listed at the bottom. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
It will be a long time before people realise this, and the proper course should be educating them, not speedy-deleting. We should consider making that 30 days, not 7. DGG (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we eliminate C1

I know that it may not make sense on the surface to remove a criteria that deletes something that is empty. The problem is that C1 is being used to bypass the process in WP:CFD. These are typically hard to catch especially since more admins don't take the time to see if the category was emptied out of process. This is not easy since there are no tools to make this easy to do. Some editors have found ways to use the google cache to get an older picture. But that still requires digging to find out why it was emptied. I suspect that most of these deletions are actually out of process so we could hold the admins doing the deletes accountable for out of process deletions. Clearly that is not my intent. I'd rather remove a deletion criteria that can cause well meaning admins to violate process. One editor recently admitted that they were using the C1 process to cleanup after page moves with the specific intent to avoid a full CfD discussion.

If we eliminate C1, it would need to be replaced with a speedy deletion somewhere in CfD. Most likely an addition to the speedy rename process that is there already.

I'm not ready to propose this quite yet, but just wanted to open a discussion to see how others feel. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I often look at C1 nominations. In my judgment, probably 75% of them are cases where an editor has manually emptied the category and then immediately nominated it for deletion. It's essentially a way around WP:CFD if you don't get caught. Editors sometimes do it because they want to change the name of a category, but often it's done apparently just because the user doesn't like the existence of the category. I'm aware of the problem so I always do the "digging", but it is a real pain, and I suspect many admins don't bother to do the digging. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think people experienced with categories would probably do a better job making the calls on both C1 and C2, and be held more accountable, than would people experienced with speedy deletions, and I don't see any harm in removing C1 and C2 from this page ... it wouldn't mean categories couldn't be deleted quickly, since SNOW closures have traditionally been available at XfD. We could still speedily delete the categories that require it, for instance per G3. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've always wondered why C1 didn't get put into dated subcategories like the image csds do, instead relying on the tagger to keep track - it'd be trivial to write a bot to remove unexpired C1 tags from populated categories. —Korath (Talk) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That does not fix the problem where an editor empties a category, waits 4 days and nominates it for deletion. They simply bypass the review process. Adding to the speedy rename approval process at least provides some level of review and if there are no objections, it gets deleted in 48 hours. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • In that case, it'd sit in the dated csd subcats for another four days before being speedied, unless someone adds it directly to an old day's subcat. This would be comparable to replacing an article with word salad and then tagging it {{db-nonsense}}, and could probably be caught by the abuse filter besides if it turned out to be a problem. (Anyone ever see this happen with the image subcats?)

        On the other hand, if the intent is to send all category deletions through CFD, rather than curbing out-of-process speedies caused by the difficulty in seeing what used to be in the category and when, that's something else entirely. —Korath (Talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The intent would be to control out of process changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
One small change we could try, and see what happens: change C1 and C2 so that they're no longer subcats of the CSD cat, so that they don't show up at CAT:CSD, and instead make them appear on the CFD page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any of the admins actually look at Category:Categories for discussion. This would at least remove the temptation for those not aware of the potential for problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I take a look every few weeks,but it seems an obscure process attended almost entirely by a few specialists, and that seems designed to discourage any general discussion. DGG (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I made that change and moved these into Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion so we can see how it works for C1 and C2. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


For the same reasons that RS has RSN, BLP has WP:BLPN, COI has WP:COIN, etc ... would the wiki esplode if we had a speedy deletion noticeboard? I've been asking questions about individual articles here, so far, but if I could go into greater detail and ask more questions, it would be helpful, although maybe too tedious for WT:CSD. If people drop by and comment, great, if they don't, then we shut it down and post the notices here instead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please God no. There are already far too many noticeboards. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If deletion of a particular article is complicated enough that it requires discussion at a noticeboard, then it should not be speedy deleted - it should be taken to xFD. xFD is the deletion noticeboard. --B (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's just what I'm trying to combat ... the notion that there's really nothing interesting to say about the application of the speedy criteria, that all will be solved if we just take it to AfD and answer the question, "should this article be deleted?" There's a lot more to speedy than that. "Please God no" gave me a chuckle, and I sympathize, so I won't create a separate board ... but I promise this is going to get tedious, there's an awful lot to talk about, and I don't know how to reduce the tedium for people who really aren't interested. On another note ... I've just added {{noindex}} to this page (I used to be able to find out which Wikipedia pages were already covered by our robots.txt, but I can't find that information today, I think things got moved around). It seems to me that it's contrary to the spirit of speedy deletion to delete an article speedily or threaten to, but then wind up prolonging the time that it's picked up by search engines by discussing it here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that, & think we should use it much more widely for everything outside article space. DGG (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC).
B (talk · contribs) is right. If you aren't sure, xfd it. ausa کui × 04:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Okay, first up is Früctan, this was just tagged and speedied as db-spam, here's the text:


Früctan- (frroo-ck-tahn) origin fructo, meaning fruit; as it is said to be the sweet fruit from the chicken

Invented on the 19th of June 2009, Früctan is an extraordinary snack/treat which is quick and simple to make and not only provides intense flavour but also saves money. It is often made alongside meringue, as the recipe only requires the yolk of an egg. Früctan is a perfect snack as it takes only 8 minutes to prepare and 1 minute to cook. Can be served with golden-syrup, cream, raisins or even meringue.

For the recipe, go to wiki-how.

Creators: Alice Booth-Sheffield born 1993 Jessica Piette-Swiss born 1992

Experiences with Früctan:

'I smelled it from next door when Booth and Piette were making it for the first time- it reminded of the sweet hours of my childhood, when my mother would make meringue except that this smell had a new twist. When I finally tasted it, I knew that meringue would never be enough for me anymore. There had to be something more... And Früctan was that; exactly that.' anonamous

FWIW, my vote would have been to speedy it, too, for the same reason I'd speedy anything by a first-time contributor (User:Alicenjess in this case) that sounds like "It's so tasty, make it today!" But there's a reasonable counterargument that goes something like this: db-spam is for identifying those articles that either are highly likely to be promotional (for instance, if the username is the company name) or articles where you can't nail down the COI, but the language used is exactly the kind of language used if there were COI. If an innocent first-time contributor wanders by some company's website, copies their promotional brochure, re-writes it just enough to avoid G12, and posts it, then db-spam is fine, in general. So ... what person, business, product, or ideology was this article promoting? The ideology of meringue-based cooking? Are they trying to sell eggs for the Dairy Council? They didn't give the link to wiki-how, but if this really was invented 2 days ago, then it hasn't had time to show up in a cookbook that they might be trying to sell. This is probably WP:NFT, but what's it promoting? - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please feel free to weigh in, I'm not trying to force any particular speedy ideology (and if I do, you can revert it as spam). For articles tagged but not yet deleted, would a notice right under the speedy tag that the article is being discussed at WT:CSD be sufficient notification to the tagger and admin? I won't in general know who the deleting or declining admin will be of course, and it will be a little tedious to keep an eye on it. I'll notify all the frequent taggers now that they might want to keep an eye on this page if they don't already. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. I've seen a lot of "Hello world, my name is X and I just invented this today!" kind of articles in the speedy queue, and this is maybe one of those. I wouldn't holler if we decide that it's so likely that the intent is to promote the person, even if the article title is the thing they invented, that all such articles are db-spammed ... but I'm not going to make that call, and either way, I'd like to see some discussion so that I know how to apply the criteria. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This seems to me a classic of the all-too-frequent "Blatantly made up one day" type of article, for which I think we need a new speedy: I did once suggest that, but the idea didn't get much support, people said if it was blatant enough G3 would cover it and otherwise it should go to PROD/AfD. If I saw that one, I think I would PROD it and refer the author to WP:NOT-a-recipe-book; or else I would make a note, wait an hour, and then quite likely find it had been speedied as no-context or hoax/vandalism, neither of which really apply but which often seem to be used to get rid of things that clearly need to go but don't fit the strict criteria. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with CSD in general is that when you notify the creator with a template, the creator sees only a vague invocation of one of the narrowly defined criteria, and the applicability of a specific criterion is not always obvious to the newbie. This is why I use prod on articles like this one (the notification template spells out the full nominator's rationale), but when such articles are deprodded I do not hesitate to send them to AfD, and in cases like this one WP:SNOW is invoked pretty early. I would certainly not contest a speedy on this one, but I just wouldn't tag it myself.
As for the applicability of G3 here, my reply is a resounding no. The very nature of G3 assumes bad faith on the article creator's part. Should we have a speedy criterion that applies to inventions, including neologisms, or WP:MADEUP in general? Certainly. We are getting way too many of those. Do we have one that clearly applies right now? Not that I can think of. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
We should not have such a speedy category, because no two people are adequate to judge whether in fact it is invented--articles nominated for AfD as neologisms are sometimes kept. As for this article, it is not in any serious way promotion of anything, and an inappropriate overuse of G11. It amounts to a joke, and if I speedied it, as I probably would, I would call it a test page. DGG (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead Man's Party (Six Flags Great Adventure)

[This space intentionally left blank]

Dead Man's Party (Six Flags Great Adventure)
  • Infobox Musical
  • | name = Dead Man's Party
  • | theme park = Six Flag's Great Adventure
  • | theatre = The Stage in front of the Big Wheel
  • | productions = Six Flag's Great Adventure during Fright Fest

Dead Man's Party is a musical theater production at Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey. It is hands down the best yearly attraction act the park which draws crowds of hundreds of people several times daily during the annual Six Flags Fright Fest. The cast and crew do a great job and the performance is entertaining and consistently well done. It is about 25 minutes long.

Song Listing in 2008

1st Thriller - Micheal Jackson 2nd Ramalama - Roisin Murphy 3rd Dead Man's Party - Oingo Boingo 4th Meet the Creeper - Rob Zombie 5th Halloween - Aqua 6th Phantom of the Opera - Nightwish 7th No One Lives Forever - Oingo Boingo 8th Ballroom Blitz - Sweet

I deleted per db-org instead of the suggested db-spam ... agreed? If someone writes about something they enjoy, and they don't use language that's right out of the brochure or sounds like it could be, then that's not considered promotional enough for db-spam ... even if they are really enthusiastic. Another factor in declining the db-spam was that the article creator had made a few edits to unrelated articles. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, about that db-org, I want to make a small tweak to my usual deletion summary (No independent sources, no suggestion that they exist, and no significant hits at See A7 on the "importance or significance" of an organization), but I can't come up with anything that's short and also precise. I really mean "Nothing that you wrote gives me an idea where I might look and reasonably expect to find a reliable source that suggests significance." Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
My view on A7 (also on A9, G3-hoax, and the WP:MADEUP speedy proposed above) is that it should be for cases where the article gives one no reason to even bother with a Google search. (Whether I apply that consistently in my own tagging is another matter.) But if the creator inadvertently made a new article sound too promotional, he definitely needs to be informed of it. In cases where an article is so full of praise that it needs a complete rewrite (that is, the article is unsalvageable), yes, G11 may apply regardless of the creator's lack of a link to the subject, but in less blatant cases the {{advert}} template is sufficient as a patroller intervention. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The {{review}} template might also be of help here. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 00:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that this might in fact be a well-known production. If so, the article could be re-written into an appropriate stub. It needs a check for possible refs. before deletion via any process. It falls in none of the classes for G7--it's a show, not an organization, and it's not hopeless promotional, for it would be easy enough to rewrite. An incorrect speedy. DGG (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Man's Party (Six Flags Great Adventure). - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Two image CSD questions

I have a pair of questions about the CSD criteria for deleting file:

  1. If I tag an article with a template like {{di-no source}}, can I still delete it after the 7 days? Or is another administrator needed? I have the same question about FFD and PUF, but that's for a different location.
  2. Why do rescaled fair-use images need to wait seven days until deletion the same way that actually orphaned fair-use image do? Are these ever contested? Why would they be? IMO, F5 should be changed to be "7 days for a completely unused image, but if a non-free image is rescaled the previous, larger version(s) can be deleted at any time" (not exact wording, of course).

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For rescaled images, I have seen images rescaled by 1% or less. THis just degrades the quality for no benefit. Also rescaled images that are made too small or poor quality. There should be a chance for people to notice things have gone wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the admins usually notice those things? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above rewording. I actually came to this talk page for the same question. If the image needs to be resized again, the admin can just re-add {{non-free reduce}}. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should rescaled fair-use images need to be kept for at least 7 days before the larger version can be deleted?

Support, per my above comments. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Support above rewording ("7 days for a completely unused image, but if a non-free image is rescaled the previous, larger version(s) can be deleted at any time") or something similar to it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

U1 vs G7

I notice that CSD U1 and G7 is similar. While G7 requires good faith/blanking, U1 does not. Is both same? The Junk Police (reports|works) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

G7 requires that no one except the person requesting deletion have made any substantial edits to the page, U1 does not have that requirement. Mr.Z-man 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
U1 means that if someone goes into your user space and puts in something you don't want there you may request deletion on sight. That's just one example of U1 applying where G7 does not. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And most importantly, obvious though it may be, U1 only applies within your own user space. decltype (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
An example, I had an essay, that I wrote in my user space. This essay was heavily edited by others. Enough so, that I eventually moved it out of my user space and into the wikipedia space as a community essay. Prior to my moving it, I could have had it deleted by another admin by simply saying, "delete this." As it was in my user space, the request would have most likely been fulfilled. Now that it is in the wikipedia space, if I make the same request, the same admin would deny it as it has been heavily edited by others.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Separation between tagger and deleting admin

It's been brought to my attention that there's nothing in the actual CSD policy to prevent the entire speedy deletion process being implemented by one person. In other words, as the policy's presently written, the tagger and the deleting admin could be the same person. This strikes me as potentially very problematic.

I agree with Uninvited Company when he says that CSD is increasingly becoming the deletion policy of the project, and I'm concerned that the whole thing can be done by one person. The potential for error there is too high.

I propose a change in the wording of the policy, such that the tagger and the deleter should be two separate people.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that problems may arise, usually admins tag them if they are the first "on the scene". While such a change seems to make sense, there are many many speedy candidates that are uncontroversial and where a second look is simply not needed, either because the subject is clear or the reviewing admin is skilled enough to make the decision correctly. Regards SoWhy 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The CSD system that Twinkle provides for admin use defaults to delete when one selects a CSD tag, which I discovered much to my surprise one day while trying to tag something for someone else to look at. If I'm doing RCP and spot a page that needs consideration, unless it's an egregious and obvious delete, I tag it and leave it for other admins to consider. I'd agree that we need to ensure that this is outlined in the policy - every CSD except the most blatant and obvious situations should be seen by two admins at the absolute minimum. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've asked many times for an option to change that TW default and haven't gotten anywhere. :( For most CSDs, I support having two people look at it. The only ones I delete without having another pair of eyes on it are clear attack pages ("Joey is a loser and smells bad"), screamingly, blindingly obvious vandalism ("poooooooooooop"), and screamingly, blindingly obvious A7's ("Amanda is a cute girl at my school and I wish she'd notice me"). For those pages, I feel the benefit to the 'pedia of having them gone quickly outweighs the extremely small chance that I'm getting it wrong. For others, even where it's not subjective, I could still have a major brain fade and another pair of eyes helps avoid that. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Things like A7 could benefit from this (in other words, those which are subjective... A7, G11, F7, T2, and C2 spring to mind), but many, many of the criteria shouldn't need multiple eyes... copyvios aren't subjective, lack of content altogether is not subjective, attack pages are slightly subjective but not very much, etc. In these instances I think that administrators can use their best judgement without additional input being required, although if a deletion is contested it can always be taken to WP:DRV. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(@ Tony Fox): Two admins seems excessive even for the more subjective cases... one user of any type and one admin seems more appropriate to me, since non-admins often participate in CSD tagging. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my error - one editor, one admin. Wrong framing there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This was already discussed and rejected (see this). Speedy deletion should be speedy. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That was more than a year ago; it's worth taking another look at things like this, is it not? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What for? What has changed since the last year? If a page is a spam, it is a spam. If a guy proposes sexual services for girls on his user page should I delete it on site? Or should I tag it and wait? Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is why I say the blatant stuff is fine, but contentious stuff should be seen by more than one person. "Spam" can be subjective, for example; I've come across pages that were pretty bad, but because there was some ambiguity to them I've just tagged them and left them for the next admin to consider. As Dank mentions below, if I find a page that's been tagged, and the creator has others in a similar vein, I don't feel so bad about just flat deleting them, but if there's any ambiguity to me, I tag and let another admin look at it. That seems to be the right way to go, to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone tagged one page, and in the course of investigating that page, I find related but untagged pages, then I'm the logical person to do the deletion, because I've already done the research ... and there's almost always some research involved (news archive searches, checking sources, checking the other contribs of the article creator, background research, etc). I basically agree with Luna Santin's take in that discussion: if you're noticing a problem, then the main problem is that articles are getting deleted (or not) when they shouldn't be, so let's tackle that problem. Since I'm on the admin side, I'm seeing what taggers are doing more than what other admins are doing. Bring the subject up at WT:CSD, in the form of "Was deleting this article a good decision?" If a pattern of bad speedy decisions emerges at WT:CSD, we'll notice. I do get your point that the appearance of impartiality is also important, and having two people involved rather than one constitutes an important safety net. I never go off on hunting expeditions on my own; I react to things I see in CAT:CSD. But some admins, like User:MBisanz, have done great work cleaning up things that rarely get tagged, such as articles in the File Talk namespace. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
While I acknowledge that I fall on the deletionist end of the spectrum, I try to keep to the "two sets of eyes" principle for fairness' sake. I will kill the more shameless spams as well as the graffiti, attacks and mash notes; but otherwise, I like the idea that speedy should not become a tool for biting the noobs. Thus, you will sometimes see me tagging articles for some other admin to give a second opinion on, at the same time as I'm deleting already-tagged speedies where appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The very prevalent use of CSD is what's changed since last year. I'm seeing a trend where CSD has become the default way of removing content, and I'm concerned by it.

    Personally I can sympathise with the use of one-pair-of-eyes speedy for attack pages, copyvios, certain BLP issues, or other matters where speedy deletion is clearly essential for defence of Wikipedia. If there's no potential harm to Wikipedia, then in my opinion the benefits of a second pair of eyes outweigh the potential damage-except for G7 and U1, where deletion is uncontroversial.

    Accordingly, I'd frame a draft policy like this:

Extended content
CSD Criterion Potential harm to Wikipedia One-pair-of-eyes speedy
G1 No No
G2 No No
G3 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
G4 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
G5 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
G6 No No
G7 No Yes (only applies to admins deleting their own contributions)
G8 No No
G9 N/A N/A (not a matter for us)
G10 Yes Yes
G11 No No
G12 Yes Yes
A1 No No
A2 No No
A3 No No
A5 No No
A7 No No
A9 No No
R2 No No
R3 No No
F1 No No
F2 No No
F3 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
F4 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
F5 No No
F6 No No
F7 Yes Yes
F8 No No
F9 Yes Yes
F10 No No
F11 No No
C1 No No
C2 No No
U1 No Yes (only applies to admins deleting content from their own userspace)
U2 No No
U3 Perhaps In cases of direct harm
P1 Varies Varies
P2 No No

I realise this would be inconvenient for some of you, and I hope you can see the logic and the potential benefits even if you disagree.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we change policy based on a perceived problem, I'd like to see at least one example of the problem; can we look at a page that was speedied incorrectly without a speedy tag, so that we're all talking about the same thing at the same time? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the facility to check through deleted material and find one, Dank. Perhaps an obliging admin will look.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this... I do think that we should have two sets of eyes on most deletions, but I'm not sure if I would go so far as to encapulate that in a policy/guideline. I do know that when I was looking at CSD's a lot of the problems I saw were from single eye deleters.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The most common problems I see are "no context" and "hoax" tagging. Most of the no context situations are not in fact that way, and could be fixed by 5 minutes of work. FOr many hoaxes, they are not obvious and need reseach to confirm the hoax status. So only the most blatent of these should be speedied immediately. Also do not forget the notification to the authors! Other ways apart from tagging are requests on talk pages for "uncontroversial" deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The proposal doesn't mention what should happen when an article is tagged for one thing but the admin wants to speedy for a different reason; is anyone requesting that the admin change the tag, and wait for someone else to delete per the new reason? - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for tagging in the first place. The CSD criteria are only written for the admin who does the deletion; they were specifically chosen as situations where it is common for admins to delete things without discussion. Unless there is some evidence that there is a large number of incorrect deletions from some criteria (not just a large number of correct deletions), there is no reason to change our practice in this area. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted a fair few G10s without the delay involved in seeking a second opinion and I'd prefer to keep things that way. If an admin was deleting stuff inappropriately surely they'd know from the feedback? The last two requests I've had to email someone's article to them were for a love letter (A7) and a joke page, and the second one included an apology for posting it on Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, G10 would be an exception (one-pair-of-eyes deletion approved, because of direct harm to Wikipedia). Un-collapse the hatted bit above to see how I think it should work.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Exceptions or non-exceptions, I think that would be unneeded rules. And I am usually the last person to object to writing down rules. But the point is this: We elect admins because we trust their judgment. As such, we need to trust them to not speedy pages that might not be clear-cut but rather seek a second opinion. There are (luckily not that many) admins out there who have a bad grasp on speedy criteria and delete stuff incorrectly. But they do so no matter if there is one or two sets of eyes on the page (after all, some patrollers unfortunately still think it's some kind of challenge to tag as many new articles as possible). Yet codifying it into policy would hinder the good CSD admins, who know their stuff, from doing what is needed. Take a page like this for example: "The Stupid Corndogs are a band founded on June 25, 2009 by me and my brother". If I came across this page on NPP, do I really have to tag it A7? Yes, the page itself might not do harm to Wikipedia directly but if I tag it A7, it means that I will create work for another admin instead of doing the work myself. I'd say, trust admins to do the right thing and if we notice an admin deleting outside policy, then we can still tell them to tag the page rather than to delete it because they might not realize their mistakes. But as long as there is no problem with admins explicitly deleting without prior tagging (bad speedy admins is a problem, but a different one), there is no need to codify a solution. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy here... admins are elected because the community trusts them. Admins that the community doesn't trust shouldn't be admins. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I agree with most of the above. Thanks for bringing it up, S Marshall, and I'll be more aware and encourage other admins to be aware that it's best to have two sets of eyes whenever that's appropriate. But people have mentioned specific cases where one set of eyes is appropriate, and I run across other cases from time to time. Recently, a new user created articles for every model made by a manufacturer, taking the information right off the web. Only 4 of the articles had been tagged for db-spam when I got to them, but I deleted all of them ... was that wrong? I think it was efficient; it would have taken time for another admin to look up the same online information I did, and I don't want to tag the other articles and say "trust me, I've looked it up" ... that's asking another admin to take responsibility for my decisions. I often run across more-or-less the same db-spam-worthy material by a new editor on two or 3 pages, and I typically delete all those pages, even when only one has been tagged. If I remember right, MBisanz deleted around 6000 file-talk pages in the spring, mostly complete nonsense and vandalism ... I think Matt can recognize speedy-worthy pages, and I would have been pretty annoyed if I had had to go behind him and delete all of them. On the other hand, if an admin is going deletion-hunting for some class of pages that doesn't normally get tagged, it wouldn't bother me if we want to strongly encourage them to stop off here at WT:CSD first and give us a heads-up as to their plans. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I was really looking for some kind of concession here, folks. Why not take a look at DRV, and read the reactions we see from new editors whose articles are deleted under CSD?

Part of the problem is that CSD is extremely bitey. What I'd like to be able to show these people is that we delete material on sight where there's a good case that it's harmful, but if it's not actively harmful, it takes more than one pair of eyes. And yes, I do understand why someone jaded from new pages patrolling might object to me coming up with an obstacle to their getting rid of the 37th high-school rock band with references from myspace and youtube that shows up that evening, but, there is a purpose to it.

I find the argument that "we trust admins" very weak, because it's circular. Adminship is becoming a bigger and bigger deal, and RFA's turning from the sublime to the ridiculous, for exactly this reason. And the proportion of active editors to active admins is rising up the sharp end of a very nasty exponential curve because of it.

We need to accept that admins are human and capable of making mistakes, and we need to recognise that mistakes involving the delete button are highly problematic because for every one we see at DRV, how many potentially excellent new editors who only need a bit of encouragement and guidance, are quitting the site in disgust?

Tony Fox also makes some good points above, which could benefit from more thought imo.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins making mistakes at CSD are a big problem, no doubt about it. But those admins make their mistakes regardless of how many eyes have looked at a certain article, heck, some delete articles even after prods were contested or AFDs requested by experienced users. Point is, we need to educate admins who have a weak grasp at CSD and who make mistakes deleting pages. But I fail to see where there is any connection to how many people assessed an article. Regards SoWhy 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly not going to solve the CSD problem in one fell swoop, SoWhy.  :) But baby steps... on Wikipedia I have to fight the battles I stand some chance of winning.

Yes, two people can make a mistake. But at least if there are two, there's been some kind of checking process, so when the complaints come to DRV later, we can point to that and make a convincing argument that the deletion wasn't completely arbitrary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I missed the straw poll, but I find the suggestion a bit too bureaucratic for my taste. Obviously, admins should use common sense in deciding whether to tag an article or immediately delete. There are thousands of obvious situations every week where no one could reasonably suggest that an admin's decision to immediately delete was inappropriate or didn't benefit the project. At the same time, admins certainly should tag and not delete in the cases that are not obvious. Some mistakes are made in drawing the line, but I don't see this is a good reason to erase the line completely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The straw poll relates to the discussion below. This is just a conversation, so you certainly haven't missed it. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think what's outlined in the table is a very good general guideline, at the very least. However, there is no doubt that uncontroversial deletions exist outside of G3-G5, G10 and G12, and preventing those from being deleted on sight could become too inhibiting. The policy already clearly states that speedy should only be used in the most obvious cases.
I could be way off here, but it seems like the ones that turn up most often in DRV are G4's and A7's. An interesting statistic would be how many of those were actually tagged, but I suspect most of them were. That is, they went through the proposed checking process. And the NPP will verify the deletion in their watchlist (if they bothered with it) and happily continue without ever knowing that the deletion is later unanimously overturned at DRV. Not to mention the ones that are never taken there.
Anyway, the fact remains that those deletions went against existing policy. If the deleting administrator decided to ignore (or believed they were acting in accordance with) the current CSD policy, why would we expect them to respect an even stricter policy? decltype (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it generally wrong to delete single-handed except for routine situations and blatant vandalism. I admit I have broken my own rule on occasion, and I have sometimes been wrong when I do. I do not think it ever should be routine practice, certainly not for those deletions involving any judgement, such as G11 or A7. I have some disagreements with some of the categories, and I think we might want a provision for flexibility if its blatantly obvious. I am aware that "blatantly obvious" is a slippery slope, but there will still be some such cases. As for relying on unguided common sense, there are 1400 admins and anyone who will fully trust the common sense of all of them is not aware of what happens here. I'm even prepared to say I do not fully trust the common sense of any of them, including myself. As SMarshall says, this won;t solve CSD completely, but it is a start. Incidentally, I do not thing that all unambiguoius copyvios are actually unambiguous, and in general I would rather that somebody check mine here also--there are too many cases where its a copy from WP, or where the copyvio is not complete or there is a prior un-noticed version. A copyvio must be removed, but it is not a matter of the same urgency as vandalism. DGG (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


It's apparent to me that this idea has support, but it does not appear to have enough support to incorporate as a policy. Accordingly, I intend to write an essay about it, which I'll mention here when it's complete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick straw poll - admins shouldn't delete their own U1 and G7s

Question: article talk page deletion

Can an article talk page (eg one that contains only vandalism/nonsense, and has no other history) be nominated for speedy deletion? And if so, how? (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the general criteria apply to all namespaces. Algebraist 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a try then. (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It can be, but the odds are, that unless it is a personal attack or copy vio, that the vandalism will simply be reverted.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If it's the talk page of a legitimate article, and not an attack, I usually just replace the vandalism with the relevant WikiProject tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Morning Meeting

This was tagged as db-spam, and for many taggers, this article seems like the essence of spam ... except that I don't think it is, looking at the creator's contributions. I downgraded to {{prod-nn}} and added {{advert}}. My take on db-spam is that there's something about it that makes me pretty sure that it was created by someone with WP:COI or someone who sounds like they have WP:COI. {{Peacock}} language is much more common than articles worthy of db-spam, and deserves something more like a NERF clue-bat than a 10-pound hammer, IMO. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Imho it's not clearly spam. After all, you can just remove the spammy bits and have a valid stub left. Non-notable probably but not unambiguous spam. Regards SoWhy 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

G4 - rewording proposal

Although I thought G4 was worded pretty clearly, at Talk:Wikinfo an editor is insisting the only way G4 applies is if the new content is a literal copy - no changes whatsoever - of the deleted version. This is happening because he has looked up the dictionary definition of "copy". The way G4 has been applied for years is that the new version has to address reasons for deletion (assuming there was a deletion debate that deleted the page). This is really the only sensible way for G4 to work, otherwise people could just reword a bit so it's not literally a copy, then policy would demand a new XFD every time until someone just applied WP:IAR to the situation.

At any rate, I think this can all be fixed by changing the word "copy" to "recreation" - I suspect the word copy being there is just a legacy of a much older, more rigid CSD. So where it currently says:

I would like it to say:

If the interpretation is that an article has to literally be a letter-for-letter copy of the deleted one to qualify for G4, we might as well just remove the "and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" wording, as that's impossible if the article is a carbon copy.

I am not planning on advertising this proposal because I believe it's a minor wording change that reflects current practice anyway. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary and the rewording would make it virtually impossible to rewrite/recreate new articles. The key the person you are talking to is missing is that the current wording doesn't say "exact copy" but rather "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The only person who would read that to mean "identical copy" is a person who is too caught up on being legalistic.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, I don't really care, I'm leaning towards against it, but I could be talked out of that position. I still think that anybody who needs the clarification is too legalistic.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how that would make it virtually impossible to create new articles. It's just clarifying that G4 doesn't mean "identical copy", and you agree that it doesn't mean that. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The rest of the description clearly makes it so... it talks about changes and substantially identical. The concern I have is that a stub on a topic of limited notability, could be deleted via discussion. Part of the reason people voted to delete was because the article was poorly written and not encyclopedic. Another person rewrites a new article, which is substantially different, but might be deemed a recreation because in their opinion it didn't adequately address the concerns of the AFD. By leaving it as copy, you are clearly indicating that you are talking about articles that are essentially the same.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if one of the reasons was the article was deleted was that it was poorly written, A) it was a poorly argued AFD and B) if a new version addresses that problem, it wouldn't be deleted under G4 anyway, whether the page says "copy" or "recreation", since it addresses the problem that lead to deletion. I think either wording allows people to recreate articles if they address the reason for deletion, but removing the word "copy" solves the problem of people being overly legalistic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Meh One user trying to poke a hole in it is probably not enough of a reason to bother changing it, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the 30k of discussion I've been forced to generate trying to explain this to that user is the reason I came here in frustration. Ah well, thanks for confirming I'm not just making things up about CSD policy. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty adamantly against any further relaxation of CSD policy, and I'm afraid I'm strongly opposed to this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not relaxing it, though, it's rewording for clarification. Aside from one person I don't think anyone really thinks G4 only applies to carbon copies. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it should only apply to carbon copies, and I think that's what the people who wrote it intended.

So make that two people, if you like.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why is the wording about "substantially identical" or addressing reasons for deletion even in there? It has no place if the wording is only talking about carbon copies. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, this clause was never intended to refer only to carbon copies. If it did, a user could make a trivial change in punctuation or wording and arbitrarily restore deleted content. In the past when people tried to argue for that legalistic interpretation, others invoked WP:IAR and common sense to shout down the abuser. The wording was clarified in 2005 to "substantially identical" to try to more clearly say that the changes must be more than merely cosmetic - the author must address the underlying problem that cause the page to be deleted in the first place.
That said, I don't think "re-creation" is any more clear than "copy". Some people are going to try to wikilawyer the policy no matter what. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I just took a look at the conversation that set all this off, and I don't think that particular user would be convinced by anything any of us said or did. My advice would be to ignore them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, if you look at User talk:Tone, his next action would almost certainly be to say "Well if you're ignoring me that means you don't object to me recreating the article, right?". --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Per Webster's New World, "copy" means "copy" (and btw, also per WNW and the 2009 AP Stylebook, just out this week, it's "re-create" not "recreate"). We don't mean "copy" so we shouldn't say that. "re-creation" is fine IMO. - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Beeblebrox ignoring someone (with a redirect to a page on vandalism) is not the way that consensus is built on Wikipeida. --PBS (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I added the text to the article Wikinfo is because it is a redirect and when I added the text I had no idea that it had been deleted. It was only when I went to add a comment to the talk page that I realised that the page had been deleted. I looked through six AfD's and as far as I can tell, there has never been a consensus to delete the page. The reason given in The sixth AFD was "Fails WP:WEB". An article on this topic is of direct benefit to out readers because somewhere between 100 and 200 articles have to attribute text to Wikinfo and as far as I can tell the issue was never raised during the Sixth AfD. I put it to the reader of this page that it is not unreasonable for a reader who sees an Wikipedia article attributing text to Wikinfo, to expect Wikipedia to have an entry on such an entity from which it has copied text! And as such an entry written under the Wikipedia policies of NPOV, it should be trustworthy. There are reliable sources around which can support the text I included as a stub (which cover V and OR). I did not include them with the text, which was a cut an past job from History of wikis#Development of wiki websites to the end of 2003, and I assumed as a stub there would be time to add them if anyone wanted to include a {{fact}} template.

The G4 reason for the speedy deletion is to clean up the recreation of an article by the same editor or editors, just as the Wikipedia:Protection policy#Creation protection "can also prevent the creation of a page through the protection dialog. This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor." In a case like this, were a new editor alters a redirect into an article and is not copying the old text, it is for an editor who objects not to to use the speedy deletion process but to go through the usual deletion process.

This is more than an argument over angels on a pinhead, because of the assumption of no change without a consensus. Suppose only the creator and the objector are involved in a dispute over the creation of a page, does a disinterested administrator close the page in favour of the current consensus? In which case depending on whether the process is an AfD or a CSD G4 will determine what the current consensus is.

The wording of G4 is quite adequate if it is meant to protect Wikipedia from the intent to circumvent a deletion (anyone who is familiar with speedy deletes will be familiar with the creation of articles by the same editors with either the same name or a slightly different one and the current wording covers those whack a rat situations). As it is currently worded it also stops an editor trying to use it to gain a procedural advantage as I described in the preceding paragraph, so I recommend that the wording it is not changed. --PBS (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

I don't know if I'm understanding this right. So if someone makes creates an article about "John Doe", and makes the claim "John Doe ran to to the moon and back five times", you can't speedy it under A7? You have to prod it or afd it? Or is it just borderline claims that you can't speedy, that are plausible. The text doesn't seem to say specifically what to do with non credible claims. FingerzOn'Roids 11:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so long ago, I informally proposed to change the wording to something like "The criterion applies only to articles that make no credible claim of significance or importance" to resolve this ambiguity, but it didn't get anywhere. At least your post here confirms that the current wording could be made clearer. decltype (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "The old wording didn't explicitly state whether A7 could be applied to articles with a clearly non-credible claim. The new wording makes it clear that A7 can in fact be applied to such articles." decltype (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it makes it clear that it can be applied, because the text only says that credible claims makes a7 not applicable, not vice versa, that non credible claims shouldn't stop an article from fitting under a7. I'm going to be bold and add a sentence in to that effect, feel free to revert.FingerzOn'Roids 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea is that the word only automatically excludes everything else. "The criterion applies only to articles that make no credible claim". But if you can do better, I will certainly not revert, because I support such a change. Pretty sure someone else will, though. decltype (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The change looks good to me, unless there's subtle grammatical issues I'm unable to spot. decltype (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, hopefully other users will agree. Sorry but, I don't see the sentence that you quoted in there. I don't know if my brain's a little tired or something and skipping over it, but I can't seem to find it. FingerzOn'Roids 12:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, that's because it was reverted :) decltype (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't think of anything wrong with your quoted sentence. What was the rationale for reverting it?FingerzOn'Roids 12:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Tweaking the "credible claims" part of the clause is tricky. We need our editors to be very careful when applying this criterion because apparently non-credible claims have many of the same problems that apparent hoaxes have. The claim may seem incredible to you or me but be true (though obscure) or it could be a poorly written reference to a fictional character which, if rewritten to avoid the in-universe tone, would be acceptable. Rossami (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd think that the hangon tag could be useful in that situation, and if the tagger discussed it with the article creator, the confusion about the seemingly non credible claim could be sorted out, seeing as admins normally let a7's with hangon tags stick around for a while.FingerzOn'Roids 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The {{CSD5}} tag is also useful in that situation. It gives an uninvolved editor a few minutes to see if the claim can be made more plausible through references or a rewrite. (Or it should, but a few admins completely ignore the tag. Grrr....) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Two many negatives and conditionals in the qualifying language. It makes sense but it's very hard to parse what is meant. Why not make it a positive statements with the credibility aspect right up front: "...or web content that does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant" (or possibly "plausibly"). I think this gets rid of the need for both qualifying later sentences, which are very confusing as written.-- (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Anuarhabibe/Ascii fish

I hope Calton will weigh in on this one. He tagged it as db-spam and I agreed, but I think some of you will probably disagree and I'd like to hear the arguments, please. This was the only contribution by this editor, and it read: "Ascii Fish, The Netherlands is an web development company which operates in The Netherlands, The Antilles and Aruba. Ascii Fish (or AsciiFish) is a small business company founded in 2009. The company's core business areas are web services, multimedia & graphic designs and Web project consulting." Apparently they're right about the size of the business; there wasn't even a Google hit on "ascii fish" "netherlands", and no news archive hits on "ascii fish" or "asciifish". The argument that this wasn't db-spam, I think, is that the language wasn't so promotional that it could have only come from one of the principals, or from someone using language that one of the principals would use. But it seems to me that's a technical argument; a better question to ask is: was it very likely to be one of the principles, someone who was only here to promote their stuff and not make any useful contributions to Wikipedia? I think that seems very likely: a company so small that no one seems to have heard of it, a business that's about "web development" (which greatly increases the odds that they're here to promote their stuff, the same as with articles from new contributers about a new public relations, advertising, or herbal viagra business), and no other contributions. The odds just seem tiny that this was created by someone who doesn't profit from this business, or that reasoning with them has any likelihood of turning them into a useful contributor. I would have used A7 if this had been in articlespace, but it wasn't. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question that flows from your post, is whether we honor the namespace issue when, as you assert, the essence of the A7 criterion was a better fit as a deletion basis. This was a proposed article that was sitting unchanged on a subpage for a week before the tagging. I don't mean to throw a question back at you but I'm curious as to your feelings on why, if A7 would have worked better than G11 if it was in the main space, you think we shouldn't use the spirit of the policy to overrule that implicit namespace conflict.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, a lot of our warning messages tell new users to work on stuff in userspace until it's ready ... I think it would be confusing to then delete it from userspace on the grounds that it's not ready yet. But maybe the logic of A7 could or should be applied to namespaces other than userspace, I haven't thought about that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I love that the company's website is "coming soon" -- deliciously ironic. Yes, the editor is one of the principals (or the only principal)[3]. However, I'm conflicted about db-spam for these types of user pages. Unless there's a reason not to AGF, it might be kinder to blank the page (and watchlist it) and leave the editor a note about how to rewrite their userpage to avoid being promotional. At the same time, I'm fully aware that a huge number of editors who write such a userpage are only here to promote, and lose interest when it becomes clear they can't. And after dealing with the uber-marketers for several hours, "nuke 'em all" does have a certain attraction.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is dominant enough that we could succeed with a wide range of different philosophies (I don't mean that we can sit on our asses, just that leaning one way or another in our wiki-philosophy is not likely to mean the end of the wiki.) We're the top site for information in the world, unless the information you're looking for is lolcat videos or search results. If Wikipedians wanted to be endlessly loving and supportive of all comers, I would do that, and if they wanted to apply strict entrance requirements for new users, I'd support that too (I don't think it would work, but questions like these are not my call). But I think the wikiprojects have made it clear that they want something between those extremes ... they don't want us to be mean, but they do want us to do something to discourage certain new articles and certain new editors. The best I can tell, it's my obligation to delete pages created by new and apparently single-purpose account editors that I think have a 90% or better chance of reflecting WP:COI, and in most (but not all) cases, to do it without being solicitous of the feelings of the page creators, because encouraging them might give them the idea that they can get what they want if they're just persistent enough, and that will waste the time and harm the morale of the wikiprojects and helper-communities that have to deal with these guys. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I have a pretty short fuse when the spammers decide to just be persistent instead of playing by the rules. As the saying goes, "I was born at night, but not last night." :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
When it comes to tagging probable spam in user subpages, I tend to grant a little more slack, but when it's fairly blatant -- as I thought this was -- I've got few qualms. Note also that db-spam covers CSD G11 -- meaning that it's "General", not just article space.
Stuff that gets my attention:
  • User:Endeavor global/Endeavor (nonprofit) - subpage that matches the name of the account, and both are company names. Obvious.
  • User:Dcheagle/OECW - Use of 1st-person plural ("we"), non-notable nature and advertising copy. Seemingly obvious, but user has some other unrelated edits.
  • User:Solomonchronicles1/The Solomon Chronicles: Sangre del Unico - subpage that matches the name of the account, and describes a product. Fairly strong evidence of spamming.
  • User:Ashleyjared2 - User name and content don't match, and text, while spammy, seems to evidence a good-faith attempt to create an article -- an article that probably wouldn't survive AFD, but that's irrelevant here. Watch and wait.
  • User:Artbodies - vanity bio attached to what appears to be a Googlebombing user name. Leaning towards tagging as spam, but not certain yet.
  • User:Cinagua/Technology Sales Leads - from an editor with a history of creating various subpages and deleted articles on start-ups. Suspicious, but not yet actionable.
That's my take on it. --Calton | Talk 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on the first 3, and I'll wait on the others. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on the evidence presented here, deletion was probably appropriate. I don't know if it really should have been a G11 speedy-deletion because the tone was not overly promotional in my opinion but it would have been extremely unlikely to survive an AfD discussion if the article had been moved into the articlespace in that condition. (The lack of active editing would have been evidence against it in an MfD discussion.)
As a technical matter, however, deletion using the A7 criterion would have been definitely inappropriate. A7 is limited to Article-space pages and does not apply to user-space pages. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that we might want to extend A7 past the articlespace. As Dank said above, userspace is where we tell people to work on drafts that aren't ready for prime time. We ought not to confuse that message.
The problem of spam in the userspace is better handled through the technical solution of breaking the incentive to create it by disabling search engine indexing of the userspace. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Is there a speedy deletion criterion for uploading an inappropriate image? Bababababababababybel62 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "inappropriate". Offensive content, while probably ill advised, is not against policy. lifebaka++ 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You'll find the speedy criteria for images at Wikipedia:CSD#Files. If it doesn't meet one of those, it would need to be discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense in foreign languages

Earlier today, an administrator declined two consecutive {{db-nonsense}} tags on the grounds that the pages were in a foreign language, therefore exempt from G1. Now I agree with both of that administrator's assessments, but it reminded me of a case, some time ago, where I saw a listing at WP:PNT for a page in French, and, being a native French speaker, I looked at the page and deemed it to be a word salad that was worthy of the speediest G1 tagging. (The words were indeed French, but the sentence was nonsensical.) An administrator declined my tagging of that page, and only after I explained the situation on his talk page did he finally delete the page.

What I want to do here is not exactly a change of policy, new CSD criterion, or anything like that, but I want to implement a way of notifying a CSD-reviewing administrator that a certain foreign-language page has been deemed nonsensical even in its language, either through a template designed for that purpose, a parameter to the {{db-nonsense}} tag, an accompanying tag, or any other solution one might propose.

Any ideas? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something I have encountered a few times as well. How about simply using something like: {{db|it's French, but it's still nonsense (G1)}}, or G2 if G1 is not applicable, etc. decltype (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have used, e.g., a {{notenglish|French}} template, you could add {{db-g1}} and just below it {{comment|click "Google translation" in the notenglish template to get an idea.}} The Google translation is usually good enough for that purpose. I have used that technique successfully with obvious NN bios and attack pages. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point. However, this works better for A7 and G10 as you mention, because google will have a hard time translating nonsense (and sometimes produces near-nonsense on its own). decltype (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not just note it on the talk page? Most admins will check the talk page of a page before deciding on a speedy, in case there is something relevant on it and many taggers use it for that purpose already. I see no need for any changes at all. Regards SoWhy 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a short note, in the description of the A2 criterion, saying what to do when one comes across a foreign-language article that is not an A2 but unquestionably meets another speedy criterion in a way obvious only to one who has some knowledge of the language... -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)When someone puts a speedy tag on a foreign language page that I'm looking at for deletion (well, a language I can't muddle through myself), I'll either do a google/babelfish translation to verify or, if it's an experienced non-problematic editor who seems to have some facility with the language I'll ask for a good faith summary from them. If I'm doing the tagging, I add a comment after the speedy tag with a note to see my translation on the talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
When the issue comes up, I ask taggers politely to add {{notenglish|[language]}} (provided the Google translation that comes with that template is useful) whenever they're requesting speedy deletion. It's going to cause trouble if different people are seeing different things when they're making a speedy call. And btw, I haven't used db-nonsense in a long time because of the nonsense/gibberish language, and I'm not missing it at all. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I'm the administrator referred to above, despite the fact that I'm not actually an administrator. Most of the ideas I had have been given by others, but I do have one idea as to how this could be fixed. {{db-nonsense}} currently reads This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc. This could be changed to This does not include poor writing, vandalism, coherent material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc., which would solve the problem of foreign-language nonsense being seemingly exempt. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for the addition of the word coherent in the description of G1. Anyone else? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds like a reasonable change. decltype (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And me. JohnCD (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's just adding what was intended anyway, so I went ahead and added it. Regards SoWhy 07:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Incoherent material is G1 speediable, even if it's not English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record I support the change as well, even though its already been implemented, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the change, though I do also agree that if a person is tagging a non-English page as nonsense because they actually understand the language, they should always make that clear on the talk page or in their edit summary so that the deleting admin knows that the determination was made by someone with the qualifications to make it. I recall that I once speedied a foreign-language page which, for maximum helpfulness, the tagger had actually posted a basic translation to the talk page to demonstrate that it was nonsense — I'm not suggesting that db-tagging editors necessarily always need to go to that length, but it did mean that I was able to provide evidence when somebody asked me the next day why I'd speedied instead of listing it for translation. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

<- I agree with this sentiment, in the rare case of a foreign-language G1, but I'd much prefer specifying this in an edit summary or using an Ø edit, rather than creating a page for this purpose only. Which makes me think: If it's at all translatable, it does not really fall under G1, does it? A1, G2, and G3 may be a better alternative. decltype (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Very probably, yes. However, I can conceive of exceptions. For example The red idiot, when she came before the visible existentialism, but three of the biggest in the morning end is translatable into other languages, but I would think it qualified for G1. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing update: reminder

Hi. Yesterday an admin cleared a newly created article of copyright infringement because the source from which it was imported is licensed under GFDL. This matter was addressed with the specific admin, but I just figured it might be a good idea to remind everyone that we can no longer accept material that is solely licensed under GFDL. At minimum, it must be compatible with CC-By-SA, and GFDL is not. (See Wikimedia:Terms of Use.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, can anyone say in what way GFDL is not compatible with CC-By-SA? There must be somewhere on WP where this is spelled out, perhaps someone can give a link? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Comparison of GFDL and CC-BY-SA may help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
GFDL requires reprinting the GFDL; CC-BY-SA requires linking to the CC-BY-SA. Neither license allows any modifications. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mojo-hustla

Xeno has an objection that some standard links in cases of db-spam and near-db-spam are inappropriate, so I edited WP:WHYNOT, and I'm including that link in some cases where I speedy userpages and articles. It's intended to be a lot shorter (new contributors are rarely willing to read long pages) and a little more helpful and AGF'ing than WP:ADS, WP:PROMO and WP:COI (although it links to COI). Suggestions welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your aim of shortening and AGFing. At a quick glance what you have done looks good. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

db-spam: questionable choice of name

Reading some very good comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mojo-hustla led me to think carefully about the way we refer to "spam" in Wikipedia, and I found I was not happy about it. I myself have in the past tended to use the word "spam" rather freely in edit summaries, but I now think this is a mistake. There are many people who run perfectly respectful businesses, and would not dream of using spam in the real world, who come to Wikipedia, and, with the best of intentions, place publicity material here. Of course this reflects a failure to understand the nature of Wikipedia, but they are doing nothing which would be regarded as reprehensible in normal business practice. And what happens? They find themselves labelled as spammers. This does not give them a friendly welcome to Wikipedia, it does not assume good faith, and by seeming like an aggressive accusation it is not likely to encourrage them to take a cooperative line. I wonder whether the word "spam" should be removed altogether from Wikipedia: "db-spam" could perhaps be replaced with something like "db-promo". Likewise Wikipedia:Spam could be Wikipedia:PROMO, which at present is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Spam. I am also posting this comment to Wikipedia talk:Spam, as it is equally relevant there. I suggest if anyone has any response to offer that they should make it there rather than here: it would not be helpful having two discussions on the same topic. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Henceforward we should write all edit summaries in Newspeak to avoid harming the fragile self-esteem of our valued spammer community. Doubleplusgood suggestion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I shall copy that ironic comment to Wikipedia talk:Spam and answer it there. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree in general. Use of Controlled vocabulary helps minimise miscommunication. Yes, beware newspeak. It is much less bitey, and just as effective, to refer to things as "overly promotional" rather than "spam" or "vanity". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We have {{db-advert}} you know. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, the db-spam template is actually a redirect to {{db-g11}}. The text of the template does not use the word "spam" except in reference to the associated user warning template, {{spam-warn}}. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 01:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion against sea swimmers

This is an example of the kind of thing I think we we need a "blatantly WP:NFT" speedy for. It's not G1 (incoherent or gibberish), it's not really G3 (misinformation or hoax) which implies actual false statement or intent to deceive, it's not A1, A3 or A7 - but do we really have to give it seven days' exposure before it gets zapped? JohnCD (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a WP:CSD#G3. Wikipedia:Vandalism includes under types of vandalism "silly vandalism": "Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc." This is an obviously non-encyclopedic page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That's useful, but I don't think WP:CSD#G3 as written really covers it. Perhaps the phrase "nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages" from Wikipedia:Vandalism could be added to the definition of G3? JohnCD (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I think your choice to PROD-delete the page was entirely appropriate. That said, I agree with Moonriddengirl that a good case could be made for vandalism. Expanding NFT into a new CSD criterion, on the other hand, opens up too much interpretation and potential misuse. Rossami (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm with you there. I apply that one with kid gloves, as I think it should only be done for the most blatant and obvious cases. I've seen good faith articles deleted as hoaxes, for instance, that have turned out to be not hoaxes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problem as far as this article is concerned: it seems to me that it is clearly vandalism, and I have accordingly tagged it for speedy deletion. G3 covers all vandalism, not just vandalism containing "misinformation or hoax". My reading of "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism, and blatant hoaxes" is that vandalism includes, but is not restricted to these: am I wrong? As for the more general question about a new CSD criterion for NFT, I can see pros and cons, but on the whole I think the most unambiguous cases (like this one) would probably qualify as vandalism anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're wrong, obviously. I would have deleted it myself except that it is under discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, evidently it is not universally agreed that this is vandalism. My speedy proposal has been declined with edit summary Decline speedy - something that is made up certainly exists. I find this odd: not existing is not the only reason for regarding something as vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I declined that speedy. The problem with vandalism is that it carries an implication of bad faith, i.e. that deleting something as vandalism accuses the creator of having wanted to disrupt Wikipedia. That's usually not the case when people simply make stuff up and want to use Wikipedia to spread it and where they admit that the content is made up. Vandalism or blatant hoax requires imho that the creator wants to claim something to be true that isn't with the intent to disrupt Wikipedia and/or mislead people. On the other hand, we do have a policy regarding those things made up, i.e. WP:MADEUP. As part of WP:NOT, WP:CSD#Non-criteria clearly excludes it as a possible reason for speedy deletion. If we intent to speedy delete such articles (which I might even support), we need to create a new criterion to cover it (not make it part of G1 or G3 which both carry an accusation of bad faith) but than we need consensus for it first. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As I indicated above, WP:Vandalism explicitly identifies as vandalism creating "obviously non-encyclopedic pages." To me, this article does indeed seems like "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", which is already covered under G3, but respect that you do not. I don't see how any contributor old enough to have been here since 2006 (as this article's creator was) might perceive "I propose that Jon Hardcastle starts a facebook group to push his agenda" as a constructive addition to the project; it seems like misguided humor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see what SoWhy means, but evidently we have very different interpretations of "bad faith". I see making up nonsense and writing up a Wikipedia article on it as quite definitely exhibiting "the intent to disrupt Wikipedia". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I may have been tempted to push the boundaries very slightly and delete this under A7 as an organisation that doesn't assert significance. But yes, in general it would be nice to have a criterion we can use for things that are blatantly unencyclopedic but are made in good faith through a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. That said, despite some pondering I can't think of a good wording for it that wouldn't excessively increase the scope of CSD. ~ mazca talk 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted it under the good ol' IAR criterion. Coming up with a criterion to describe that deletion might be fun. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One idea: introduce a criterion for things that assert insignificance, along the lines of A7 (which covers articles that don't contain an assertion of significance). An article which effectively states "this was just made up" is asserting insignificance. Hut 8.5 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It won't come up often, right? Most people who are making something up don't type, "I'm making this up as I type it..." However, when they do, that's a gift, and we may certainly accept it. We can give it a name and code number if we like, but it's a rare gift, so we won't use such a code very much.

It reminds me of the vandal, again very uncommon, who says this. I didn't hesitate to block that guy, nor to identify the reason as "vandalism". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the drawbacks of using CSD:G3 on such articles is that calling something "vandalism" assumes bad faith. I wouldn't oppose a new CSD criterion for subjects that are "blatantly unverifiable" (ie an AGF variant of G3) but right now the best way to handle such cases is to take them to AFD but allow such debates to be closed early if it quickly becomes clear that other participants can't verify the subject either. That way if a newbie creates an article about a game played at their school but nobody else outside the school has ever heard of or a made up word, it can be quickly deleted without calling the newbie a vandal. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason to apply the v-word to anyone who doesn't claim it on their own. I wish our drop-down lists of reasons to block said "apparent vandalism" instead of "vandalism". The latter label involves a mind-reading claim that I generally don't feel comfortable making. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions of a speedy for things "Blatantly made up one day" are often answered by saying that anything bad enough to need speedy deletion will be covered by G3. This example shows that isn't so, because of a feeling that G3/Vandalism implies an accusation of bad faith or malice and should not be applied to mere frivolity or silliness. How about expanding G3 by importing words from WP:Vandalism to read:

Pure vandalism or silliness. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism, blatant hoaxes and nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages.

That would avoid inventing a new CSD, and would make explicit what some people evidently already consider to be the case, that G3 can be used for these cases without necessarily implying bad faith. Warning messages might need modification, though the standard {{Db-vandalism-notice}} "Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages" would still be appropriate. JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
That would still carry that accusation. I would rather propose a new criterion (A10) that covers such and especially other articles that are about madeup things that are not silliness, something like this:

An article that seeks to promote a subject that is clearly made up by the article's creator and which does not indicate why its subject might be important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

That way, we can lose the bad faith accusation, limit it to a small subset of madeup things and still get rid of things people want to promote using Wikipedia that fail G3, G11 or A7. Regards SoWhy 09:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I really like that wording. I agree that we should isolate G3 to solely apparent-bad-faith creations; this A10 is a good suggestion in my view. ~ mazca talk 22:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that it wouldn't have worked for this article without some IARing, as it wasn't made up by the article's creator who self-identified as someone other than the inventor, when he said "I propose that Jon Hardcastle [the inventor] starts a facebook group to push his agenda". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a good ideaI can think of several different criteria, without using iAR. One is that reliable, test page, another is A7, judging that the articles is actually about John H. , and a third, which i would have used, is no context, because I cannot figure out what the article is actually talking about. But I say this after a g-check, because it was after all possible that this was an allusion to something real that O simply didn't know about. That's why speedy for these things is not good idea. The proof of this is that there have been a number of things prodded for "made up one day" that are deprodded and survive. Sometimes they turn out to be real childhood or drinking games--2 eds in, say, the US, will not likely recognize one from Australia.! (and similarly with drinks and foods ).DGG (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't see "clearly made up by the article's creator" working at all. Unless the article says that it is made up by the article's creator, how on earth can we ever tell that it is? How can you distinguish a load of rubbish I make up and put in an article from a load of rubbish that my brother makes up and I put in an article?

However, I'm not sure that "what is the best wording for the proposed new rule?" is the right question: I think the question should be "is there a need for a new rule at all?". I am genuinely amazed to find that several contributors to this discussion do not regard a decision to deliberately put silly and frivolous material into Wikipedia as constituting bad faith, but, granted that that is the case, so that "vandalism" is out, there still seem to me to be other usable criteria. Firstly, DGG suggests A7 could be used, and I agree. Mazca says "I may have been tempted to push the boundaries very slightly and delete this under A7", but I don't see that any boundary pushing is needed: the article did not assert significance, and the article purported to be about an an organization, as it referred to named people who were supposed to organise the religion. I also see no problem with DGG's suggestion of using A1 (no context). The article threw names of people at us with no indication of who they were, and gave no indication as to when or where or under what circumstances the pretended religion was founded: I think there was no context given. In my opinion the fundamental problem here is trying to apply rules too rigidly. Whatever rules we have, and however we phrase them, there will be cases which, if we argue about the exact details of how to interpret the rules, will not be covered by them. If each time we come across such a case we sit around and discuss how to make a new rule (or modify an existing one) to cover it, we will not reduce the tendency for such awkward cases to arise, and we will make Wikipedia more awkward and cumbersome, more difficult to use, easier for people to twist around by finding some interpretation of some rule which fits their purpose. We all know that this article was so obviously rubbish that it needed to be deleted, and I would be prepared to bet that all or almost all of us would agree that it should have been speedily deleted (As expressed so succinctly by GTBacchus: "If there isn't a speedy criterion that covers this, it's just because we haven't written it down yet". We should not forget the fifth of the five pillars: Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. If we all always remembered that, then we would not be wasting our time on this discussion: the criteria for deletion, like all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, are flexible, broad suggestions rather than exact rules, and it really is not worth arguing about whether this case exactly fits the letter of G3, A1, or A7. It clearly needs to be speedily deleted, and as long as it comes reasonably near to one or more of them, that is good enough: the article goes.

Finally, of the comments above which favour introducing a new criterion, the one with which I have most sympathy is mazca's in general it would be nice to have a criterion we can use for things that are blatantly unencyclopedic but are made in good faith through a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Yes, it would be nice. However, in practice I think it would be impossible to make it have that effect without making it so broad as to create more problems than it would solve. Can you just imagine some of the things which would be seen by some people as unencyclopedic and as based on misunderstanding of Wikipedia? JamesBWatson (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am uncomfortable with the direction this conversation is going. I do not think that this proposal for a new criterion meets requirements 1, 3 or 4 at the top of this page. In reverse order, I do not think that it is unique - a strong case could be made that it was clearly identifiable vandalism. The page did not appear to me to be a good-faith effort. I do not think that this situation occurs frequently enough to justify yet another CSD to keep straight. And I have yet to see proposed wording that will be sufficiently objective to be feasible. "Blatently unencyclopedic" is far too vague these days. I don't think we need a new case for speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
As the originator of this conversation, I agree with GTBacchus (as quoted by JBW above) that "If there isn't a speedy criterion that covers this, it's just because we haven't written it down yet", and that's what I was trying to do; but there is evidently no consensus for a new speedy or for extending the scope of an existing one. However, I must say that I am unconvinced by the arguments that any of the existing criteria apply. Taggers are constantly urged (e.g. WP:WIHSD#Why the Criteria are So Strict) to be accurate and pay close attention to the CSD definitions, and here:
  • G1 - it was not incoherent or gibberish
  • G2 - test page - the least clearly-defined criterion, but counsel for the defence could convincingly argue that this author was not "just testing" but intended to post the article
  • G3 - it was frivolous, maybe, but not malicious or posted with intent to disrupt, nor was it "misinformation"
  • A1 - explicitly applies only to "very short articles" and, though this article was pretty muddled, the context in these NFT articles is usually clear enough
  • A7 - it's a stretch to say this was about "an organization" when the new "religion" contains only its founder, and many of these articles are about a newly-invented word or game; nor was it about a person, only about his idea
JamesBWatson says don't worry, use IAR: that may be OK for an admin deciding to delete, but I don't think a tagger using IAR to justify applying speedy tags outside the definition would get much support. After reading all the above, I would still not feel able to do anything for another article like this but PROD it and hope that, before the author or one of our serial deprodders sends it on to AfD, an admin sees it and deletes it per IAR. JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Before I became an admin there were a few potential IAR situations where I went to admins who I suspected to be online or have multiple talk page stalkers and asked how best to tag something. Providing the article obviously should be speedy deleted and obviously doesn't fit the criteria, I'd recommend that route. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
"G3 - it was frivolous, maybe, but not malicious or posted with intent to disrupt, nor was it "misinformation"" Out of my curiosity, how do you know it was not posted with intent to disrupt? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, but the author didn't have a record of vandalism or any previous warnings, and my AGF assumption is that he didn't know what Wikipedia is really about, and had something he thought was funny and wanted to share with the world. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that is true: that would not really be malicious. It had seemed obvious to me that nobody could think this was appropriate, but put like that I can see someone might. JohnCD has evidently a more skillful AGFer than I am. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
John is correct. We (I don't except myself) often forget that not everyone, especially newbies, knows about even our basic rules and fundamental principles and will think "anyone can edit" means "anything can be added". Hence my wariness to label things as vandalism where it's not crystal clear. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I wish G1 were available for this article. (IMO G1 isn't available because we haven't defined it that way, but also because I'm not going to accuse someone of talking "nonsense" and "gibberish", ever.) Having a 7-day discussion sends the message that we're not really sure whether it's appropriate for WP or not and we don't mind having it hang around a while while we figure it out. That was acceptable when WP was a goofy, cool new project; it doesn't seem appropriate, to me, when we're the most commonly used information source on the net. It's not inappropriate to act respectable and require some basic respect. We don't have to be mean about it, we can leave a nice note on the creator's talk page, but we should be firm and swift. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I have traditionally modified the deletion summary for articles I've deleted as blatantly inappropriate where the contributor might have been playing around. I haven't been that active at CSD since I took up at CP, but there's Rachel joy and Bob kovachick, for instance. In the latter case, I left the standard warning, User talk:Adam Striar, which still seems appropriate to me. In the former, I kind of felt that the nonsense tag already left was good enough. :) It got the point across. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dank's point above. To leave rubbish on Wikipedia for a week is unhelpful, and really it should be possible to get rid of it earlier than this. Since there is no consensus in support of the view that such rubbish already satisfies one or more of the CSD, and it seems impossible to get an agreed form of words for a new CSD to cover it, perhaps the best way forward is to expand the use of early closure of PRODs and/or AfDs, which is, in fact, exactly what happened in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Following from the discussion on separation between deleter and tagger

The essay is drafted at User:S Marshall/Essay2.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What I don't see is useful discussion of reasonable exceptions. For instance, most days, I see promotional material that's scattered across more than one page when only one page has been tagged, because I'm checking contribs. It would make no sense to tag rather than delete the untagged pages; that forces other admins to read the pages that I've just read and come to the same conclusion, and the message (if any) it sends to the page creator is: you can beat the system if you create enough copies, because I'm not allowed to delete untagged pages.
Bottom line: various reasonable exceptions to the idea of never-delete-without-a-tag were pointed out in previous discussions, and I'm not seeing any acknowledgment that there are reasonable exceptions, so this proposal doesn't seem to be going anywhere at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Tisn't a proposal, it didn't gain enough support for that. It's a user-space essay.

I don't see that there are any cases where promotional material is directly harmful to Wikipedia, and nor do I see it as unreasonable to suggest that two pairs of eyes should be involved in such a deletion. I do realise it's inconvenient to those who're accustomed to going through Wikipedia deleting large tranches of material on their own authority, and I'm afraid that's exactly what I intended.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

When I see that people in a certain discussion are talking past each other rather than engaging each other, that's usually a sign that my continued involvement isn't going to be helpful. I didn't say anything about roaming around the wiki looking for pages to delete, and you're mischaracterizing my argument; that isn't helpful. I'm talking about looking at the contributions of creators of tagged pages and deleting multiple copies of the same promotional material. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm reluctant to go into a detailed description of all the possible exceptions, because I'll end up with an essay that's past the length people will read. I'll add a couple of sentences to see if I can close off this concern and similar ones.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a response, but I'm leery of trying to set policy mano-a-mano. Suggestions, anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, none of this is policy! It's a userspace essay. When there's been a sufficient amount of consideration, I hope it'll become a mainspace essay, but I don't imagine it'll be a guideline in the foreseeable future.

You are welcome to edit the essay, Dank, even though it's in my userspace, and so is anyone else. It's not my intention to close off discussion, though I shall certainly continue to push for what I see as a commonsense result.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support it as a guideline with a modification. I made such a modification.
"So in terms of the CSD criteria, users citing this essay hold that those coloured red in the following chart could often be deletable with only a single pair of eyes, those in yellow sometimes, and the others only under exceptional circumstances. "
I think I considerably broadened it beyond what may have been SM's first thoughts, but I think in this wording it might get general support. DGG (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I find some aspects of this discussion puzzling.
  1. Prima facie it would seem to make sense that, if particular material has been put through the process for deciding whether it should be deleted, and it has been decided that it should, then that material should be deleted, whether or not it is in the particular place where it was originally seen. Of course it is possible that someone might have an argument why this prima facie impression should be set aside, but nobody has done so. The only argument advanced ostensibly against this view is actually about "those who're accustomed to going through Wikipedia deleting large tranches of material on their own authority", which is a very different matter. We are talking here about people who wish to delete material which, as I said above, has gone through the agreed process and been found to be in need of deletion: this is not a question of deleting material on one's own authority.
  2. "I'm reluctant to go into a detailed description of all the possible exceptions". Indeed so: we can't do that. However, this statement seems to me to be being used to justify making no mention of exceptions at all. There is a middle way between not acknowledging the need for exceptions and discussing every possible exception. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Two questions, so two responses.
1) I think your remarks would be incontrovertible if admins were infallible. My position is that they're human and they make mistakes, and mistakes involving deletion are very bad mistakes. A second pair of eyes should reduce the error rate at CSD.
2) I think that's why we have human beings to interpret and implement things.

S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: I've added in DGG's suggestion, and intend to await a little further input from objectors. In the medium term it would be nice to move this to mainspace but contrary to DGG, I think it should be an essay rather than a guideline.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Criterion A7

Could someone more knowledgeable on the policy clarify what is meant by "credible claim of significance or importance" in A7? Does this mean claims of meeting one of the notability guidelines, or does any credible claim of importance go? I'm confused because an article, Lewis The First, was deleted under A7 despite stating that that the subject had "gained a great following" and had "hit songs". The rationale was "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". Is this appropriate use of A7? I'm mostly asking to clarify any misunderstandings I might have about the policy. The article probably would have been deleted anyway for not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources are the only sources that establish notability, so "significance" can't mean "importance as defined by the person who wrote this article", because we don't care about that; it has to have something to do with the likelihood that some part of the article will eventually be useful on Wikipedia, maybe on another page, maybe after sources are found. This is a much lower bar than notability, the proof of which requires reliable sources, right here, right now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Also ... we don't want to argue CSD policy in general based on what happens to band articles; they're exceptional in several ways. - Dank (push to talk) 22:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Both "great following" and "hit songs" are very subjective words that can mean anything from "20 people saw us play last night!" to "tickets sell at $200 and all 50,000 seats are sold-out months in advance". Generally, importance/significance is assumed if the claim is anything objective, like being signed to a notable label, being associated with a notable musician, having a notable member, having the music used on something notable (TV ad, show, series etc.) I compiled some indications I think are enough at User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes#Organisations but there is no general rule as to when a claim exists and/or is credible. I'm a very strict CSD admin but even I would have A7ed that article probably. Regards SoWhy 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Jafeluv (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt admins should not delete for A7. When in doubt editors should consider not using A7. If the doubt is small enough tag it. It may be denied. If so continue on with PROD or AFD. Might take longer but the delete may still happen. A7 is not clear 'cause one persons opinion differs from the next. If you think it's worth A7 tag it. If they keep getting deleted you're on the right page, If not, change what you suggest for speedy deletion. Use PROD and AFD instead.Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SoWhy and Dank. Claims that are not in some measure possible bona fide claims will not prevent speedy, if there is no other indication that the article might possibly be suitable. Unfortunately we have not so far been able to find good language for saying this precisely. DGG (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Db-hoax, Template:Db-pagemove

It seems like that on the chart on the bottom of this page, Template:Db-hoax is missing, which should be part of the G3 criterion. Also, Template:Db-pagemove appears to qualify for G6, instead of G3, according to the template itself. Ydouthink90 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The original intent of {{db-pagemove}} is to deal with vandalism caused by the movement of pages. I don't believe the change was ever really discussed before the target was changed. The two options we've got is to undo the edit to the template, or just change the table. I don't think it matters which we do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unused images proposal

I've come across many articles on AfD that are illustrated with images. I propose to expand G8 as thus:

Any image that becomes orphaned as the result of an AfD can be deleted immediately (i.e. not listing on IfD or waiting seven days) if 1) it is a fair use logo that has no plausible use other than in the original deleted article; or 2) it is a picture whose primary subject is the subject of a deleted biographical article, who is not believed to be a Wikipedia user (in this case the user might want to put it on their userpage).

Any opinions? -- King of ♠ 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why only FU-logos and not all FU-images subject to the exception defined in clause two? MBisanz talk 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason for this. Keeping them for a while might allow users to reintegrate them into other articles after the original article was deleted. An criterion that expects the closing AFD admin to predict what use some image will have does not sound like what CSD is for - strict and precise rules. After all, the deleting admin can easily (not being familiar with the topic at hand) miss potential uses. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, in the case of logos, they can only be used in the article on the organization they represent, so if the article is deleted, there is nowhere else the logo can be used, so that makes some sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy, have you paged through Category:User-created public domain images from February 2009 recently? Most the bio-images there belong to people who will never be notable or who if they do become notable will have a better picture available somewhere. MBisanz talk 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If they are public domain, they should be moved to Commons anyway, shouldn't they? King's proposal has two parts: FU images and PD images of people. My comment was primarily about those FU images but it applies to the PD images as well. AFD admins should not decide whether some image might still be useful because that's usually outside the scope of the AFD. For example, if we delete the article of the creator of a notable webcomic because they have no notability besides that, it's quite possible that the image is useful to include in the article about the webcomic. If an admin closes the AFD who has no idea whatsoever about the subject, this possibility might not occur to them. So my point is this: Having a lot of PD images laying around is indeed annoying but deletion immediately after an AFD is not the solution; instead they should be transferred to Commons or deleted individually. We could instead create a new criterion for this to handle that, something like "A public domain image of a living person which is not used in any pages for (let's say) 2 months" (something like T3 for templates) but the point is that it should not allow a "deletion on sight". Regards SoWhy 09:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If the image of the subject of the article is free, we should not speedy it. It may need to be moved to Commons (used eventually on this or other projects). It may illustrate something else, in addition to the subject of the deleted article. If somebody in the future, writes a proper article on the same topic, worthy of retention, the text can usually be re-written from scratch by anybody, but finding a new picture of a person can be very difficult, or impossible sometimes. It's generally not a easy thing, to just go out and create a new picture of somebody you don't know personally. I'm not saying all such images should be kept (here or on Commons), but they definately should not be speedied. As for the logo suggestion, it doesn't really matter either way (immediate or delayed deletion). --Rob (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree to Thivierr/Rob here... free images of people can often be used to illustrate articles about things like a webcomic they created, film that they helped write or create, book the wrote, etc. Fair use logos and other images are already speediable if they are orphaned. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

redirects from user page to article space.

I might be missing something obvious but should redirects from moving user pages to article space still exist? I'm under the impression the answer should be NO and therr should be a speedy for it. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The user himself could use WP:CSD#U1. I think anyone else would have to use WP:RFD. There must be a reason why WP:CSD#R2 only covers redirects the other way. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The user page that inspired the question was a redirect to what might be an advert. Would a promotional speedy cover this.? Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, there's nothing especially harmful about a redirect from the userspace to the articlespace. (There is significant potential harm for redirects going the other way which is the reason for the existing CSD criterion.) You could nominate to delete them at RfD but why bother? Most such redirects can be left in place without any impact. In fact, leaving the redirect intact can sometimes be helpful in sorting out the edit history if the page becomes controversial.
    Of course, if the moved page is an inappropriate advertisement and is deleted, the redirect can be purged under old R1, now G8. But that only kicks in after the target is deleted. Rossami (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you JohnCD and Rossami. I shall leave it as it is. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, there are downsides. I've seen people mistakenly leave comments meant for a user on an article talk page because either the user page or the user user talk page redirected them. I'm not suggesting it should be covered by a CSD criteria as I don't believe that's the proper approach in those cases, but the statement that "there's nothing especially harmful" isn't quite correct. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting. If the article were drafted on the user's top page or directly on his/her Talk page, I could see that being a problem. I had assumed that the page would always be a sub-page within the userspace. Shows what I get for assuming... A redirect in those cases would be entirely appropriate to clean up, though I'd think by reversion or blanking rather than deletion. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The page that inspired this question was the users top page. I'm guessing that leaving a message for the user and maybe blanking the user page is the way to go. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
          • After failing to find a speedy criterion for this, my solution in the past has been the blank-and-a-polite-note routine. Usually it's been from a page move -- the user made the article on his/her user page (not a sub page) and then moved it to mainspace. I've yet to see a user revert my blanking.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gavelclub

A lively discussion that could use more voices. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD ammendement

I noticed that there is no CSD that applies to articles that are complete BS, or neologisms, or "The cool idea my friends and I came up with at the bar". Any chance one can be added so that these obviously useless pages needn't clog up afd? -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's often consensus that a criteria for that kind of thing would be useful, but nobody's been able as yet to come up with any kind of wording that's non-controversial and sufficiently precise for a speedy criterion. "Complete BS" is covered under G3 by {{db-hoax}}, but the other two are rather too subjective for people to agree on where to draw the line. ~ mazca talk 23:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I proposed some time ago (with little comment) the following criterion that covers a blend of WP:NFT material that would also rope in neo/proto-logisms:

An article on a thing (word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy, religion, etc.), which indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know, and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

I think its fairly objective, uncontestable, covers material that we see with some frequency, and is nonredundant with any existing criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

if it's really garbage, most of us would delete it as test page or the like--on the grounds that it's not someone actually trying to write a real article, but just play with the system. I'm one of the relatively people who looks at new Prods, which is where they now usually end up, and I do not see all that much of this that would really fit the definition--maybe one or two a day. DGG (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this rewording based on Wikipedia:MADEUP might do:

An article whose subject matter appears to have been created by the author or an acquaintance thereof, with no encyclopedic merit, no notability, and which fails to meet any of the other criteria for inclusion.
This sums it up in a pretty general way. Since speedy deletion is an admin/bureaucrat task, it just needs to be known to those groups that this is for articles that are truly "out there" with no hopes of ever meriting an article on wikipedia (Barring some unforeseen explosion in its popularity, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball) -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly, most recently above in the section Religion against sea swimmers. I would be reasonably happy with Floydian's suggested wording, but whether general consensus would be is another matter: judging from history, perhaps not. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(@DGG) I'm not saying these are definitely frequent enough for a new criterion, but there are certainly more than 1 or 2 a day. I see 1 or 2 each time I spend some time looking at CAT:CSD, and that's only some limited portion of a day and I'm certainly not the only patroller. So we can safely assume there quite a few more speedied to add to prods. Add to that those taken to AfD (see, for example, this gem from yesterday where people actually complain that there is no speedy criterion to invoke) and I would be surprised if there was less than 15 a day. By the way, I would never delete these as test pages because I can't read people's minds and I think in most cases they are not a test page. I use G2 for pages that appear to be actual tests and hate the practice of users deleting pages under criterion that don't fit. If we are speedy deleting pages that fit no criterion we should be invoking IAR, explicitly, always coupling that with an explanation in the deletion summary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Can this criterion be expressed objectively? Stifle (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As a new page patroller, I generally run into two or three of these per day. I spend an inordinate amount of time Prodding these or trying to find a CSD criteria into which to fit them (which almost always fails). Most of them are blatant, and I usually include at least WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:NFT in the PROD explanation. Perhaps some kind of temporal criteria could be considered as well since at least some of these entries include wording indicating that they were made up that day or within the last week. Obviously, this has no chance to establish any kind of verifiability or [[WP:N|notability]. Unfortunately, since PROD tags can be removed by anyone for any reason, the original editor or a drive-by IP will sometimes remove the PROD tag requiring an AFD creation. It may be my imagination, but the AFD pages seem to be more crowded recently than I'm used to seeing. I think at least part of that is caused by not having a "good" way to get rid of these entries which are never going to survive AFD but can't be tagged with a valid CSD criteria. Further, I have seen several instances of these entries being tagged with CSD tags that do not and should not apply. The entries are then deleted, but I don't think this is the ideal solution. Wperdue (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
  • I don't really understand why it's so urgent to delete these articles that our existing mechanisms will not suffice.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
How much time do you spend patrolling new pages? If it isn't much, then I can understand why you ask. It's not the deletion that's an issue as they will almost always be deleted eventually. The problem is the amount of time and effort it takes to patrol some of this material. Wperdue (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
I've fought vandalism from time to time when the mood took me, and I do understand the needs of recent changes patrollers. I think those needs have to be balanced against WP:BITE, because I think CSD is an extremely bite-y process. I'm anxious to ensure that CSD does not become the default deletion mechanism of Wikipedia to any greater extent than is already the case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this discussion shows no more sign of heading towards a consensus than other discussions on the same or almost the same topic. However, is there any chance of a consensus for things which are self-avowedly WP:MADEUP? I take the quote "self-avowedly WP:MADEUP " from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_The_Googlies: that article was deleted with the comment "None of the criteria for speedy deletion quite apply, but with such a strong and obvious consensus WP:SNOW very much does". I am sure many of us have seen articles which actually say words to the effect of "my friend and I have just made this up" being debated on AfD, which is a total waste of time as they are blatant snowballs. Surely, surely, when an article's author actually admits it is made up it can be summarily deleted, without wasting everyone's time. No? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that would need to be covered under CSD, but I'm not sure we need a separate rule. If the article actually said it was made up, then wouldn't we have a G3?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If we have an article that says something along the lines of "Fludge is a word for when someone accidentally drops their mobile phone in the toilet. It was coined by Arnold Jubbles on the 14th June 2009." It's not blatant misinformation - in fact, among Arnold's friends I'm sure it's a real concept. But it certainly falls under WP:MADEUP and I'd argue should be speediable because it basically admits as much - but it would be pushing it to call it "misinformation" to allow a G3. Articles like that, which generally describe a blatant neologism or a game, as well as giving the strong impression they were invented recently by the page creator, are surprisingly common. ~ mazca talk 14:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. In that case I would support an addition to G3 to say it also includes articles which explicitly say they are made up.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While I believe in WP:IAR, I feel obligated to point out that the policy page lists as it's first non-criteria for CSD: "Reasons based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not: "a dictionary", "an indiscriminate collection of information", "a crystal ball", etc." So we would be throwing that concept out if we modified an existing CSD to include such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think what this really shows is that we want to have the articles perfectly tagged in order to delete them. Does it really matter which tag is on an article? Isn't the admin that comes along and examines the CSD responsible for checking the revision history, talk page, and reading the article to make sure it qualifies? Include made up as part of test pages, since its generally the same sort of pages (Random nonsense really) that get nominated for both. The discretion will still lie upon the admin. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It does matter what CSD is on a page. How much it matters depends on how far off the tag is, and who the admin who sees it is. Opinions seem to vary on this, some admins are unwilling to IAR if the tag doesn't fit even a little bit. In any event, since we would be changing not only an individual criteria, but one of the underlying policies that determine the criteria, there will probably be a lot of flak if we don't open this discussion up beyond this talk page, using either WP:RFC or listing on WP:CENT. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
CSD tagging seems to be a bigger problem in the eyes of some admins. I have seen RfA debates include arguments such as "X editor marked Y page as A7 when it should have been A11". I also see this debate on some editors' talk pages that I watch. For other admins, if the page should have been deleted under some criteria then they don't seem to care which CSD tag was used. I have run into this recently when I thought a page was promotional and I was informed on my talk page of a CSD reason change because the deleting admin thought it was a case of no notability being asserted. I would like to see more specifics added to the CSD criteria to allow them to be used for situations such as blatant[[[WP:NFT]] situations. That way it doesn't come back to bite the patroller in the future because they used the wrong tag. I don't believe this will lead to more pages being deleted, just more correct usage of the CSD tagging. Wperdue (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

A10 or a small expansion of A3

I would like to propose either a new criterior, A10, or an extension of A3 to allow very short articles that do nothing but define their title to qualify. For example, Tork currently has the content "Tork is a racing video game". This has context and so isn't A1 speediable, and it isn't just a rephrasing of the title so it doesn't qualify under A3. However it doesn't give any useful information to help others find any sources for it. Adding any of "made by Company X", "released in 1999", "that won an award", "for the Sega Megadrive", etc, would move it out of this category as it gives others something to work with to see if it is notable or not.

Also covered would be neologism entries that offer nothing but a definition - "Spoinkle is a word that means glittery spaghetti", "A verk is a squeaky video". Ones that offered more, e.g. history, who created it, why it might be notable, anything that is or might possibly be something other than a definition of the article title, would not qualify.

My intention is to catch those articles that meet the spirit of A1 and A3 but meet the letter of neither. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A danger is that this could lead to speedy deletion of good faith articles under construction.

For example, personally, I translate things from other Wikipedias. They're mostly biographies. A lot of the time, I'll create the page and it'll say something like "Catherine Brechignac is a French physicist", and then it'll stay like that while I translate the next few paragraphs (which might be a little while, if I've got to look technical words up in a foreign-language dictionary).

Now, personally, I don't tend to have problems with CSD patrollers doing that, but only because I got a helpful person at the templates page to create {{beingtranslated}} for me which keeps them away. For a newer editor, speedy deletion of good faith articles under construction can be a real problem.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well all that would be needed to avoid deletion under this criterion in those cases is to translate another fact or two before you save your first edit, e.g. "Catherine Brechignac is a French physicist born in 1946", because that gives something more than a definition of the title - it's a very stubby biography, although this wouldn't exempt it from the existing A7 for not asserting notability. In another example, don't just translate "The Atlantique 7 is a car", but "The Atlantique 7 is a French car made by the Atlantique corporation" Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be better if the genuine content-creators didn't have to work around the CSD taggers. It should be the other way around.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, but do you have any figures on how often this occurs? In my experience it's not that often, but I admit I might've just been (un)lucky. lifebaka++ 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Talking to me or Thryduulf? Cos it only happened to me once before I got the template made. :P—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Talking to Thryduulf. Sorry if I caused any confusion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have actual statistics, but my gut feeling is thatthere are typically 1-2 per day on average among the AFDs I look at (which isn't all of them). I haven't got any idea how many are prodded. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The simple thing to do would be to flag them for speedy deletion but at the same time leave a templated message for the article creator that is customized for this particular situation, saying that there was not enough there to judge the notability of the subject or suitability of the article, apologizing in advance in case they were planning to come back to it, say that they're welcome to recreate it if they intend to add more material, and suggesting that they attach an inuse tag when they make their first save to signal that they're working on it. Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
1-2 per day isn't nearly enough to meet the frequency requirement (#3 at the top of the page) for a new CSD case. I'd think PROD would be sufficient for this situation. That also gives the creator a grace period to add more detail. Rossami (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
most of the advice given on & off wiki tells people to start with a topic sentence or a definition. After doing that, it may take a little while to compose the next sentence. If we delete on this reason alone, we'll lose the articles. If on the other hand nobody has worked on something like this for a while, then a prod will go through very easily. So we're covered. The safest thing to do is not to delete anything except vandalism and copyvio the first 15 or 20 minutes after it's written, but we'd really need some sort of automated way of keeping track easily. Everyone who patrols RC or speedy is rightly concerned that things not noticed the first time will never be noticed later, and will sit on Wikipedia for years --or forever. It's a difficult balance, & at the moment it relies on everyone being very careful about what they do or do not tag or delete. That's not likely. DGG (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's my view. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a problem without an obvious solution - ten different new-page patrollers can see a new one-sentence article, decide it's a work in progress, and leave it for a little while. But if the eleventh one comes along and decides it needs to go, then they have no idea that ten other people disagree with them. ~ mazca talk 08:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
What I do in cases like this is mark it as patrolled and put an {{underconstruction}} tag on it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, rewriting my comment after looking more closely at the original post. I propose the following amendment to A1 to deal with cases like this:
No context. Articles lacking sufficient context to locate sources to expand the article.
A case like "Tork is a racing video game" would fall under this, since more information is needed to locate sources on the game. Another example would be "Billy is a panda that lives in a zoo." Dcoetzee 00:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what my proposal is trying to catch. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how that would work. Give me the name of anything and what it is and sources are easily found (if the sources exist). If tork is a video game with any sort of web presence, what would be hard about locating sources for it? Google search: tork "video game" racing would find sources for expansion. Even "billy" might be easily found if he is a famous panda.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with DGG and Fuhgettaboutit. If I see articles like that, I usually do a quick Google. If that doesn't produce results, I go back and add a PROD. Of course half the time some over-eager user has tried to shoehorn it into an existing CSD in the meantime... If an article has any reasonable claim of notability, or at least is not obvious vandalism, a good faith attempt to locate sources should be made before tagging for deletion. I used to be one of those guys actually, but then I saw that some articles I thought should be speedied were re-created an hour later with proper sources easily found in a web search. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

7-day limit on non-free image reductions

It looks like this discussion got buried under the other discussions and was archived. Is there any opposition to removing the 7-day limit for resized non-free images? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't have any objection to it, but I think it should be raised at WT:NFC rather than here. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned it there. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As somebody who has taken an image rescaling to DRV and won, yes it is possible for them to be controversial, and even inappropriate.
There are a number of grounds why sometimes larger than usual nonfree images can be justified -- for example, if relevant detail can no longer be clearly seen; or if the image is seriously degraded so that it is no longer representative (this can happen with eg screenshots of 8-bit microcomputer low-colour-depth games). Such cases involve judgment calls, and where judgment calls are involved it's not a bad thing to have an appeal period, when people can query the decision and third parties can still see both images. Jheald (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The admin that deletes the revisions is capable of reviewing the image and ensuring that details can still be seen or if a larger size is warranted. If it's still too large, the admin can re-tag it to be reduced again, or if its too small (to see necessary details), then it can be reverted back to an earlier revision and reduced again. In extreme cases, an admin can simply undelete the revision if there are any issues with the current revision. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Admins can make mistakes; or get obsessed to see how quickly they can clear a "backlog"; or simply come to a different value judgment. Better, I think, to let the dust settle for a week; see whether anyone minds; and then do the deleting. Jheald (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure they can make mistakes, but for the vast majority of images, there are likely not going to be any errors. Removing the limit would allow administrators to help clear the backlog when they are available instead of waiting for it to pile up and actually become a backlog. For example, right now there are over 90 images waiting to have old revisions deleted. I don't see why there should be a limit for deleting revisions when a revision, if necessary, can be undeleted rather quickly. Freeing up the list will allow admins to address the backlog before it starts and allow them and other admins to focus on the other backlogs or other admin-related tasks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I still think it's only reasonable to give people a chance to react first to changes. Better a little inconvenience, than making people feel they have been treated as peasants.
"Images can be undeleted rather quickly". Maybe. I had to take one all the way to DRV. Non-admins need to be able to agree that what has been done is just too. If you come on like judge, jury and executioner all in one they are effectively closed out from the process completely - under what you're proposing they don't even get to see the old image alongside the new to compare, still less get any reflection time. Jheald (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I could see a seven-day limit being important for something such as an image lacking a copyright or issues with including a non-free image in an article or not. It seems to me that this process is uncontroversial, and doesn't warrant seven days for uploaders to stop by and take a look at the revision. It's likely that the image has been tagged for anywhere for several days to several months before it is reduced in size (take a look at the 10,000+ images awaiting size-reduction). If the author is worried about the size of the image, they usually have a long lead time where they can upload the image themselves. Admins have been given tools since they were trusted by other users to handle basic housekeeping such as this. Common sense should prevent any admin from deleting a non-free image revision that renders it useless when viewed in an article. The vast majority of images I run across are movie posters, screenshots, and album covers. They are usually included in infoboxes that render them in a small size. The smaller revisions that replace the old ones are sometimes the size of those included in the infobox or slightly bigger. If there are any errors, checking the article history will show the admin who removed the tag after deleting the revision, and the user can contact the admin to fix any errors. If there are concerns with admins not taking the proper precautions, then perhaps more details can be included in the instructions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Movie posters are a classic example where text can become unreadable at smaller sizes, so it can make sense to have an image which is more than "the size of those included in the infobox or slightly bigger".
The fact that you present this as "basic housekeeping", and that the only grounds for concern you can see is that the image should not be "useless when viewed in an article" also sets alarm bells ringing for me.
When it comes to admin actions, it is important for other users to be able to judge the action, and to be able to see the evidence they need, to be able to contest it. It is simple fairness; but not possible if the image is resized and removed all in one. Jheald (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I originally proposed this, and still support removing the requirement. Jheald, have there been any other cases where an image rescaling has been controversial enough to be taken to DRV? Admins can use their own judgment, virtually all of these are completely uncontroversial (e.g., the infobox images that Nehrams2020 mentioned), and the pages are already categorized into Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request; if someone disputes the resizing, why can't they do it before the image is actually resized? Besides, in most cases admins should be reasonable to reconsider an undeletion request without going through the drama of DRV... personally, DRV would only be needed in the most exceptional of circumstances now with this form of deletion. My final question, and probably the most important of these, is this: How many times has the image's waiting for seven days caused someone to remove the tag before deletion? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have there been other cases? Have other people reverted within the seven days? I don't know, but I think so. It has certainly been brought to WT:NFC a couple of times by people aggrieved about particular instances.
Why don't people dispute the resizing beforehand? I don't know; my guess is that the images may not be on their watchlist, or they don't react to tags; but seeing the actual change galvanises them into action. (Just as happens when people add tags to text). Also, they may agree that some resizing is needed, but dispute how much has actually been applied. It is hard to set out that case, if you can no longer see the image in question.
Finally, per WP:BRD, I think it works a lot better for people to be able to revert a change they don't agree with, and trigger a discussion; rather than being presented with a fait accompli executed by an insider who holds all the cards. I think the former way is a lot better for the outsider - and in the long run, it tends to be a lot better for the insider, too. Jheald (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, are there any other opinions on either side? There is currently only three people with thoughts on keeping/removing the limit. It would be beneficial to hear a few others' thoughts before this gets buried again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Since there's been some disagreement above on whether it's ever appropriate to do an IAR speedy, I'll throw Iran issues out as a candidate. Would you speedy this? Under what criteria? Is IAR appropriate?

Personally, I'm torn. I'm not a fan of people having a free pass on a soapbox for 7 days. But one person's soapbox is another person's insightful critique. I'm also leery of slippery slopes.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As the tagging editor, I had no choice under the current policy. Believe me, if I could have found a CSD tag that fit, I would have used it. This is why I'm lobbying for an expansion. As a non-admin, it sometimes feels like you have one hand tied behind your back when patrolling new pages. Wperdue (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
As an admin, I feel the same way. The vandals/soapboxers/bored will always find a way around whatever rules are in place. And if you delete their stuff (even in process), they'll run to AN screaming "admin abuse!" (The ones that crack me up are the ones who chew me up one side and down the other for deleting their page when all I did was add a deletion sorting to the AfD debate.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One can discuss the applicability of the following criteria:

  • WP:CSD#G10 (Disparaging to Iran)
  • WP:CSD#A1 (Which issues, what issues, hard to tell specifics from short stream-of-consciousness sentence)
  • WP:CSD#A3 (Chat-like comments)

-- Avi (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to argue that any of these criteria apply.
  • WP:CSD#G10 The comments are not disparaging to Iran unless you count the government of Iran as all of Iran.
  • WP:CSD#A1 The context is clear. I don't think you could argue that a person could read that and not understand what is being talked about.
  • WP:CSD#A3 Chat implies either a two-way conversation or an attempt to communicate with someone that is trying elicit a response.
Now it could be tagged with any of these, but it would be another case of improper tagging in my opinion. In case I haven't explicitly stated it in the previous threads, I'm a big fan of using the rules as written unless, of course, I have to go to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Wperdue (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
G1 (under which it was deleted) did not apply, and I would !vote overturn at DRV because of this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, we agree on something! :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You make it sound like we never agree! But I've agreed with you before.

It was a Tuesday. ;)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed, G1 didn't apply to that article. But if the PROD really had expired then there's no point in restoring it, although the admin should be told not to misuse G1 (which a large number of admins do, unfortunately). Does anyone know when the PROD was set to expire? Also, the admin should be "talked to" before requesting DR - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Article was created at 17:21 UT today, prod added at 17:28, article deleted at 19:17, less than 2 hours after prod added.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agreed that WP:CSD#G1 does not apply. I think a stream of consciousness essay may fall under WP:CSD#A3, but it's moot if the prod expired. -- Avi (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I put the PROD tag on it about two hours ago. I hope that helps. Wperdue (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Take a look at this: How to dominate at ludo. It's snowing right now at AfD. We should definitely find a clear way to write a CSD for junk like this or Religion against sea swimmers (see above). -- King of ♠ 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why PROD could have been used there (not that it matters that it wasn't). While there's no doubt that the page shouldn't be here, there's no real need to take care of it quickly either. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Twice in recent memory, I have used {{db-reason}} for absolutely obvious cases that nonetheless did not fit the established criteria, and both pages were deleted based on the rationale I provided. Call me old fashioned, but Twinkle is the only automated tool I use as it still requires human thought for each edit, so just tagging it manually and providing an explanation of my own doesn't strike me as a terribly difficult way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"But one person's soapbox is another person's insightful critique. I'm also leery of slippery slopes.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)"

I think out-of-process deletions are more damaging to wikipedia's reputation with new editors than is the damage of hosting soapboxing in an XfD discussion. If the soapboxing is excessive and blatant, or otherwise too great a problem, it can be removed or hidden. That said, I would't object to IAR out-of-process deletions as long as they are tagged as such and are done infrequently. I curious as to what you mean by "slipper slope" here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess he means that the reason we disallow speedy deletion of essays and soapboxes is that admins cannot possible judge alone whether such content is really deletion-worthy or whether it might contain useful information. If we were to say "IAR is fine here", we open the door to delete almost anything as "unencyclopedic", although we have clear policy that such essays and other things cannot be speedy deleted (see WP:NOTCSD). So back on the topic, I, too, think that this was inappropriate material but it was also not deleted correctly. If we make a policy that "X is not a reason for speedy deletion" then you cannot argue that deleting X under IAR is really for the best of the project. Because it will cause such discussions as this one which is never a good thing, i.e. wasting people's time just because one admin could not wait for the prod to expire. IAR is an important part of Wikipedia, it's a mechanism to address situations that the policy makers did not think of and where the policy or guideline cannot possibly be applied for a good result. But imho it's not a mechanism to handle situations that the policy makers did think of and explicitly decided to handle otherwise. Regards SoWhy 09:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
SoWhy got it mostly right. The slippery slope I'm referring to has to do with where the line is on obvious soapboxing. Ignoring for a minute that you could refactor the page or delete it as an attack, if the Iran issues article said "Iran has horrible problems that the government will never be able to fix because they're all pinheads.", I wouldn't have much of a problem saying that article isn't at all productive and has to go. But what happens when the article is expanded to say (in my reading) essentially the same thing but phrased much more neutrally and sourced to reliable sources? Clearly that's not an uncontroversial deletion candidate. The slippery slope is on the path between those two versions, where the article may be not really neutral but closer, where the article is sourced but the independence and reliability of those sources isn't obvious. We've all run across these types of articles, and they are always defended by the creator as The Truth. I certainly wouldn't speedy (and probably not prod) them myself, if only because it's important to me that the creator see there is a conspiracy against them consensus to do so. But that line where speedy is okay will be broad and vague, and both editors and admins alike will tend to push it. Not a situation I'd want to encourage.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


I think the speedy deletions community (the fact that it is a community surprised me when I learned of it) may be entering an era of respectability. It has now been a year since the last time I saw an article speedily deleted on the grounds that it was about mathematics. That happened daily for about six weeks in February and March of 2008, and the number of such incidents in 2007 was fairly large (In April 2007, Jeffrey Adams (mathematician) was speedied on the ostensible grounds of no assertion of notability even though it explicitly said he led the E8 project, and linked to the article about it. That should be enough even if the New York Times hadn't devoted a full page-and-a-half to the project the previous month.)

I always thought it ought to be possible to run speedy deletions in a respectable manner rather than the way it was being done, where most people first found out that speedy exists from incidents like those. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Nice to see you again Michael, it's been a while. As a member of the "CSD community" I would say that the reason for this is that there has been a lot of talk here about how to use csd properly, and there has been more of a focus on informing and educating users when they are making incorrect csd taggings. Thanks for noticing, it's always good to see some words of encouragement around here! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As for the speedy deletion of articles about mathematics, note that for some of us math courses are the lifelong subject matter of nightmares (It's time for the final, and you haven't been to class all term!), and that "calculus" is an accretion that dentists have to remove from teeth with specialized sharp instruments. Edison (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Michael: What a rosy picture... they are just busy elsewhere, some on the four-letter-arbcom-grinder, others just enjoying the summer... are there any suggestions why Jeffrey Adams (mathematician) should be saved from A7 apart from the cryptic E8? Does it really "indicate why its subject is important or significant" to an average reader? NVO (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You mean except from the book that covers it, the aforementioned NY Times article (and a bunch of others) and for leading a notable project? Regards SoWhy 09:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. Existing stub, sourced to a personal website and a "genealogy project", does not assert notability - excluding, of course, to mathematicians well-versed in that specific field of science. Unfortunately I'm not the one qualified to improve the article - all I can do is insert inline refs to the press bits that you quoted - real improvement should come from math professionals. If they won't then who will? NVO (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The mention of E8 is an assertion of notability, and although it may be cryptic to lay readers, nonetheless if it's linked to, then its cryptic nature is only a deficiency in the way the article is written, calling for an improvement. That's never grounds for speedy deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD A1 template

The A1 template reads "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article", but the words "very short" appear only in the template and not in the criterion. And, amazingly, some editors manage to write quite long articles that lack enough context to be deleted citing A1. I haven't seen an A1 speedy delete being denied because the article wasn't "very short" but it seems inevitable. Hairhorn (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the criterion says "This applies only to very short articles". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, going blind today. But there are still some amazing contributions that manage to be both long and context-free. Hairhorn (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess the difference is that a long piece of context-free writing has the potential to be made useful by the addition of a brief piece of context, so warrants more detailed examination - while a very short piece of writing with no context is essentially just a sentence that won't be missed by anyone. ~ mazca talk 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Add noindex tag to CSD G10 template?

What would people think of including the NOINDEX template in the CSD G10 template? That would make attack pages not be at risk of being indexed by google (and possibly included in a google cache) between when they've been marked and when an admin gets around to deleting them. I'm not in favor of adding this to the other CSD templates but given the serious nature of G10 material it seems like it might make sense in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the __NOINDEX__ magic word has its functionality turned off in the mainspace, so it wouldn't actually do anything. Of course, if I am mistaken, it should be added. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 35#Noindexing in CSD tags and other deletion templates where the technical barrier was explained (to me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, {{db-g10}} has been changed to remind taggers to blank the content of the page and tools like Huggle and Twinkle do it automatically now, so there hopefully is not much more need for such changes. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Is there someway we can get it to blank the content automatically? I've seen clever vandalism that seems to make content not visible simply by editing templates. Is there anything similar doable? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You can use <!--hidden text here, but <div id="copyvio" style="display:none;"> is what the copyvio template uses (I don't think the div id is important, as it still blanks the text after it even if you use <div id="attack" style="display:none;">, although I'm not sure what the div id actually is?). I don't have a problem with using this on {{Db-g10}}, although that would mean getting rid of the "please blank" notice, and possible replacing it with {{courtesy-blanked}}. I support this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Can someone who knows the template code better comment on this? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It already hides the content with such CSS-tricks but the problem is that it does not remove the text from the page, just hides it from view. There is no way to remove the text of a page by using a template, that has to be done manually. Hence the template will show "please blank the page" when only placed without removing the content. Regards SoWhy 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I must have remembered correctly. It was added on 6 May 2009 but removed afterwards by Amalthea (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'll invite him here to explain why, he is pretty clueful in these things. Regards SoWhy 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What SoWhy said: To the best of my knowledge there is no template trickery that removes page content of a tagged page from the output, it must be removed/commented out in the actual page. The warning about courtesy blanking (which is slightly broken until bug 18703 is fixed) was added following this discussion from June where we came to same conclusion.
The only thing that could be done from within {{db-g10}} is hiding the content from viewing on-site, as proposed above. Doing that would do more harm than good, IMO, since it only gives the appearance of removing the attack and makes it appear less urgent, but if google comes along it will still index the supposedly hidden text, and a search for the topic will still plainly show the attack.
Oh, and just to confirm once more, yes, main space indexing can't be changed by __INDEX__/__NOINDEX__, per the current configuration settings (Search for wgExemptFromUserRobotsControl). Changing that would need to go through bugzilla:. And as others have said, __NOINDEX__ is no Wunderwaffe to prevent propagation of an attack page in the first place. It will only have an effect if it's added before search engines index it, once it's indexed it's rather unlikely that they revisit it between tagging and deletion.
(And what are the chances that when I tried to test google indexing with a random 12h old new article, it was actually an attack page? Sigh.) Amalthea 11:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ya' know, taking a look at it, it looks like {{db-g10}} already has {{noindex}} in it anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I don't see it anywhere in the code. {{Db-meta |bot={{{bot|}}} |criterion=G10 |1=, as it serves no purpose but to [[Wikipedia:Attack page|disparage or threaten its subject]] or some other entity |2=This includes [[Wikipedia:No legal threats|legal threats]]. This also includes an [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|article about a living person]] that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral]] version in the history to revert to |anote=, and <span style="color:red; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold;">do not quote any disparaging content in the deletion log entry</span>. |temp=attack |summary=[[WP:ATP|Attack page]] or negative unsourced [[WP:BLP|BLP]] }}{{ #if:{{{demo|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}| | {{noindex}}{{{category|[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]][[Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion]]}}}{{ #ifexpr:{{formatnum:{{PAGESIZE:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|R}}>31 | {{ambox|type=delete|text=<big>{{red|Please [[Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking|blank this page]] so that it only contains the deletion template.}}</big>}} }} }}<noinclude> {{pp-semi-template|small=yes}} {{db doc|G10}} </noinclude> JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I've highlighted it above (apologies for editing your post). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Username softblocks

These conversations are about usernames rather than CSD, but some people watchlist this page and not WP:U who might want to know, so ... you might want to look at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Wikipedia:Miscellany for_deletion.2FUser:Gavelclub and Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#A tweak. There are two conversations going on at the same time; one is about tweaking uw-ublock to be a little shorter and more neutral, the other is about coming up with a short, specific, and neutrally-worded userwarning (currently stored at Template:Uw-shortublock) for those cases where there are no significant non-deleted edits (so that WP:CHU isn't a useful option). - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any CSD category for a newly made up drinking game?

See Treirut. It is a drinking game made up 3 days ago. What category might apply? It is not a "person" or "web content". It is not an incoherent article, probably not a hoax and does not appear to be utter nonsense or a test page. Edison (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, see WP:NOTCSD. Adding a prod is the right thing to do in this case. And the page should (eventually) get deleted. The reason there isn't on, is because WP:MADEUP (which would be the deleting argument) is part of WP:NOT. And WP:NOTCSD states that reasons for deleting from WP:NOT are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the current problem as discussed in the CSD amendment section above. As it stands, a PROD tag on the entry with WP:NFT, WP:NEO, WP:N, etc. is the only correct solution given the policy. Then you have to hope that someone doesn't delete it forcing you to create an AfD entry and waste a bunch of time. Wperdue (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
This seems like too ouch time and effort is required to create something someone makes up. If I write an article about a silly game I just made up while sitting here editing Wikipedia, and it is not incoherent and not a hoax, it should not take AFD listing to remove it. The time and effort to remove something unencyclopedic should not be orders of magnitude greater than the time and effort to create it. The creator can remove a Prod tag as fast as I can place it. Edison (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This article was deleted by User:Sasquatch as an A7, which seems to be inapplicable, since the game was not "a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content." Am I reading the criterion correctly? Are we supposed to just use any handy criterion to delete unencyclopedic articles, rather than adding appropriate criteria for "things made up?"Edison (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned, this is the debate going on above about expanding A7 to include things that are obviously made up and non-notable. My understanding is that PROD is currently the only acceptable option under policy as no A7 criteria would apply to this entry. However, my experience has been that some editors will tag and some admins will remove the entry under A7 even if it doesn't directly apply. I think this falls under WP:IAR. Wperdue (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
That implies should be a criterion that says "Ignore all rules and delete articles we don't like." I would rather have one to speedy article about nonnotable madeup things. Edison (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. What I was saying is that it is my opinion that "some" people are using IAR to delete these entries. I would rather see an expansion of A7 criteria as long as it isn't used as a club to beat new users into submission. Wperdue (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
CSDs are a beginner's tool. An experienced admin can (and most do) delete things for running afoul of WP:NFT. I leave it as an exercise to the process wonks to figure out how to justify this deletion using the explicit criteria for speedies. Friday (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your comment about CSD being a "beginner's tool"? For a non-admin, what would be your suggestion for the people tagging the entries? Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
If it can reasonably fit into a CSD, use it. If it doesn't, but it's obviously speedy material, just tag it in plain-old English explaining why it should be speedied. Friday (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the number for the criterion which allows "plain English reason" speedy? It is insulting to other editors to say "CSD's are a beginner's tool." Many of us who are not beginners try to use them as they are written. Friday, in the past I had the impression you believed more in the rule of law in Wikipedia. An experienced admin should not just assume that he can ignore any rules that are inconvenient. It should not take that much wordsmithing to put into one of the existing criterion a basis for deletions you think are obviously justified, or to add a criterion. People write articles about something that would never survive AFD, and those !voting to delete say "Why isn't there a criterion to allow this to be speedied so AFD can be used for articles which require more input and judgment?" It is a waste of the time of those at AFD to make them delete newly made up things, and I cannot agree with mischaracterization so that an inapplicable criterion is applied. Edison (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Isn't the CSD wording specific to prevent editors from making up their own criteria? I have seen cases where editors substituted their own wording in the CSD tag and were reprimanded for it. I'm just trying to understand the policy and abide by it. If I'm doing something wrong after at least a thousand CSD taggings, I'd like to know about it. Thanks. Wperdue (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
When I was a new admin, I deleted something that wasn't notable but that didn't fit into one of the things mentioned for G7. I got a message on my talk page making sure I knew that it was incorrect and to not to delete what isn't directly stated on the CSD page. I haven't done it since. hmwithτ 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion but I haven't actually checked all the changes to CSD in a bit (i.e. I'm a big rusty here). PROD is probably the right way to go in this but I still hold there are cases where IAR and common sense apply. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have tagged it a CSD and just written an explanation that it is 100% against WP:NOT and deleted under that rationale. That being said, does the community still feel a stringent need to restore the page and make it go through PROD? Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that we can speedily delete under WP:NOT and WP:IAR, so there is not need to add a suitable criterion for deleting this sort of article? I oppose the practice of admins making up rules as they go. Edison (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that there is a consensus that WP:IAR speedies are okay, but they should be rare cases. That's one reason why when someone proposes a new speedy criterion, the first question is "how often does this happen"? If the answer is "rarely", then IAR should cover it, otherwise a new criterion might be needed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is not and never has been consensus that WP:NOT and WP:IAR are sufficient to speedily-delete anything that one admin feels like deleting. Many things qualify under WP:NOT which nevertheless require more investigation than a single set of eyes can provide. And while we'd all like to believe that common sense is enough, common sense can be a remarkably scarce commodity at times. XfD is imperfect but it handles these cases reasonably well. Let the process work.
Having said all that, in my experience, a review of the creator's contribution history is often enough to resolve the issue. People creating inappropriate pages often have a history of vandalizing other pages. When viewed in context of the other edits, speedy-deletion under criterion G3 may be entirely appropriate. No new criterion or expansion of existing criterion is necessary. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"There is not and never has been consensus that WP:NOT and WP:IAR are sufficient to speedily-delete anything that one admin feels like deleting." I thought that the whole point of IAR was precisely that it is sufficient grounds to do anything which is in the interests of Wikipedia. Over the last few years there has been an increasing tendency to try to regulate Wikipedia with (a) more rules and (b) more restricted interpretations of those rules. In the early days of Wikipedia there was a much more "follow the spirit of the rules" atmosphere. IAR is uncomfortable for Wikipedians who follow the newer tendency, and so they try to hem it in with restrictions on its use, indeed to treat it as a rule itself, and discuss supposed limitations on the circumstances in which it may be applied. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm having a lot of trouble envisaging circumstances in which I would see a speedy deletion on IAR grounds as acceptable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
What about something like the article I cited above, if the creator has no history of vandalism, and thinks that a ballgame played at their dorm, or their new drinking game should have an article? Just go ahead and bite them by deleting their article as G3 vandalism? Seems to run against WP:BITE. We should reword A7 to include newly made up things by the creator or their friends, or add another category for deletion. Better than biting newcomers, and better than admin IAR anarchy. Edison (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Let me give you an example and see what you say then. You may very well say no, that is not okay, and there we'll disagree, but your post does invite testing what the bounds of your 'inability to envisage' are. First I should tell you that I am of the belief that we do a disservice when we delete pages under criteria that do not apply, and this happens everyday. When we do so we are using IAR implicity but being deceptive; hiding the deletion behind a criterion that by its plain text is inapplicable. When we speedy delete page that fit none of the criteria, if ever, we should invoke IAR explicitly, always coupling that with an explanation. Anyway, how about the example discussed above, Treirut, a beer drinking game stated in the article to have been made up three days ago by three friends. This was deleted on the stated basis of A7 (and then strangely deleted again after re-creation as an expired prod when it was prodded the same day, but that's not what we're on about here). Obviously A7 does not apply, nor does any criterion. I would have deleted this, and I would have stated in the deletion summary, something like "WP:IAR deletion to not elevate process over substance; Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and there is no possibility of this not being deleted through a more formal process." My question to you is, would this deletion be acceptable under IAR (why not, what harm does it cause ← actual questions); and do you think it is more or less okay that it was deleted under A7 rather than explicitly under IAR?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that would certainly manage to delete it, but the creator of the article was pretty articulate and seems smart enough to absorb the principle that Wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies are there merely to be ignored when it is convenient. So they might conclude "Full speed ahead with mischief and having ones way." Edison (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Server space is not in such short supply that we cannot make this CSD article accurately describe the actual speedy deletion process. If IAR/NFT is one of the bases for speedily deleting an article, the WP:CSD should say so. Edison (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think making IAR part of another rule goes against the intent of IAR - not to mention creating a bit of a liar paradox. I completely agree with Fabrictramp and Fuhghettaboutit above. I believe IAR is best used rarely and for the sorts of things that do not come up enough to justify dedicated CSD, but yet are so unquestionably ripe for deletion that prod/AfD would be pure bureaucracy.--Kubigula (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ← In response to Fuhgettaboutit: As I've said above, I think that's speediable under our existing rules and have no problem with the A7.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, then you must have a different understanding of IAR than I do because deleting Treirut under A7 is without question an IAR deletion (and to my mind, poorly done because it doesn't say it is). I have a hard time putting myself in the shoes of someone who would create that article, but they can easily look at the text of A7 and say, "hey, wait just a goddamned second, that does not and cannot apply to the article I wrote", and they would be 100% correct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • My understanding of IAR is that it has two applications:

        First, it can be used on the basis of a consensus. In other words, it's the provision that allows a local consensus (usually on a talk page or at an AfD) to suspend a global consensus (i.e. a guideline, or more rarely a policy) in the case of one particular article where it's in the encyclopaedia's interests to do so.

        Second, it can be used as a WP:BRD: you do something, and if nobody reverts you, then what you've done is allowed to stand.

        The problem with IAR speedy deletes is, there's no consensus as a basis for doing it, and no possibility to revert. In other words, it's a fait accompli on the basis of one person's judgment, and I can't for the life of me think of any circumstances in which deletion is so extremely urgent that speedy is necessary AND the deletion would not be covered under one of our existing grounds.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I must leave, so I will not be able to respond quickly to any reply (and this post is rushed), but I think we're talking past each other. To IAR is to not elevate process over substance in order to take proper action for the good of the encyclopedia (obviously not a mandate to simply ignore rules entirely). When we have fixed, objective criteria stating the exact parameters of when they apply, and in this case, criterion A7, which only applies to a limited list of types of subjects, which the page Treirut is clearly not (i.e. it is not a real person, organization, etc.), then when we delete under A7, and A7 manifestly does not apply to that deletion by its plain text, we are ignoring the actual rule. So, I do not understand and find a conflict in your statement (that you have now reiterated) on the one hand that you can't imagine any circumstance for use of IAR in relation to speedy deletion, but on the other endorse the deletion of Treirut under A7 when to do so is "IARing".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're correct that you and S Marshall are talking past each other. It seems to me that S Marshall isn't denying the existence of IAR speedies, just saying s/he doesn't see where they are acceptable. So Treirut was an IAR speedy, but that's not good practice to S Marshall. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted this, S Marshall.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you have misinterpreted one thing: S. Marshall has said twice now that he (paraphrasing) "endorsed the deletion of Treirut under A7" so he does find it "acceptable", here, and at the same time says that he cannot imagine a proper circumstance for using IAR in speedy deletion. The only way this is reconcilable is if this deletion under A7 is seen by S. Marshal as not a form of IAR. Yet, this article was plainly outside the ambit of A7 so the deletion ignored the rule. That is IAR in my book (and I'll say again, a poor way of using IAR, which should be stated explicitly with a rationale based in policy, rather than hidden behind invocation of a criterion which does not apply).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
S Marshall, perhaps the conflict here comes from differing interpretations of IAR. Here's the totality of what WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Nothing about consensus or being part of WP:BRD. So each of us will have our own interpretation of how exactly this policy should be applied. (Which is the best and the worst thing about Wikipedia.) Don't get me wrong -- I'm not advocating widespread use of IAR. My interpretation is that IAR should be exceedingly rare, and needs to be used in ways that mesh with all the other Wikipedia polices, including consensus. That said, I'm not sure how IAR is necessarily a "fait accompli on the basis of one person's judgment" anymore than any other deletion, especially if someone else tagged the speedy and I agree with their IAR reasoning -- that having this article gone now, rather than after a prod/AfD cycle, will improve the encyclopedia. Others have their interpretations, too. Unless there's widespread consensus for one particular interpretation (which I don't see in practice), all those interpretations (including yours) are equally valid. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
←We're devoting an awful lot of pagespace to what S Marshall thinks here, and I wouldn't normally reply again, but Fabrictramp specifically asked me to correct any misinterpretations.

My position is that an A7 deletion of that article would not be unreasonable. I don't agree with Fuhgettaboutit that A7 "manifestly" doesn't apply; I rather think it does. (No assertion of notability. I view the extension of A7 to include a game as within admin discretion.)

I see IAR as stronger than admin discretion — it's a deliberate decision, not just to interpret the rules in a particular way, but actively to disregard them.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me. The way I read it, A7 lists a very few categories it applies to (people, organizations, and web content), and consensus seems to favor that interpretation. But you and I have disagreed in the past on deletion and I know we're unlikely to convince each other of much, so perhaps we can agree to disagree here. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
A7 could be extended from "Article about a person, group, company, or web content" to "Article about a person, group, company, web content, or activity" and it would fit Treirut, a newly invented drinking game. It has been kept specific probably so it cannot be used to delete a hamlet with 20 people, a little-known species or other entities that have generally been kept in AFD. I do not see the problem with adjusting the tool so it fits the task. Edison (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a slight rewording/expansion of A7 is needed. It's all well and good that an admin can use their discretion to extend A7 criteria when they are actually deleting the article, but please remember that not everyone who works on speedy deletions is an admin. Those of us who aren't are going to run into either one of two situations. Using the previously mentioned made up game as an example we would either have to mark it with a CSD tag that we knew did not explicitly apply and hope the deleting admin used their discretion at that point (which has resulted in "change of speedy deletion criteria" messages on my talk page at least once) or PROD the entry, watch it, and hope it doesn't get deleted so that it has to be taken to AfD. Neither of these solutions is ideal. I don't like tagging against policy, and I don't like spending an hour on an entry that has no hope of inclusion. Wperdue (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
I think that it should include anything that is not notable. hmwithτ 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

@S. Marshall. Okay I think we're on the same page now. Just understand that to many people, including myself, expanding A7 to cover things that are within its spirit but not within the stated list of topics it applies to, is the very definition and heart of IAR use. Perforce, when you say you can't envisage any circumstance where applying IAR to a speedy deletion would be acceptable, many people will understand this to include said expansion of A7 type of deletion you acknowledge you don't have a problem with, and thus take a different meaning from your words than you intend because you and they have a different understanding of what IAR means. So many misunderstanding and arguments stem from definitional disharmony that no one is aware is the real problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that A7 should be expanded to articles outside of the current set which the content indicates the subject is non notable, not just lacking notability information.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's original research. Duh. The person who invented the game is the person who posted it. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages

I've received a request from an inactive user (not active in earnest since 2006, though she has returned as recently as December 2008 for brief spurts of involvement in projectspace discussions) to delete her user talk page and archives. I'm going to delete her archives under G7 (she archived by copying and pasting from her main talk page, which means that there's no history being lost), but I'm wondering about the user talk page proper. As I read it, U1 applies only to userspace and not user talk space, though I've often seen it (incorrectly, in my view) used for the latter. My strong inclination is to grant this request, but I'm leery of making potentially controversial out of process deletions, and I thought I'd ask people here what they thought first. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Three comments:
  • Jimbo has said in the past they may be deleted.
  • No part of WP:CSD permits their deletion.
  • The current version of WP:RTV strongly discourages their deletion.
MBisanz talk 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
[ec] If she wants it deleted just because, I'd say no, there's no reason to delete it. (the archives can go, though, for the reasons you pointed out) EVula // talk // // 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there something that would be gained by deletion that wouldn't be gained through blanking? I, too, would hesitate to speedy something like this, but I can also see if there's a valid concern that would make deletion necessary that an XfD discussion would defeat the whole purpose.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I presume this is not a m:Right to Vanish situation? -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the RTV policy is completely incoherent, but I suspect that this person would be willing to "vanish" if that was the only way to get her user talk pages removed. But as MBisanz pointed out, the current Wikipedia (as distinct from Meta) policy on RTV discourages the deletion of Wikipedia talk pages. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would not say it "strongly discourages;" rather, it is less common to have them deleted and in the event that they are deleted, there are times that they may be undeleted. If there is no pressing concern, such as keeping the talk pages of a recidivist vandal for future sockpuppet checks, if it means a lot to the departing editor, deletion should not be refused. Has there been an explanation as to why courtesy blanking is insufficient? -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
By way of an example, is User:Franks2000 a candidate to be un-deleted? Snowman (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC closed

I closed the RfC, and removed the link from CSD. Summary:

  1. CSD must be kept clear and specific, bright-line and mechanical. [1.8]
  2. Out-of-CSD speedy-deletions should instead be passed on to XfD (or PROD) for discussion, and non-compliance with this should be very rare.[1.3]
  3. The CSD do not oppose IAR, and IAR-like exemptions should not be mentioned in the CSD.[1.3,1.6]
  4. Strict CSD criteria are not bureaucracy, but instead represent the consensus against undiscussed deletions.[1.3]
  5. Though admins usually have good judgment,[1.4] higher standards apply to CSD due to less oversight,[1.8] and due to the harmful effects of deletion. Loosening the standards will make the effects worse.[1.3,1.11]
  6. Deletion, especially by one party, often has the serious harmful effects of upsetting and discouraging new contributors who are acting in good faith.[1.3]
  7. Our best-practices may be prescribed to administrators, though the descriptive/prescriptive distinction is not actually that significant an issue.[1.6,1.10,1.11]
  8. (There is some support for refactoring CSD [1.2,1.9])

We might want to incorporate some of this.   M   21:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While your reading of consensus is possibly correct, it's usually a big sin to close any discussion you were involved in. You should have asked an uninvolved user to do it... Regards SoWhy 06:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. Shall I revert, or should I ask someone here to review/endorse the close?   M   09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
As the one to remove it from WP:CENT ([4]), I endorse the close. -- King of ♠ 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wordings/criteria inclusion

There are a series of speedy deletion critera that state that deletion is to occur seven days following the addition of the template for whatever reason. This does not seem to be a speedy deletion to me. Why are they included?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because "speedy" in this case does not refer to the amount of time since tagging but to the amount of process involved. It's speedy because it's without using the usual deletion venues. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It does not seem to be any faster a process. These "speedy deletions" would appear to be better suited to the FFDs or TFDs or whatever other speedy deletions there are that have a seven day grace period.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it does refer to the amount of time since tagging - what it doesn't refer to is the amount of time since article creation. Or so I think...   M   10:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC) ... Incidentally, I really think that CSD should have been called the Criteria for immediate deletion.   M   10:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A7: Propose rewording regarding "schools"

Hi there. I would like to propose a minor rewording of A7 that does not change it's scope:

I think this is useful to emphasize that A7 does exclude universities, colleges, etc. as well. Regards SoWhy 09:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

School implies primary education, but educational institution implies post-secondary. It seems a bit strange to call an elementary school an "institution" (the word seems to refer to non-government/civil organizations). Someone might think we intend to exclude only accredited universities. Perhaps a different wording? And is there a case where this has been a problem?   M   09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have declined a couple of A7s for universities and colleges, so it's quite possibly that the word "school" confuses people. That said, I am open for a different wording. I chose "educational institution" because from what I know this term can mean any organisation, institution or similar that provides education. Regards SoWhy 10:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
To me, "school" implies K-12, and subset of "Educational institution", which implies K-12, universities, technical education, and indeed all forms of adult education that involve permanent buildings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd want a conversation with WP:WPSCH and WP:UNI before making this change. There are a lot of promotional sites (which claim real-world presence, but I suspect it's all about getting people to send money to a website) offering "training" and claiming to be "educational". - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
School seems perfectly clear to me. If I say "I'm going back to school in the fall to study web design", none of my friends would assume I meant the junior high down the street.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Dank makes an excellent point. I don't think a change is necessary, per Harvard Business School. -- King of ♠ 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is much more likely because of context (you not being 13; web design) than because of the general applicability of the word "school". I think that we need an example or two where this has actually caused a problem, or to ask one of those A7s for universities why they were confused - perhaps they would have marked a school just as quickly. Switching this to a more post secondary wording has problems (well, if schools count, obviously universities should count too - but not vice-versa).   M   17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly context does help. And regional differences may apply, too; people here talk about our public library being shared by two schools, meaning the high school and the community college also use it as their library. However, unless we have information to the contrary, it's far more likely that the taggers involved were shaky on their A7 knowledge. I've seen plenty of K-12 schools tagged with A7; when I leave a polite note for the tagger, it almost always turns out that they stopped reading A7 when they got to "org", and never made it to the word "school".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, what does K-12 mean? ϢereSpielChequers 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Refers to K–12 (education) I believe - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion shows, why I proposed this change. "School" is a different thing depending on in which country you live. Is an adult education center a school? What about a community college? The proposed changed wording would make it clear that A7 excludes any educational institution, no matter if it is called a "school" where it is located at. As M points out, "going to school" can mean a different thing depending on location and context. Regards SoWhy 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are schools/educational institutions being given special treatment?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Because they have proven too controversial for speedying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
A quirk in U.S. law (pushed by a powerful lobbying group) makes "school loans" nearly impossible to get rid of ... even taxes are easier to discharge in bankruptcy than school loans are. As a consequence, there are an inexhaustible supply of "educational institutions" in the U.S., teaching everything from truck-driving to cooking, that really operate more like finance companies than schools. For these institutions, and also for smaller educational institutions of all kinds, you don't have the same assumptions that the wikiprojects make for high schools and colleges ... that is, that even if we can't find sources now, we assume that sources can be found eventually, and that the article will benefit from crowdsourcing (that is, that there are enough people who know something about the school that bad information is likely to be edited out, eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So, more tightly defining things would be good. Another reason for exempting schools from speedying is that broad based CSD deletions are bitey, and that school articles are often the first articles contributed to by young people, and we should be happy that at least their first contributions are not self-promotional. The truck-driving and cooking schools that Dank mentions I think would be most likely to be speediable as G11 before trying A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are too many cases where it is not totally clear what nature the educational institution is, and therefore AfD or prod is safer for trade schools and the like--especially since some of them are in fact notable. Another dubious class of articles is tutoring establishments, but it can be difficult to distinguish some Asian academies of this nature from true secondary schools. Prod or AfD is safer. DGG (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam userpages?

Normally, when there is a spam userpage when the thing being promoted matches the username, db-spam and a spam username block are applied. However, to circumvent this, some users use an ordinary username and then add spam to their userpage. However, the pages are not always blatantly promotional and appear encyclopedic. Does db-spam apply here? Triplestop x3 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I would say no in the specific case you describe. If it's not blatant, I usually tag with {{Userpage Blue}} to insure it is not mistaken for an article. It's also possible when you see such a thing that the user is not actually a spammer but is working on a legitimate article that they don't feel is ready to "go live" yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no special treatment for userspace. If it is unambiguously spammy and fits G11, it can be speedy deleted. If it isn't, then it can't. As Beeblebrox points out, sometimes it's someone trying to write a new article there first and when it isn't, we got WP:MFD to deal with it. Regards SoWhy 08:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Does G8 apply to the Talk page of redirected articles?

Does G8 or other criteria apply to the Talk page of redirected articles? After reading WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#admining help, I asked the deleting admin to restore a redirect's Talk page, but another user has objected. I looked through several of the most recent archives, finding only WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 30#Empty talk pages and speedy deletion.

The page in question is Talk:Kristi Yamaoka, which was deleted G8 when its article was redirected as the result of WP:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (6th nomination). I would also like some clarifying input on the general case. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it would largely depend on what was on said talk page. If there was significant discussion, it should probably have been kept or merged to the redirect target talk page. If it was just some project tags and so forth there's not much of a point to keeping it.--Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel that such talk pages should either be tagged with {{oldafdfull}} (if redirected as the result of an AfD) or redirected to the main article's talk page (if no AfD has taken place). -- King of ♠ 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have held the belief that G8 can be applied in such cases if there is no history worthy of retaining. If an article is turned into a redirect, then the talk page ceases to exist for the article and is now a talk page for discussing the redirect. In this case, if the talk page only contains "old content" for the article (like WP banners) that do not need to kept, it can be G8ed because the page this talk page depended on (the article) no longer exists. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if I only contains talk that no longer really applies to the redirect, I'd prefer to keep the talk page around if it has any sort of meaningful edit history, for historical purposes (the same reason we archive talk pages instead of just removing old threads). Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I was referring to non-"meaningful" content, e.g. if the talk page only contains WP banners, there is no point in keeping it. Regards SoWhy 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, deleting the talk pages of redirects even when the there was no significant history (only one revision) has caused controversy in the past. I believe Misza, DerHexer, and myself would all be familiar with this. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the replies so far. Do templates like {{oldafdfull}} and {{Copied}} count as meaningful, even if their information can be expressed as edit summaries in the article's history? Flatscan (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I've been spending some time recently overhauling the skeletal 'DeleteQueue' extension in SVN. As the name implies, this is a framework for allowing the software to keep track of, and largely automate the process of, deletion processes on a wiki. There isn't much documentation around at the moment (doesn't help that the extension currently doesn't work); I've tried to explain the work at User:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. I am also keen to get input from the community here about what we'd like to see in a queued deletion system, to ensure that it has the maximum possible flexibility and utility here. So if you have any thoughts or comments on such an extension, please do drop me a note over at User talk:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. Happymelon 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't come up too often, but I'm curious how others would handle it.

Twice in the last few weeks, I have seen a user create an article with a speedy deletion tag already on it, the latest case being Robert Onley. I assume this due to the user copy/pasting it after it was deleted once already. I figure if they haven't changed the article, indeed haven't even made an effort to remove the tag, it probably should just be left. (It seems fully justified in this case) But I'm left wondering about the user who did it. What do you say to someone who would do that? I wouldn't want to give them the idea that re-creating the exact same article without the tag is somehow an improvement... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave them a message telling them they can remove speedy delete tags themselves from an article instead? If somone really thinks it needs to go after that it can go to afd; likely the person just thought the article should stay but hadn't logged in (or wasn't informed) during the time period for speedy deletion.Fuzbaby (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But they created it the first time, (under a slighly different title as it turns out) apparently made a "copy" while it was up for speedy deletion, then re-created it with exactly the same content that was on the just-deleted version, complete with CSD tag, and proceeded to add hangon reasoning o the talk page. The particular article I mentioned has changed a bit and would probably need an AfD to make a decision now, but my initial question remains. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Recreating speedied articles, in the exact same form, is disruptive. Warn them about it, and if they refuse to stop after multiple warnings a block might be in order. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've compared the version originally deleted with the version just before Beeblebrox saw it (in other words, after multiple consecutive edits by the article creator), and improvements were made. I'm going to assume he was following the "don't remove the speedy tag" instructions, even though he was the one who added the tag. (Assuming male gender because of autobiography issues).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've left them a personal note saying it looks like they reposted the same article that got deleted before without addressing the issues, so it's likely to be (or has been) deleted again. I also extol the virtues of working on a draft on a subpage in userspace, to give them time to get it up to snuff. Maybe only 5% bother to make the suggested changes or take me up on userfication, but I call that a victory. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding animals to A7

Many times we get articles coming in with text similar to "Mullamoo Smith is a famous ginger cat, born in 1995 to Jenny Walker" or similar. It would be nice if we could modify CSD A7 to include animals as well as humans, so that these articles can be deleted with-in policy. {{Db-person}} could be changed to note this too. I think this is a good idea. Thoughts? - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We've talked about this a few times before. Any chance you can address the issues brought up at those two discussions before we start again? (Yes, I know there's more than those two times, but they were fairly recent and mostly about this topic. Feel free to link to and address any other discussions, too.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I can't really say I agree with the opposition. Firstly, why not use PROD? Well, who wants to go through a deletion discussion about this page which should obviously be deleted (everybody at both of those discussions pretty much seems to agree that the pages should be deleted one way or the other). CSD is so you don't have to go through the bother of adding a prod, having it removed, creating an AfD, adding it to the log, waiting 7 days, until it gets deleted. If we add this, a user can tag it (once) and ten minutes later the page is gone (same inevitable result, the page is going to get deleted either way). Secondly, Why not include everything then? CSD A7 is purposely made so that not everything meets it, it could be disastrous if it wasn't. But there seems to be a clear consensus (from those past discussions) that articles about non-notable animals should be deleted, and we have enough of them coming in to justify adding it to CSD, so that we don't have to go through the hassle of AfD/PROD as mentioned earlier. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This would need to be worded for "pets" so that species aren't tagged as well... But otherwise I see no real difference in the requirements of notability for a "biography of a living person" and a "biography of a living animal", and that as such this should be included under A7. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you didn't address all the issues brought up. Two specifically come to mind: exactly how big of a problem is this (ie how many of these pages are created in what kind of time frame), and how many of this pages are not getting deleted through some other speedy criteria (including IAR)?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"We have enough of them coming in to justify adding it to CSD". As I said before, we do have enough of these coming in, no I don't count, no I don't look at every new page 24hrs. But in my time new page patrolling I've come across a number of these. And I disagree with saying "Let's not touch WP:CSD, instead we'll just delete everything else under WP:IAR". Back in 2004 I guess everything was deleted under IAR. IAR isn't there so we don't have to create or fix policies, it's there so that when a policy is in error, there's something to fall back on, this doesn't mean we should leave that policy in error. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if the only issue is how many of these go through a day, then there is nothing holding this back. A simple addition of the word "pets" following the word "people" will ensure that none of these have to resort to standard deletion. If a person needs to be notable to be deleted by the standard process, it should be held in equal right that an animal must also be notable to go through the long process. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Support addition of "specific animal". The standard questions such as "is this very common" are very much needed when we are discussing adding a new criterion but not so relevant when we are adding two words to an existing criterion. I don't see these a lot, but I do see them enough that they fill a need; this is 100% in the spirit of the existing list that come under A7's ambit; and the addition is just as objective as the other types of things already covered. Sure, these can be IARed and they can be prodded and AfDed, but I don't see how those alternatives are a valid argument against adding this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that new criteria should definitely require a niche which they can fill, but this is just extending "people" to "people and animals owned by people".
"It can be (PROD'd/IAR'd/AfD'd)" seems like a redundant argument in general. I could apply that to about 5,494,266 articles if I really wanted to and do away with speedy deletion outright. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have previously argued against this change (see the first link Fabrictramp provided) based on the fact that there is no need for such a change. I am open to change my opinion on adding this in general, but I think that such pages are relatively few and thus such a change is not warranted. From my personal experience, it's maybe 1 in 1000 pages I came across in CAT:CSD. Regards SoWhy 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like enough. Most days we get up to 200 pages in there at some point, so we probably get about 400 pages speedied each day? So one non-notable animal every 2-3 days. A7 is still going to be (the most) commonly used CSD :), we'd just be (hopefully) improving it - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I compiled some statistics on the number of speedy deletions under each criterion nearly a year ago, and a figure of 400 A7 deletions per day is about right. Hut 8.5 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I support the specific animal criteria (i.e. an individual animal, not an individual species), as I've seen (a while back) an article about a specific animal (an elephant I think) in a zoo that didn't even attempt to show why this particular animal was more notable than any other elephant in any zoo anywhere in the world. I don't think the numbers are important in this case - they happen frequently enough that discussion about making them speediable has happened many times previously. If you have to use WP:IAR for the same thing at all frequently or regularly then very clearly the rule(s) you are ignoring are broken and should be fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I also thought this should be a fairly uncontroversial speedy criterion. Articles for peoples' pets aren't all that common, but they're also far from rare and the ones I've seen often get deleted under A7 anyway, usually by an admin making a reasonable IAR decision. This has never, in my experience, been controversial. I'm an advocate of reducing IAR speedy deletions where possible, and this seems a very reasonable place to do so, by adding an extra word, "pet". to A7 (to be honest, we could simply change "real person" to "real individual" if we wanted). IAR is fine, but if the same rule is getting ignored regularly then it probably wants amending. ~ mazca talk 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have read through the two discussions linked by Fabrictramp, and this discussion so far. It seems to me that there is substantially consensus in favour. The main objection seems to be "it doesn't happen enough to warrant a change", and this seems to me to be a fairly small minority view. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No matter my personal opinion here but I do not think that one can judge consensus after only 15 hours of discussion. There is no rush, so let's allow more people to participate. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had made it clear that I was basing my identification of a consensus not only on this thread, but also on "the two discussions linked by Fabrictramp", the earlier of which began on 1 August 2007. I also deliberately said "and this discussion so far", as an acknowledgment that the discussion is not over, so that the impression I had formed was therefore a provisional one. Sorry if my wording did not make this explicit enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support addition of "specific animal", as this is a natural extension to the existing A7. Articles on species should be excluded. Hut 8.5 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not yet convinced that this proposal will do more good than harm. If the estimates above are correct (1 every 2-3 days), that is not enough to justify a new use of CSD to me. To address a particularly disturbing comment above, CSD is not used "so you don't have to go through the bother" of a discussion. CSDs are for those cases which are so universally clear and so common that deletion without discussion has a significant benefit of reducing the XfD backlog. (CSDs are also for those emergency situtations like confirmed copyright or other legal violation where exposure of the content during the discussion does active harm but that scenario does not apply here.)
    WP:BITE is a real problem for Wikipedia and speedy-deletions are among the most bite-y processes we have. No one has yet explained why PROD is inadequate for this low volume. CSD may be faster for the admin but it gives the new author no chance to learn our processes or to self-correct. We should expand the use of CSD only when the benefits very clearly outweight the negatives. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    You misunderstand my comment, what I mean by what I said (and I think I made it quite clear, but obviously didn't) is that, who wants to go through the bother of AfD (backlog, page watching, log adding, page creation, etc.), when the page is going to get deleted no matter what. It is "universally clear" that these pages should be deleted, and we don't need or want a new discussion every time, and are common enough.
    I disagree to with users over-complaining about how BITEy CSD tagging is, if a user creates a page with "Big Boppa is my pet cat... i weally luv him. i will put somes picture on later :)" why should they not get a message on their page telling them that such articles are unsuitable for WP, and get deleted? XfD/PROD notices are just as bad, and the process in this case is much more confusing for new editors, I very rarely see newbs voting at XfD, I very often see newbs adding {{Hangon}} to speedied pages. Just because you don't like the messages given to users with speedy deletion isn't a reason to avoid speedy deletion altogether, users can write out their own messages, they can move pages to user-space etc. It doesn't seem like a low-volume to me, and compared to some of the other CSDs I think it will save a lot of wasted time. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    What about the case where someone writes "Big Boppa is a race horse". Should we consider that a good faith claim of importance? How would this be handled under a revamped A7?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    To Kingpin13 - No, I understood you very clearly. Where I disagree is with your assumption that not wanting to go through the "bother" of XfD is sufficient justification for a CSD regardless of how forgone you consider the conclusion. Rossami (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Well I don't think that in its self. I think XfD is a much better process for most articles. But not for all, I think you'd agree that articles like "I have a myspace page sicne 2001. Find it at" shouldn't go through AfD, and I think these pet articles, such as the one above, are exactly the same; they don't require a discussion when there is already clear consensus that they should all be deleted.
    As to "where to draw the line", being a race horse is not really good enough methinks, if the article said something like "Big Boppa is a professional race horse who goes to suchandsuch yearly" (preferably with a bit more context), then more research should be done, and in that case, an AfD would be better. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Of course, part of the reason that we use claims of importance rather than claims of notability to be enough to not speedy an article is that new editors are not expected to know all the intricacies of what's needed to have an article stick around. How do you reconcile that long-standing principle with now requiring someone to know that they need to add the key word "professional" and having to list particular races? (FWIW, I don't have any objection to adding the "my pet goldfish" article, although I don't see a pressing need to add it -- no hard evidence has been show that there's large numbers of these, and claims that there are run counter to my person experience in NPP. I do have a problem with adding criteria that cause as many or more problems than they solve, and I think we need to think these issues through carefully. So bear with my questions here -- they aren't intended to be nitpicky, just to avoid problems).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    They don't have to add lists of races, or championships, etc. they just have to add a claim of notability. "Professional race horse" without anything else is not enough imo, but "successful race horse", "famous race horse" and "oldest professional race horse" are as they are claims to notability (whether they are sufficient or even true is irrelvant) and deserves being given the time for people to investigate whether it meets the standards or not. I would actually encourage a guideline that said that every new article should have an indication or claim of notability and enough information that other editors have at least an idea where to start looking for more information, sources, etc. This latter could be as little as two facts ("Billy is a successful race horse" is less useful than "Bill is a successful race horse from Ireland". for example. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    Where you use the word "notability", can I assume you really mean "importance"? Otherwise you are proposing a far higher standard for animals than for anything else covered by A7.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    I do indeed, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support specific animal. As long as this refers to a specific animal, like Johnny the dog, then I think A7 should apply. It should not however apply to species. It is a non-subjective criteria and there is no reason why Bill's article should be speedied, yet the article about his goldfish should have a 7 day debate. These articles are already speedied under A7, it would be only fitting that policy reflect this common practice. Chillum 15:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I support this as well. These types of articles are routinely and properly speedied; policy should be descriptive.--Kubigula (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I support adding specific animal. This should also delete "My two lovebirds." Edison (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I support adding specific animal to A7 to speedy instances of animals who assert no claim of notabilityRcurtis5 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already supported adding "specific animal", but I think we should explicitly exclude species in the text of that is added to the criteria to avoid misinterpretations (the comments here seem to be unanimously of the opinion that articles about individual species should not be A7 speediable, and the frequency with which it is mentioned suggests that it would be a plausible misinterpretation). Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording

It seems like there is generally support for this addition. We should agree upon the wording now. I see that people want to be sure it refers to individual animals and not species. I agree this is important. How about:

  • An article about a real person, individual animal(not species), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

This is basically the same wording we have now with ", individual animal(not species)" wedged in. What do people think? Is this clear? Does it represent the consensus? Chillum 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose current wording to the extent that it is extremely biased toward lack of spaces between parentheses and their trailing words. Viva la spaces! (otherwise looks fine to me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also "animal" should also be "animals". Please understand that "individual animals" is not plural, it's just proper English.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand: is this some sort of joke? If so I'm too stupid to get it. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The wording looks OK to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I consider it unnecessary bloat on a page that is already far longer and more complex than any of us consider ideal. Still not seeing evidence that that this situation occurs frequently enough to justify the bloat. Rossami (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It is four words. I don't think it is that much bloat considering the new information it conveys. Chillum 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It's four words for this. Next, it will be three words for that. Unfortunately, it's the very definition of instruction creep - a series of small changes, every one perfectly well-intentioned and logical when viewed in isolation but which, in aggregate, result in a page/process so complex that it's unreadable and unworkable. Rossami (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to the discussion but count me among those who do not see this addition as necessary. It comes up on occasion, but many of these animal articles can be speedy-deleted as "no context", as Uncle G pointed out in this previous discussion of the issue. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No, jokingly stated, but serious as to the language changes. We do not place parenthetical phrases without spacing them from what they follow and it must be either "animals" or it must take an article (an). To wit, it's not "individual animal(not species)", but either "individual animals (not species)" or "an individual animal (not species)".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
change "individual animal(" to "an individual animal (" as this fits better with "a real person" than would "individual animals". Paul Erik, some of these might have no context but many of them do - it is immediately clear what the subject is, and just as quickly clear that there is no claim to importance whatsoever. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Thryduulf's suggestion, and agree with his view on deleting these pages under A1 (no context). Although I don't think it's necessary to say "(not species)" as we have already said individual. But I don't have a problem if we do - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
At first I too thought that "not species" was unnecessary verbiage, but having though about it I can imagine someone taking "individual animal" as meaning "individual species of animals". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to stir things up when I thought it was all more or less settled, but a thought has occurred to me. Thinking about Fuhghettaboutit's comments on "animals" rather than "animal" prompted me to imagine the following scenario: someone creates the article My hamsters, which says "I have two hamsters, Tom and Gemma, which I bought in a pet shop yesterday". Not an article about an individual animal, so not covered. Clearly this is against the spirit of the proposed wording, and personally I would regard this as such an obvious case for IAR that I would see no problem, but I can see some wikilawyers getting excited about this. So maybe "individual animals" would be better. Otherwise I would have agreed with Thryduulf that "an individual animal" fits better with "a real person". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about it, can we get rid of the parenthetical qualifier? I feel like we're engaging in the same silly type of overkill the geniuses at toothpick companies do when they actually add instructions to a box of them, followed by a warning "do not insert in eyes". I can't imagine more than 1 in 100 CSD taggers not understanding "(not species)" to be tacit, and I can't imagine any admin being fooled and deleting an article followed by that extremely rare misuse, and I can't imagine that deleted article not being uncontroversially undeleted on the vanishingly unlikely chance such a deletion actually occurs through some sort of fellowship of stupidity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel it's redundant anyway - we don't say "a real person (not a racial group)". An individual animal is, pretty much by definition, not a species. ~ mazca talk 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the (not species) part does seem evident. I only added it because it seems everyone was very clear on that aspect. "No context" does not apply to articles with context, using it on the articles described will only sometimes be accurate. Otherwise you might as well use WP:CSD#IAR. Chillum 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have dropped notes about the change (and clarified its use) at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have also created {{db-animal}} and updated documentation I think in all relevant places.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, I just saw the announcement in the Signpost. I would support this CSD for household pets, but oppose for wild animals or animals in zoos or public aquariums. Wild animals and animals on public display are quite likely to be minor celebrities somewhere. Some time ago I had to get Luna (orca) undeleted following a bad A7 call - this is an animal that has been the subject of a full-length film documentary, at least one book, and probably hundreds of news articles. Consider this beginning of a Featured Article. Would it be deleted under the new CSD? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also I would exclude animals that have been scientific research subjects, and animal groups or populations such as whale pods. It would be a good idea to notify some animal-related wikiprojects to get their members' opinions on the wording. If people have studied an animal, or bought tickets to look at it, that is a de facto assertion of the importance or significance of the subject to me. If they don't qualify, what does? Regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say I was rather annoyed today when I navigated to Lias and found a troll from a non-notable story was mentioned on that page, and the troll didn't even have an article. (Perhaps it was a WikiTroll?) There are certain individual animals, such as Lonesome George and Pierre the penguin who are celebrities and deserve their own articles, but nobody cares that I once had a sea monkey named Irvin.

Anyway perhaps the wording you're looking for is "animal with little or no notability to the public community unless it comprises a complete taxon". I'm not sure of a better way to put it. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The wording I'm looking for is "household pet". As in "An article about a real person, a household pet, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant..." Any objections? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left notices about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the recent additions to the discussion above following the signpost article (which I advised them of), which seem to ignore the fact that the criterion for individual animals is the same as for people, i.e., for articles which fail to contain any indication of importance and significance. So, your celebrity animals, your zoo attractions, your Lonesome George's and Pierre the Penguins, your named whale pods, your scientific research subjects, will not be subject to speedy deletion under the criterion so long as they indicate significance or importance, just as is the case for any person tagged with db-a7/person/bio. We do not clarify every imaginable indication of importance an article on a person (or website or company or band) can make in the criterion, and we cannot and should not for animals either. Note that {{db-animal}} states an article about an individual animal (e.g. a pet) that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that articles about zoo animals, whale pods, etc. should not be subject to speedy deletion even if they do not indicate the significance or importance of the animal. It seems reasonable to assume that if someone writes an article about a particular pet, it has near-zero chance of being expanded into a properly sourced article. However, for non-pets, such as zoo animals, chances are pretty good that the subject is actually notable. If an article consists of "Zoey is an elephant at the Elbonia Zoo." it would fall under the current A7 wording. To me, that indicates that the current wording of A7 is overly broad. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If we replace person with being we solve the problem and reduce the length of A7 by 1 byte. ϢereSpielChequers 06:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what problem would that solve? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have consensus that it would be OK to extend A7 to cover articles written about someone's household pet, but there is no consensus as to how to change the wording of A7 to reflect that. Hence my suggestion - replace "An article about a real person" with "An article about a real being" ϢereSpielChequers 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that there are adequate rules to delete pages, and that there is a due process to delete a "bad" page about an individual animal without this new addition to the rules. Snowman (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes they can go through AFD, but what we are discussing here is changing CSD to allow speedy deletion of articles on animals with no claim to importance or significance. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What about "a real person (human or not), an organization..."? Basically, the criteria are the same, and there is no reason to single out humans vs. non-human animals. David Olivier (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly person means human (or in some Science Fiction uses "sentient being") whilst beings also includes animals. Secondly a large part of the above thread was hostile to making the criteria longer or more complex. Replacing person with being would change A7 to include animals without making it more complex and it would be shorter. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Living being is mildly shorter but it lacks the same degree of clarity and naturalness. I don't think we need uber-parsimony. It also lacks the same targeted implication that it would exclude a species of animals that it made fairly clear by "individual". As for "a real person (human or not)", that's longer and a non sequitur. Person means human in the vernacular and thus excludes anything that might come under "or not".—--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that "a real person (human or not)" is meant to be a joke, since nobody with a reasonable knowledge of English would think that "person" normally means anything else. However, the "being" suggestion appears to be be meant seriously. The only reason given, as far as I can see, is that "Replacing person with being would change A7 to include animals without making it more complex and it would be shorter". Trivially shorter, while much less readily understood. Clayoquot says "If an article consists of "Zoey is an elephant at the Elbonia Zoo." it would fall under the current A7 wording. To me, that indicates that the current wording of A7 is overly broad." Why? What is wrong with speedily deleting such a pointless article? "Zoey is a famous elephant at the Elbonia Zoo" would be enough to protect it from this criterion, since it is sufficient to claim importance, not justify the claim. Without even such a minimal a claim as that I cannot see why an article should not go at once. Then again, the suggestion of restricting the rule to pets would allow an article which simply said "Daisy is a cow in Mr Smith's field in Blobsville Kansas" to stand, which does not seem to me to be better than "Daisy is a cat in Mr Smith's house in Blobsville Kansas". The relevant part of the current wording is "An article about ... individual animal(s) ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", which seems to me perfectly clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As this section wasn't marked as archived or resolved I waded in thinking that the debate continued. Since the changes have actually been made I suggest we close this thread and give the current wording time to be tested on Wiki. If after further reflection someone still wants to make the A7 definition shorter I commend them my compromise of being as combining people and animals. However if anyone wants to progress the idea that all zoo animals are notable I would like to point out that London Zoo alone has over 14,000 inmates, as for the idea of restricting A7 to the living, may I point out that one likely time to record a pet is as an obituary? ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes it was implemented a few days ago. By the by, besides what I mentioned above about clarity and naturalness of comprehension, I don't understand how "being" impacts at all on the concern over pets vs. zoo animals etc., which I think you said it would solve. It would seem to me to have no effect whatever on those issues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Separate issues. Being could combine people and animals; My point about Zoos was in response to an earlier suggestion that implied that animals are notable because they are in zoos. ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Animals are not necessarily notable because they are in zoos. However if an animal lives in a zoo there is a reasonable chance that it is notable. Thus, wording that is broad enough to cover zoo animals fails the test that "it must be the case that almost all articles that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to general consensus."
2. A counter-argument I'm seeing above is, "Well, we won't delete it if the article says why the animal is important or significant." But individual animals are often notable without doing anything important or significant. Saying that "famous elephant in a zoo" qualifies but "elephant in a zoo" doesn't is silly: To the writer it may be obvious that an elephant that hundreds of people pay to look at every day is famous, and you are having the line between retention and deletion hinge on whether the writer has inserted a POV word.
3.Another counter-argument I'm seeing is that we should keep the current wording and test it. How are you planning to test it after it is in force?
4.How about testing the wording by looking at the earliest versions of articles that we already have on notable animals?
5. Why not keep the wording narrow, covering just "household pets" and expand it to "animals" later if we are overwhelmed with articles about non-notable non-pet animals? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have always felt "person" meant "soul", even though that would still only include humans (except in fantasy and science fiction), but "being" seems awkward. But that's beside the point. I think it's fair to say "household pet", although I honestly feel it's included in that "etc." part. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
People who view the wiki project bird pages were informed after the change was already made; see this edit. I think that there should be a special effort to take notice of this discussion especially as input was requested. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

← I completely oppose the notion that being in a zoo is an assertion of importance or significance. A small zoo like Bristol Zoo has five gorillas [5] and many more penguins, and other small animals. Is each one of these really suitable as the subject of an individual article? If a particular zoo animal is more important than any other zoo animal (and undoubtedly some are) then it is fair that we require article authors to say this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my suggestion of the wording "a real person (human or not)" was not a joke, and I do have "a reasonable knowledge of English", thank you. True, I wasn't expecting it to be accepted, since Wikipedians, like most humans, are massively speciesist. As suggested by someone else, "person" is used at least in science fiction to mean beings other than humans. Furthermore, the word is never applied to certain humans, such as a two day old embryo. As argued by Peter Singer and other philosophers, it would probably be right to use the word for many non-human animals such as pigs, etc. I still think my proposed wording is a good choice, since it states a criterion for inclusion/deletion that applies equally independently of irrelevant species membership. David Olivier (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
(Responding to Clayoquot) How is this different from the "reasonable chance" we can ascribe to articles on people who are members of certain professions that are not necessarily notable but are more likely to be on average, such as "authors", "actor", "directors", "physicists" and so on? Articles which fail to state the importance of a person from a more-likely-to-be notable profession are the same as those types of animals you can define as having a more-likely-to be notable background. Zoo animals or actors, they should be deleted if they don't indicate importance. All of the criterion are essentially lines in the sand. To pick an absurd example for emphasis, an article on a guy named Albert Einstein that says only "is an Austrian scientist" is properly speedily deleted because of its content, and not because of the subject's actual notability. Most article's about things that are important, do state that importance. We never get here "this was properly deleted". Rather, what we mostly see here are complaints, and so we get a very skewed picture. If you really look at it, It's amazing how much of the time the reason no importance is stated in an article is for the very reason that there is nothing to state. You have no way of knowing that "almost all articles that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted" if you include the indication of importance. Articles on important subjects naturally state their importance because it is naturally invited.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There are two important differences between articles that fail to state the importance of a person and articles that fail to state the importance of an animal. One difference is that Wikipedia is overwhelmed with crap articles about people; many (most?) of us believe that A7 results in the deletion of some articles about notable people, but we're willing to live with the attrition because the barrage of crap articles about people is like a fire and A7 is a firehose. But we should be careful about pointing the firehose at new places where it's not absolutely needed. You don't use a firehose to fill a teacup. The second difference between animals and people is that people become notable for doing important and significant things or for being unique in some way, so there is a strong correlation between importance/uniqueness/significance and notability. If you try to apply that kind of logic to animals though, you'll find that many notable animals haven't done anything at all except educate people about their species. A one-week-old human baby is very, very unlikely to be notable. A one-week-old panda cub in a zoo is almost certain to be notable even though it is no different from any other panda cub. I haven't seen anything in the above discussions that indicates that the community is sensitive to the fact that an animal with no unique characteristics or achievements at all could be very notable if it belongs to a species that is rare or otherwise remarkable in some way, or if it has provided a window for increasing our knowledge of a hard-to-study species. So if we keep the current wording I believe we will see far too many stubs deleted that could have become fine articles like this one day. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would imagine that young people make a disproportionate number of edits to articles about individual animals. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A small point of technical accuracy in the proposed wording - instead of "species", we should say "taxon" ... species is only one taxonomic rank which editors may wish to write an article about. SP-KP (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


This CSD template indicates that any file that's not an image or sound file should deleted. However, the upload screen rejects any of these types of files, so this criterion seems redundant, and could be depreceated. Any input on this? Thanks, -- 科学高爾夫 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming everything already uploaded that falls under F10 has been deleted, I'd be all for it. But, more likely than not, there's still some things out there that haven't been caught yet. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
PDF files are covered by F10, and can be still uploaded. I can see several that have been uploaded today alone, and there are plenty left. Hut 8.5 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Hut 8.5. There still is use for it. Also, I don't think we want to constantly change the criteria when the devs decide to change what the upload form rejects and what it doesn't. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
How smart is the restriction on the upload form, anyway? If I were to, say, upload a .exe file but remove or change the extension, would it still stop me? There definitely seem to still be various reasonable ways that inappropriate file types could be uploaded, and it's not in dispute that such files should be speediable. I think F10 still has a place. ~ mazca talk 10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried uploading a text file as a PNG and a SVG, but it rejected it both times. A bug to enable OpenDocument uploads has significant support. In the meantime, there is still the JPG + RAR (and similar) trick - which we have F2 for. MER-C 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It is fairly good these days because it checks the file MIME type, which is harder to alter than the extension, but there are still about 500 legacy files with MIME types different than the file extension awaiting reactivation of file renaming. MBisanz talk 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jordanairacademy

Ugh, tough call. I think I should talk with the user, but should I speedy and then talk, or talk first? - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, since there's no history other than that. Now someone should have a chat with him. lifebaka++ 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
personally, I would have removed the speedy and rewritten the article myself and put it in mainspace. I think it does indicate importance very clearly, but a totally inexperienced user. Not that your choice was wrong either. DGG (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

20-30 min limit for a nominating a very short, new article under the article criteria

A few hours ago there was an incident that causes me quite a lot of Wikistress. I probably overreacted and demanded an apology at the village pump, but I think that the issue (and thus a lot of stress) could have been avoided, if these criteria would have been slightly more specific. Let me summarize what happened: I created an article on a notable academic, specifically referring to the appropriate guideline in the edit summary. I thought it would be sufficient to write: "Wilson Jeremiah Moses (b. 1942) is an African-American historian. He is Professor of American History at Pennsylvania State University.", to satisfy the notability conditions of the guidelines, and provide the link to Wilson J. Moses homepage at Penn State University, which should, of course, be a reliable source for the fact that he is a Professor there. However, not any Professor is notable, so probably I should have written that he is the "holder of the Walter L. Ferree professorship in the middle period of American History.", because a 'named chair' is criteria N. 5 of the notability criteria for academics , but I didn't do that because I couldn't figure out who Walter L. Ferree was. And anyway, with the next edit I added the list of works, including two published by Oxford University Press and two published by Cambridge University Press. However, another editor flagged the new article under CSD A7 after two minutes. I found this profoundly irritating, since even the very short article made a "credible claim of significance or importance", and I simply removed the tag. (I probably should just have added {{hangon}}, but, as I said, I was quite angry.) However, then the article was actually deleted right between two of my edits, when I was about to add that Wilson J. Moses was also, among other, a visiting professor at Harvard University. I really don't think that I need to put up with this, and simply recreated the article, since I had the edit window opened anyway. This issue has cleared now, but I think we can avoid such problems in the future by adding two simply sentences to the criteria:

"Before nominating a very short, new article for speedy deletion under any of the article criteria, please allow the article creator 20-30 minutes to expand it. This does explicitly not apply for the general criteria, which deal with issues such as vandalism and attack pages."

The purpose of the criteria for speedy deletion is to make deletion discussions, and therefore Wikipedia, more efficient. However, in this case, the criteria achieved the contrary. I was about to quickly create a new article with the basic information on a notable academic (because I wanted to create the article quickly, I created it directly, instead of drafting it first), but immediately after I had started I had to deal with a nomination for speedy deletion. There probably are more than dozen or so articles on non-notable subjects created each day on Wikipedia, but unlike cases of vandalism, attack pages or similar, I don't see a problem if articles on non-notable subjects aren't deleted immediately. However, I see I huge problem when articles on notable subjects are immediately threatened with deletion. I was about to add this directly to the project page, after the sentence "To avoid speedy deletion, make sure that articles provide both content and context.", but then I thought that it would be more appropriate to discuss this first. Zara1709 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we (i.e. the regular discussing users here) already know the problem. We even created {{hasty}} for exactly this purpose. Speedy deletion is a very BITEy area and new admin candidates are regularly opposed for incorrectly applying it, not at least for being much too quick about tagging things as A1 and/or A7. But also unfortunately, there is little we can do. Taggers, unlike admins, do not have to pass some sort of test to be allowed to tag articles. The page already says "administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation" but this does not apply to taggers. Your suggestion is a good one but I have little faith that it's useful. People usually do not read this policy page, they just go and tag. So the more fruitful way would probably be to tell those taggers not too be too hasty when tagging and explain to them why it can be BITEy. Regards SoWhy 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Also, the problem is not evident from your example: This version that was tagged already had sufficient claims of importance/significance to fail A7. But people misunderstanding the criteria will not be solved with changing the policy, we need to educate those people. Regards SoWhy 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
What SoWhy said. Unfortunately, this will be a never ending struggle that needs to be addressed on an editor-by-editor basis. Typically it's a new, enthusiastic NPPer who thinks NPP is a race to see who can slap a deletion tag on articles as quickly as possible. They mean well, but they don't think about the message it sends to editors who create an article in good faith. (However, I have no problem with tagging an article like "Julie is a cute girl at my school" with A7 seconds after creation. There I think we gain something by sending the message that your loveletters won't last long on Wikipedia, so take it to MySpace or Facebook.)
I already had this particular editor in my sights for some other bad tags, and it looks like Xeno is stepping in to work with him (assuming the male gender from the user name). Hopefully this will get straightened out quickly.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote recently in an AfD, I think A7 should not be used for most academics: implicit in receiving a Ph.D. is that their research has some permanent significance, although usually not by itself enough to pass a full AfD. I would certainly have declined the speedy for this one. Regardless of that, some standards for overhasty tagging of new articles seem like a good idea. We encourage new-page patrollers to go from the back of the new-page queue rather than from the front, but maybe some more explicit standard would be helpful. If we do put in some sort of delay, though, it should not apply to G10. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have long ago requested that the software does not list new pages as unpatrolled in the first 15-30 minutes after creation. The only reason I haven't is because that would allow G10 attack pages to exist for 15-30 minutes more. So I do not know which kind of delay we can put in. Technical delays will not work for this reason and rules of such a kind always rely on people following them. If you got something in your mind, David, please tell us. I cannot think of any solution... Regards SoWhy 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
One solution that's been suggested before (and there may have been technical reasons why the devs can't do this) is to present the new pages in reverse chronological order so that the newest one is at the bottom of your screen. Sure, people could still hit page down and go straight there (which is how I find pages that have been up for a couple of hours already to work on), but an editor has to actively choose to do that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that attack pages should be nominated for speedy deletion immediately, however, I have taken that into account with my suggestion. I don't know if this has previously been considered: We can have a 30 minute limit (which is still pretty short) for nominations for speedy deletions under the article criteria, while all other criteria for speedy deletion remain unaffected. This would allow editors to quickly create new articles, without having to include everything relevant for notability in the first edit, while at the same time it would also allow new page patrollers to quickly nominate all pages consisting of gibberish or pages like "Person XY is a dick." immediately. It would also force a new page patroller to look at the article for a few minutes to see if it actually does fall under one of the article CSDs. Zara1709 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I just notified the deleting admin of this discussion. Second, I agree with those above who indicated that this should not have been deleted A7. Would it survive an AFD in the state it was in? Certainly not. But the reason why we don't allow articles that assert significance/importance to be deleted is because there may be more to the story than the current version indicates. This should have been prodded or sent to AfD, not speedily deleted.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are clear differences between articles that say Foo F. Bar is a professor known for his achievements in sociology and Jane F. Doe is my sister. She is awesome or The Wikipedians is a band. They are awesome. A7 is supposed to be designed for those latter two examples that I have mentioned (and which I run into from time to time when patrolling) as opposed to the first example; the first example presents some assertion of notability, while the last two do not. That's where I believe people trip up a lot when it comes to tagging as A7. I think we'd we doing a disservice to those clear cases out there if we were forced to wait a certain amount of time before anything could be done. MuZemike 06:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A7 is to sort out the autobios, the he-is-my-best-friend-bios, the myspace bands and personal websites, all those things that seek to use Wikipedia as a platform to present the subject. If there is any indication at all that the subject might just be more than that (even if it's only GNews), A7 is the wrong thing to do. To cite another example: Stäubli. It was tagged A7 when I came across it (diff) and it met the letter of A7 actually. There was nothing in the article to indicate any significance or importance at all. But a quick GNews search found a ton of hits and I have instead expanded it to DYK size and submitted it there for review. But more important, the tagger checked back and saw that this was possible and when I explained to him why I thought it did not meet the spirit of A7 (similar to what MuZemike said), he said he likes it and will be more careful from now on. Which brings me back to my first point: Educating taggers to fix things instead of tagging them will help us much more in the long run, not only because those taggers who understand this will probably make good admins in the future.
On a side note, maybe we should reconsider S Marshall's suggestion from some time ago about upgrading WP:BEFORE into a policy or guideline that applies to all deletion venues... Regards SoWhy 06:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, my thoughts on this were coloured by my recent participation in WP:NODRAMA. In the past five days I've stayed off the Wikipedia:X space entirely (which was lovely!) and in that time I've created a dozen new articles. Thinking back on that experience, I've realised how much tiptoeing around I did because of CSD.

    I found myself creating articles in single edits of ~5k bytes (example) rather than building them slowly, using {{inuse}} or {{beingtranslated}} templates to keep the speedy deletion people at bay, or building in my sandbox rather than the article space—in other words, tricks to placate the new pages patrollers while writing. It was a little inconvenient even for someone who understands CSD, and I can't help thinking how hard it would be for someone new.

    I also discovered Taukkyan Roadblock, which is (today) a perfectly accurate article, but when I first read it, was a hoax (admins will be able to see the history, I think). And I know how it slipped through the new pages patrol: it looked good. Infobox, broken into headings, it looked like something written by an experienced Wikipedian. So whoever looked at it didn't bother doing the checks.

    I suppose what this discussion is coming to, is that new pages patrollers often don't check things. They aren't looking to see whether a good-faith article in construction could be sourced, and they aren't looking at whether a bad-faith article created in a single click is sourced. A very cynical part of me thinks this might be because the kind of people who check sources are working in the article space rather than at new pages patrol.

    Instinct says that the new pages patrollers themselves aren't going to learn to check sources. New pages patrol is a speed game where the quickest trigger finger wins the prize. Which means that structurally, the onus is going to remain on the CSD-reviewing admin to look at sources. (If an admin can't be trusted to check sources, we're sunk.)

    Given our current low ratio of admins to patrollers and editors, though, it's no wonder that some stuff that shouldn't be speedied, is, and some stuff that should be speedied, isn't.

    So, let's promote a thousand trustworthy admins tomorrow and solve the problem. Sound good? :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, and check this as a beautiful piece of evidence in support of my point: diff. Article created in a single edit of ~4k bytes, and tagged in the same second by a new pages patroller. There is absolutely no way that patroller read the article or hunted for sources. None at all. It was a total drive-by "see it, tag it, move on to the next one" approach. And it is, frankly, bloody annoying.

    Can we make a rule that says you have to write and source twenty articles before you're allowed to be a new pages patroller?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thought...

Another thought on how to do achieve that tags are not visible too soon after creation, although this would require a new feature for the software: If we could get a dev to create a new magic word called {{CREATIONTIMESTAMP}}, we could change the templates so that they will only show on the page and in CAT:CSD if the difference between this timestamp (i.e. the time and date of the page creation) and the current time is > 30 minutes. This way pages could still be tagged by overhasty taggers but the page creator will not see the tag or risk deletion within this time. And this way an exception could be made for {{db-attack}}. Only downside I can see is that the creator might not be able to {{hangon}} the page if they do not see the page but taggers are usually reminded to notify the creator and we could just tweak the notification template to reflect on the delay. What do you think? Regards SoWhy 06:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, for some set of criteria, certainly including A1 and A3, and the other criteria are negotiable. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Very good idea. Automatically for A1 and A3, and possibly also automatically for A7 and G11. I'm not quite sure how to handle the notices, though. DGG (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I could see this on the criteria that have some "wiggle room" in them, but the general criteria are all pretty cut and dried, things either fit them or they don't, regardless of the time since their creation, although DGG may have a point on G11, as it sometimes can be easily fixed by chopping to a stub. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Great suggestion. There's still the task of getting the devs to make it ... -- King of ♠ 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As always, I oppose this due to the increased likelihood of page creators escaping deletion of inappropriate pages by removing the tag during the delay. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That can be handled the same way one handles inappropriate unprods: watchlist the article when you tag it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'd say the way to handle this would be to trust in SDPatrolBot (talk · contribs) retagging those removals. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I'd like to propose adding obvious neologisms and stuff made up one day as a criteria for speedy deletion. This would be a more accurate reason for deletion than G1 (Patent nonsense). I've noticed an increase in these kind of articles over the past few months. In any hour I new page patrol, I generally prod 2 or 3 articles. I'm trying to think of one that was improved to the point of notability and cant. Having this criteria as a tool would be helpful and save editors time in dealing with this kind of cruft.--RadioFan (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with just prodding it?   M   01:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the same people who think it's a good idea to add the article in the first place can unprod it, and then we're stuck with the heavyweight process of an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Convenience is nice, yes, but not actually what the CSD are for. I don't see why speedy deleting such articles is at all necessary, as PROD and AfD can easily handle the burden. Moreover, anything massively obvious enough to fall under a new criterion could likely be handled by G1, G2, or G3 as is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What David Eppstein said. Many editors bold enough to create krufty article for words they've made up or picked up from the urban dictionary are also bold enough to deprod something not because it's their right but just to be a nuisance. Sure it can be brought to AFD but that just wastes more editor's time. I'm talking about the really obvious cases. G2 isn't appropriate. G1 doesn't work very well as I've had reviewing admins decline saying "needs references but not gibberish". G3 also doesn't work well here beacuse its not just vandals creating these pages, its also new editors. G3 is a bit to harsh and puts more of a vandal label on them than help them make better articles. A specific speedy criteria for neologisms would give new page patrollers in particular a tool to deal with this and would better educate new why stuff they've made up or heard in the high school hallways isnt going to meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhere in between David and Lifebaka. If I prod something, and the prod is removed without the issue I prodded it for being fixed, I go to AFD so fast it'll make your head spin. AFD can actually be better for neologism articles because they often get WP:SNOWed and are deleted pretty quick anyway, and then they can be speedied as G4. I'm also always sure to add in my AFD nom that it is a contested prod and the proper fixes were not made. As far as made-up stuff, didn't we just discuss that one on this page? The basic problem there is that we would be altering one of the underlying principles of CSD, which is that the criteria should not be based on WP:NOT, so it would need a much wider forum than just this talk page, and personally I don't think it's such a big problem to be worth all the trouble getting it there would entail.--Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The other recent discussion on basically the same topic is up the page under the heading "Any CSD category for a newly made up drinking game." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It is not necessarily obvious whether a neologism is actually newly invented, unless the articles says so on its face. The exposure to community view on either a prod or AfD is necessary; some few such articles are in fact in fairly wide use and are kept.. My experience with prods is that about half of them succeeed without being defended, so it is in fact useful. There are almost no articles to which this might safely apply. DGG (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You are correct that many prods end up getting the article deleted. If an editor is stup^H^H^H^Hsilly enough to create a useless article on some word they made up, they are probably are silly enough not to actually read the prod tag and learn that they can remove it for any reason. Some of them are silly enough to leave me a note on my talk page asking how they can prevent the article from being deleted. Sure I could tell them that they could remove the prod tag if they like, but its their problem if they wont take the time to read. I take those notes as an opportunity to pass on all the good information available in WP:N and WP:CITE. If they wont read article tags, they've certainly not read any of the guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I just had a case of this, but I'm not sure what actually happened. Yesterday I prodded Koorill. It obviously fell under WP:MADEUP, which is what I said in my prod nom. It was poorly written and basically stupid, but I don't believe it was patent nonsense. However, at some point between then and now it was deleted as a G1. Can someone with admin powers see exactly what happened,if the prod was removed or if someone just added a speedy or what? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Many, many neologism state that they are newly created. The reason for this is probably because it's natural to want to take credit for the creation when writing these patently inappropriate articles. That is why I think the criterion I proposed in the previous discussion works. It won't get all neo/protologisms but it will get many, and it safely applies to all within its stated ambit. Moreover, in addition to articles on newly made up, unimportant words, it objectively reaches other things that are WP:NFT material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Beeblebrox: there are no edits in the page's history after yours (by the way, love your username, and am a fan).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if we did have such a speedy criterion, I'd want it to apply only in cases (1) where the article consists only of a dictionary definition, (2) where the article lists no reliable sources for the use of the term, and (3) where it is not possible to find (e.g. by Google) any evidence of widespread or significant use of the term. So I'd think of these articles as not just failing WP:NOT, but also WP:N and WP:V. But for (2), the urban dictionary web site (or encyclopedia dramatica, etc) doesn't count as a reliable source, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit says "many neologism state that they are newly created", and proposes a compromise CSD for "An article on a thing (word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy, religion, etc.), which indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know, and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". This reminds me of an AfD discussion I took place in recently where the article explicitly stated that its subject was little known and had not received media attention (or something to that effect: I forget the exact wording). More than one contributor to the AfD said that the article was in effect declaring its own lack of notability. Is there a case for, rather than a CSD for neologisms, a CSD for "articles which themselves state that they do not satisfy Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion"? (It might need rewording, but that is the idea.) This would cover the case I mentioned and also the sort of pages which Fuhghettaboutit referred to; however, it would avoid catching the type of case which DGG refers to, where what looks like a neologism turns out on investigation not to be one. On the face of it there would be a catch: if I want an article deleted I just add a sentence saying it is not notable, and propose it for speedy deletion. However, I don't see that as a serious problem: admins could presumably be expected to have the intelligence to see past that, and the instructions for this CSD could explicitly cover this. Any thoughts? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern with a neologism or "stuff made up one day" CSD is mainly that there is no good way to prove that a term (or drinking game, or whatever) is not or was not in wide use in some important community. Keep in mind that Not Everything Is Online. For example, a "neologism" may actually be an old term that is no longer in use, just the sort of thing the web might miss. The article creator should have an opportunity to justify the term's notability. Dcoetzee 06:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless it states on the article that it was made up and that it is a first-party publication of that term. Perhaps we could require that a neologism requires a source/reference in order to qualify under this hypothetical CSD? Same thing as WP:ARTIST's point of the subject of multiple publications in reputable sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
@JBWatson: Well, you can erase a whole article, replace it with "X is a really nice guy," and tag it as {{db-nocontext}} as well. Indeed, admins are presumed to check, so no explicit provision is necessary. -- King of ♠ 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
But yes, I agree with the proposal to speedy delete articles that assert non-notability. -- King of ♠ 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)