Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 4

Warning

This page is an Archive of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and covers discussions held roughly between May 2005 and August 2005. (Some in that time period were also archived in Archive3.) As an archive, this is no longer considered a live page. Further discussions or disputes should be made on the current talk page. You may, however, link to or copy old discussions from here as necessary.

Speedy attack pages?

It seems that attack pages ("john doe is an idiot", stuff like that) are usually speedied, as libel. Should this page be edited to reflect that? Radiant_* 09:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• That makes sense, go for it. Thryduulf 09:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• People are very sensitive to the expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. I suggest that if you think that expansion is necessary a wording be proposed and discussed here (although it can be argued that "short article with no context" already covers the specific example given). Uncle G 13:01, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
• As Uncle G says, the very brief ones are already covered under "short article with no context". The best handling of longer screeds is open to some question. If they're clearly attack articles with no other history, then I'm not sorry to see them go. How we would codify that requires careful thought. It's also possible that some of the lengthier attacks might fall under the vandalism criteria; again, we don't need additional policy in that case. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• From WP:VAND, "Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc.".
• I do not seek to add a new Speedy criterion, but I would like to add a line or two to case General/3 (vandalism) and Articles/1 (short with no context) to reflect our common practice against attack pages. Would people think that a good idea? Radiant_* 08:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Radiant, I agree wholehartedly in principle, and I agree that General-1 could be more specific as to this type of attack pages. You propose changing Articles-1, but doesn't Articles-6 deal more with what you are refering to: "Short articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject ("insult pages", e.g. "John is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11")."? Gblaz 16:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia

There si a discussion on this topic Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia that may propose a change to criteria for speedy deletion. 33px helix84 19:50, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV speedyism

I just found this {{db|non-sensical article on a group of worshippers of a [[Guy Fawkes|British murderer]].}} on Bonfire Society. Strikes me as more than a bit POV. Now I'm wondering if I should drop a note on the talk page of the user who posted it. Any suggestions? Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

You should. Actually the user who marked it for speedy also misunderstood it. A bonfire society celebrates the English festival of Guy Fawkes, November 5, which is not an act of worship but a celebration of the discovery of the Gunpowder plot, in which the Yorkshire-born Catholic Guy Fawkes, a veteran of the Catholic-Protestant wars in the Netherlands, was a notable conspirator. I;m going to expand the article by adding external links to websites of bonfire societies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
Have done: I made a few minor edits to the page and moved it, but I know very little about the subject, apart from the fact that I attended the Lewes society bash a few times in the past. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

There is a page titled Weston Fillman which should be quickly deleted as it is the biography of a self important recent high school graduate.

Reason to be supplied on 'Talk' page

I propose that whoever deletes a page marked for speedy deletion must include the deciding reason for its deletion. I have had a page deleted twice now that was marked for speedy deletion on the basis of one man's POV. Whoever deletes an article must identify themselves and their reasons. They must be accountable. 80.229.14.246 00:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• (The "article" was List of animals that explode. This abUser's Contribution History says it all. --Wetman 01:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))
• I have actually listed this on votes for undeletion, because we do appear to have quite a few articles on exploding animals (my fault, sorry). Can't see what the problem is with a list, and it hardly seems like it falls under speedy deletion criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• That'll create yet more mess to clean up in the 99.5% of CSD cases that are undisputable. -- Cyrius| 10:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The person is already identified, and the reasons are already listed, in the deletion log. Uncle G 12:41, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Newbies very rarely find the deletion log. In (frequent) cases of aggresive interpretation of the criteria they are likely to be confused and hurt by the unexplained disappearance of their good-faith contribution. Kappa 13:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with 80.229.14.246's concern, but from the standpoint of one who frequently processes CSDs. I believe that if it is important enough to identify an article as a candidate for speedy delete, it is important enough to state a reason. Having seen many articles tagged for speedy deletion which in fact were not candidates at all (my ballpark guess is that close to half of speedy tags are invalid according to WP:CSD criteria), and with no explanation as to why they were tagged in the first place, I'm beginning to think that the process for identifying an article as a speedy candidate should be at least as daunting as that required to tag a VfD candidate. Denni 2005 June 30 01:25 (UTC)
• Would it make sense for the CSD tag to also include the rule number(s) under which it is being tagged or some similar mark? --ssd
• I think that would not be a bad idea. The only problem is that many people don't seem to understand what the rules themselves mean. For instance, "patent nonsense" is employed far too often when an article is not patent nonsense at all, and doesn't even come close to meeting the criterion. Denni 2005 July 5 18:05 (UTC)
• At least is the specific reason and the number of the applicable criterion is cited, it is easier to see what is going on, and people might actually read the criteria. I favor this idea, and i think that the recent changes in {{delete}} will help. DES 17:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template over text

Maybe it's just my browser (Internet Explorer) or the screen definition (1400 ${\displaystyle \times }$ 1050), but the {{Deletiontools}} template is shown right over the first paragraph in the article! I think it may be the "float: right;" section on the style of the table that composes it, although I have not changed it because I might be wrong. Jotomicron | talk 16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Implied Section

On 13 May 2005, the Implied section was added to the list. Now that it's been up a month and we have some experience with it, I think it's appropriate to reevaluate. Is it useful or is it instruction creep? Bullet 2 caught my eye tonight and, for some reason, struck me as redundant to General case 3 (vandalism). Do others find it useful? Can we trim the list without losing any of the meaning? Rossami (talk) 21:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Both bullets seem a bit redundant and not needed. Implied#1 is a restatement of General#8. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some of the recent changes to the CSD page made by user:Netoholic are, in my view, substantive. ( refer particualrly to the changes to G8 and A4) Is it normal to make such changes without a proposal and poll? Particularly when they to some extent duplicate or overlap changes in an ongoing proposal. Mind you i don't disagree with all the changes, but I am dubious about this procedure. DES 7 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Reliance on polls and votes for everything is something many editors need to let go of. This is a wiki, those changes have wide support and are mostly clarifications (obvious to some). I refer you (DES) again to the recent talk page message I left you, as well. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
You mean the msg where you accused me of "trolling" and "harrasing" you? or the one where you said "Now, leave me alone"? Frankly I didn't find either msg worth of much consideration. In any case I simply asked whether in the view of those reading this page it was normal to make substantive changes -- and yes, some of your changes here were substantive -- in the way you did them. Note that there was not only no poll, there was no proposal, no discussion on these specific changes. There has been considerable discussion on related changes elsewhere, but you opposed those changes, and you have opposed applying people's comments to wording different from the wording they were discussing. Your actions here seem inconsistant to me. But i haven't -- as yet -- simply reverted your changes, nor accused you of doing anything wrong I simply asked if the procedure you followed was considered normal. I would very much welcome a response from some third party on these issues. DES 04:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
As a general concept, I expect "policy" pages to be more or less stable. Too common policy change is a time waste in at least 3 ways I can think of: 1) The time wasted changing it over and over again. 2) The time wasted to keep up to date 3) The time wasted correcting mistakes done in good faith by someone that didn't knew some policy changed.
As to this case I take it as quite unpolite to make any changes to policy in a period of time when changes are being discussed. At any other momment Netoholic would be right, these were mostly small and obvious clarifications, a broader discussion would only be needed in case some others disagree with them. Nabla 14:26, 17 July 2005
• Generally, people shouldn't make substantive changes to this page (or any policy). Common sense additions and explanations would be okay, though. In this case, well, let's see...
1. "text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent" under CSD#1, that sounds like common sense. I don't see much usefulness of this added text but I certainly don't see the harm.
2. "This includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism." under vandalism, this is indeed a clarification of how we usually proceed, so it should have been added.
3. "Talk pages of already deleted pages unless" is much clearer now, which is good.
4. "including those which contain no information other than a rephrasing of the title." added to CSD#A1 is somewhat controversial depending on how people define 'rephrasing'; but this may be superseded by the present CSD expansion.
5. Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with, or unredeemably disparage" is not really a clarification of the criterion it's added to. However by the CSD expansion this will likely be a separate point anyway.
• That scores Netoholic three out of five :) Radiant_>|< 07:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reposted content that was VfDed

What is the time limit for recreating an article after a VfD? The specific example is a biography that was deleted on April 30, 2005, and has been recreated (by the subject) today, July 18, 2005. Is it a candidate for Speedy or has enough time passed that a proposal for deletion should go through VfD again? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC) (PS: The content is not identical.)

There is no time limit. We've talked about making one but rejected the idea as too rigid and too easy to game. The judgment call should generally be made on two factors.
1. Does the VfD decision lead you to believe that no article on this topic can ever be acceptable? If yes, then neither time nor content matter.
2. How close is the content? It need not be exactly identical to be speedy-deletable but the differences should be minor and, more importantly, the concerns raised during the deletion VfD decision should still apply in your judgment (for example, if it was deleted as "vanity" and the subject still hasn't done anything that meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies).
If you have a question, I'd ask for a second opinion. Or just nominate it to regular VfD with a link to the prior decision and your notes that the new article is not identical. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Rossami, and would like t oadd this comment: when in doubt, you could also ask by taking the matter to Votes for Undeletion. If you can make a case there e.g. "well, the subject wasn't notable a year ago, but has gotten an extensive media reputation since then", people are likely to accept it. Radiant_>|< 07:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for the advice. This may be an area that could be better covered in the instructions (without setting a definite limit). In this instance, while I was mulling over what to do, another editer nominated the article for VfD. That makes this case moot but I appreciate the help for future instances. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal

...is a proposal to expand and amend the CSD. Please contribute! Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:28 (UTC)

I have added the material from those proposals that have gained a clear consensus. Though the proposal set self-declared a 70% required margin for passage, I have instead taken a more conservative view and added only those proposals where a consensus was clear based on such factors as the overall percentage of "support" voters, the nature of the objections, and the presence of support from particularly well-respected Wikipedians. I believe it is clear that proposals 10, 11, 13, and G4 have passed. Proposal 1 has a degree of support but am unsure that it reflects consensus so I shall await comments or definitive action by others. Voting on 3C is still open. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Voting on P1-A and P1-B is also still open, although neither looks likely to pass at the moment. DES 17:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
What about 3-C? Its border line 70 percent i have it at 69.3 or 69.6 depending if the unsigned vote in the suppor collumn counts or not XD. Sasquatch′TalkContributions 05:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• 3-C is an interesting case. Many of the people who opposed it do so because a policy page should not refer to a guideline page, or a WikiProject. Arguably this could be solved by either moving the WP:MUSIC page out of the WikiProject and tagging it policy, or by copy/pasting its criteria into the CSD mainpage. I've gotten enough comments along these lines to draw the proposal over the '70%' mark. However I'm hesitant to just do it like that. But given the amount of support this proposal got (and the amount of band articles appearing on VFD daily) I do believe we should give this some more thought. Radiant_>|< 08:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that it would be unwise to try to implement it by fiat. Instead, let's discuss it for a couple of weeks, get the wording right, let the dust settle from the other newly adopted items, and then plan for another vote in a few weeks. I support it in principle but there are problems for classical music that are still unaddressed, and I share the concern of others regarding the dynamic nature of WP:MUSIC. Since 3C is a third attempt to get the wording right, yet still suffers, let's try to be sure we get the next one right. There should be no reason why we can't pass something with an 80% margin then. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly agree. Besides, one can't do anything by fiat on a wiki anyhow :) Shall we move this discussion to the talk page of WP:MUSIC? It seems most appropriate. Radiant_>|< 17:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• That looks good to me =). Let's get all the wording and bugs smoothed out before we do something rash. Sasquatch′TalkContributions 20:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather propose that we work on this at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C, because I think we may be best served by guidelines that are different from WP:MUSIC. I'll elaborate there. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable bios)

Recent activity in the deletion log, on VfD, and on [[WP:VFU|VfU] (in particular, WP:VFU#Chetan Patel this listing) has persuaded me that the new CSD criterion A7 (short bios without a claim of notability) needs some clarification. Specifically we need to come to a clearer agreement on what kinds of statement consititute a "claim of notability" The examples included with the original proposal are not sufficient. Therefore, I am proposing the following examples, not as policy, but as guidance in apply the existing policy. Once we reach a consensus on them, they can be used to guide future action under CSD A7.

I hope that people will comment on these proposed examples, and we can come to some sort of consensus on what is and is not a claim of notability. DES 04:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

1. . As a general rule, stating that a person is a member of a profession or occupation is not in itself a claim of notability. This applies whether the profession is school teacher, college professor, writer, lawyer, politician, musician, singer, military officer, scientist, software developer, or whatever. Achievements in a profession or occupation are another matter. A very few exceptional professions might be inherently notable -- the only example I have thought of is Astronaut. Other professions of which there are very few members, and which are natural occasions of public attention might similarly qualify. A statement that a person is experienced in or skilled at a profession is not a claim of notability. However, a statement that other members of the profession generally recognize the person as an authority is a claim of notability.
2. . A statement that a person holds or has held any elected governmental office is a claim of notability. So is a statement that a person holds any appointed office in a regional (state, province, or the like) or national government. So is a statement that a person has been a national officer of a labor organization, or of organization that is itself notable. A statement at a person has been an officer or active member in a purely local organization, or a local chapter or branch of a wider organization, is not a claim of notability per se unless the local organization or chapter is itself clearly notable.
3. . A statement that a person has published one or more books (unless they are said to be self-published or vanity published, or this is clearly implied) or multiple magazine or journal articles or stories is a claim of notability.
4. . A statement that a person is a musician or singer fulfilling any of the WP:MUSIC criteria is a claim of notability.
5. . A statement that a person has received coverage in mainstream print or electronic media is a claim of notability. So is any statement that clearly implies that any such coverage must have occurred.
6. . A statement that a person has won any sort of national or regional competition, or placed in the top group in a national competition is a claim of notability.
7. A statement about a person which is inherently unverifiable, such as a statement about the person's thoughts or mental experiences, is not a claim of notability.

The above are examples, and are not the only possible claims of notability. For purposes of CSD A7, any claim must be assumed to be true If the claim is disputed, or if there is a claim but the editor or admin is unsure if the degree of notability involved is sufficient to warrant an article, then CSD A7 should not be used. Instead edit and expand the article, or list it on VfD. If an admin finds an article listed for speedy deletion under A7 which makes a claim of notability such as one of the above, should remove the speedy deletion tag, possibly listing the article on VfD instead.

Note that the mere fact that a claim of notability is made is not a sufficient reason for the article to be retained during the VfD process. There the plausibility, verifiability, and importance of the claim may be assessed. These examples are only for the purpose of deciding when to apply CSD Criterion A7.

Discussion of the proposed examples

• Okay. This sounds like a good idea. However, I would prefer it split into a part for things that are claims, and one for things that aren't. And a few concrete examples wouldn't hurt I guess. What may be useful as a rule-of-thumb is the question, "how many people have done the same?" If the answer is "a lot" (as with being, say, a scientist) then it is not a claim to notability. If the answer is "very few" (e.g. an astronaut) then it is. Oh by the way point #2 should make an exception for such elected offices as president of the local chapter of someone's frat house. Radiant_>|< 07:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh by the way this should be moved to Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which already has an example or two. Radiant_>|< 08:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• you are probably right that I should re-factor this into pros and cons. You may also be right about moving this. I intend this to be entirely about the application of the speedy criteria. An article that clearly includes a claim of notability by these standards, and so is not subject to being speedied, may still be deleted on VfD as vanity. My thought was that if a consensus is reached, this would wind up at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Examples, but that is just a suggestion. As to point two, by "elected office" I meant an actual governental position -- i will revise. DES 16:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• I object to the above attempt to massively expand an already controversial rule. In particular this: "stating that a person is a member of a profession or occupation is not in itself a claim of notability. This applies whether the profession is school teacher, college professor, writer, lawyer, politician, musician, singer, military officer, scientist, software developer, or whatever. Achievements in a profession or occupation are another matter." This means that we can just speedy articles that say stuff like "Diana Ross is a singer", "Stephen Jay Gould" was a professor of paleontology and zoology" and the like. I am spending quite a lot of my time trawling deletion log and restoring improperly speedied articles as it is. I do not want to spend the rest of my time on Wikipedia doing this. Let's stop speedying articles without very good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• I do not think the above in any way expands the rule as it was passed. the examples that accompanied recently passed proposal, IMO clearly implied that mere membership in a profession is not a claim of notability. Note that it is what is claimed in the article that is at issue here, not what is true but left unmentioned. Is "Jane Jones is a singer" a claim of notability? Is "The late John Smith was a professor of paleontology and zoology" a claim of notability? if not, then neither are your examples. Mind you if I encountered an article like either of your examples on new page patrol, I would expand, not speedy. But if an article such as you cite were speedied, IMO nothing of value would be lost. If someone doesn't know who Diana Ross or Stephan Jay Gould is, then the above does not inform the reader in any useful way, and if someone does know, a red link is probably more motivation to write a proper article than a sub-stub such as you cite. This is exactly the argument that you made during the debate over this expansion of the CSD. It didn't carry the day then, and I don't think it should now. DES 21:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Also, could you please cite a few examples of articels you feel were improperly deleted under CSD A7? Some actual examples might help the rest of us see if this criterion is being applied improterly, and if it is, how to frame examples to avoid or reduce this possibility. DES 21:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

T'was me that took that article to VfU. I was, I admit, dubious about a large number of that particular admin's deletions (and I'm not especially inclusional). I couldn't see the rest of the article, and the deletion log reasoning was unpersuasive - the use of "apparently" is fuzzy when A7 has quite particular phrasing. Thus, I VfU'd it in good faith. I didn't realize I had caused this discussion. My view of "notability" was being a principal engineer might have meant there was something else in the article that went on to assert notability, even if it wasn't real notability.

However, the above does expand the A7 criterion quite a bit: no. 4 is proposal 3-C by proxy, and that failed (sadly). Perhaps (1) would be more tolerable to all if just said something easy like "Merely stating someone's occupation, regardless of what that occupation is, is not an assertion of notability unless qualified in some way so as to assert note". I think no. 4 would have to go (see the discussion page for 3-C). Also, no. 7 is effectively a new CSD by proxy: verifiability is not currently an explicit part of the CSD, although it probably ought to be. Ok, this isn't an especially helpful comment, but I'm rather thinking out loud. -Splash 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Further Issues with CSD 1.2.7

I got a complaint from another admin for deleting an article about a flash animation created by two sixth graders. This admin believed that it should have gone to VFD on the grounds that it did not explicitly meet the terms of 1.2.7 (which only covers biography of a non-notable person). My argument for believing that CSD 1.2.7 had been met (and hence my deletion) was if a person meets 1.2.7 (ie. is a non-notable person) then the work they create is also non-notable.

I get to this by working in reverse - can the work of a single person be notable, and yet the single person involved not be? (Obvoiusly the work of a large number of people - eg. a movie - can be notable without all the individuals involved being notable).

Another messy reason to argue policy... oh dear. As it stands - I can't bear the thought of listing a flash animation by a sixth grader on VFD... I mean - c'mon guys. If that logic holds, we would need to VFD every article that explains the significance of Jimmy Brown's latest love poem to the girl who sits next to him in history class, because CSD fails to explicitly allow its deletion. Manning 13:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• There were proposals to make other sorts of non-notable things, such as web-sites, bands, etc, subject to speedy deletion. They failed. I think that the CSD ought to be read strictly, and that speedy-deleting the article you describe was incorrect. Indeed I weould argue that a compute program might possible be notable, but a poage about its creator, if not notable for anything else, might not survive VfD, although it wouldn't be subject to A7. And yes, the kid's poem would have to go through VfD IMO. If such cases are common enough to cause a problem, we can consider how to include them in the CSD. For the moment, I'd like to work on getting a band CSD witten and passed. DES 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I understand Manning's point, and it may be possible to speedy such articles under other criteria (such as "short with no context", depending on the article's content). However, CSD #7 is strictly about people. It is entirely possible for a non-notable person to be the make-up artist for a stunt double of a actor in some B-movie, and we generally keep articles on B-movies. Radiant_>|< 17:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

And one more thing

There are those of us (you know who you are) who tirelessly sit through the CSD pages, deleting all the nonsense, checking up on the ones which need more discernment, moving the non-CSD ones over to VFD, and writing warnings to the people who list stuff on CSD as vandalism. It is hard work.

Now those who do this are going to OCCASIONALLY get one wrong and overstep the line. Usually they are judgement calls - and usually some nameless garage band from Omaha. We really don't need some "holier-than-though" message from another admin about "Do you happen to know we have a deletion policy here at Wikipedia? You are over-stepping the line..." Blah blah blah.

Guys - back off. Anyone deleting a page is an admin, and no-one gets to admin status without putting in the hard yards. There are very few admins who behave irresponsibly, and they are easily sorted out. However, everyone makes mistakes and errors of judgement, and if you really disagree with a CSD decision, by all means explain your position. But cut out the whiny-arsed "holier-than-thou" crap. Show the respect you expect to receive. Manning 13:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, at the moment, there is no article about a "nameless garage band from Omaha" which is subject to speedy deletion. This is clear-vut, not a judgement call. The proposal to ake many such articles subject to speedy deletion failed. Some people are discussing a revised proposal. I hope it passes, and allows much of the flod of articles on bands that will never pass VfD to get speedy deleted. But that hasn't happend yet. Until it does, Admins shouldn't speedy such articles, and should expect complaints and VfU listings if they do. DES 18:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• That said, any such comment ought to be polite, and assume that the admin acted in good faith and from positive motives. There is no excuse to abuse someone who is trying to do a good job -- unless perhaps such a person persists in repeatedly speedy deleting such articles after several warnings. DES 18:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• There is one minor subtlety to the "nameless Omaha band" example, in a kind of reverse. If the article is about a person in the band, and manages not to assert notability it is still speediable. Whether assering being in a random band is automatically notable is a more difficult question. -Splash 18:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Manning. We are all people here and occasionally make mistakes. Admins are generally level-headed and responsible people, because they wouldn't be admins otherwise. They do make mistakes, and we have pages such as WP:VFU to deal with those. That doesn't mean that a lot of people should get angry at the admin. WP:CIV is the norm. Radiant_>|< 17:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hoaxes and Fiction

A Hoax is clearly not going to survive VfD. Neither will an attempt to use Wikipedia to publish fiction. But it seems to me that neither are subject to speedy deletion under the current CSD. Some think differently. This recently came up on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gus Roberts, where I wrote:

• I don't see anything on the Wikipedia:vandalism page that says that a hoax is a type of vandalism, although it might be implied on the grounds that it is a bad-faith edit. However I would be opposed to making (or considering) a hoax as a reson for speedy deletion , because there are too many false positives. I have seen several articles nominted for VfD listed as "hoax" where it turns out that they are accurate but unusual. For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth Foulstar where someone incorrectly thought the page might be a hoax. Too many pages are inaccurately identified as hoaxes for this to be a safe reason for speedy deletion -- let them come to VfD where several people can give vbiews, and if somehting is infact not a hoax, a citation will no doubt be provided. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• That said, I would not object to a new reason for speedy deletion that specified using wikipedia to publish fiction, which i think might cover this case, but I don't think that A3 as currently written will cover that. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The CSD serve two ends. First, they allow rapid removal of content that is harmful to the project's image. Second, they reduce the number of pages that have to go through VfD where the page will clearly eb deleted anyway. These principles should be borne in mind by anyone seeking to amend CSD and to a lesser extent by anyone involved in the deletion process. I routinely remove pages that contain implausiable material that appears libellous and unencyclopedic, such as the frequently seen pages that expound upon the sexual tastes of some non-notable person. These pages are harmful to the project's image. Other possible hoaxes should (IMO) be VfDed, and marked as a hoax. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• I think my biggest issue here is that people who use WP to perpetrate hoaxes make a mockery of the VfD process. I'm sure i don't need to cite any examples of such pages. They get created and could very easily be swiftly destroyed but instead they languish on VfD, rarely receiving more than 15 votes (and that is very generous) because people only vote on things that are funny or grab their attention. So the article sits, undeleted, for days upon days laughing in the face of WP's attempts at image burnishment. Even when an admin comes to a page marked CSD that is absolutely and undoubtedly a hoax (and I don't mean things like vanity pages or non notable bands, but out and out nonsense) s/he very often puts it on VfD anyway because it doesn't meet the strictest of standards. I find that the height of bureaucracy, and while I know bureaucracy is inevitable in such a project, I don't think there's anything wrong with curtailing it whenever possible.Apollo58 02:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• If a hoax is labelled for deletion, no harm is done to wikipedia image. Just the opposite: it shows due diligence and due process. mikka (t) 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• I especially hate examples such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gus Roberts. Note the comment of User:Dmcdevit. "It's 100% fiction and obviously a hoax but doesn't meet the standard for patent nonsense. Therefore, delete slowly." I almost imagine this user taking relish in allowing that page to languish. It's a subtle form of vandalism, IMO, and is a really good example of tyranny by bureaucracy and abandonment of common sense. "Sorry, just doesn't meet the criteria. NEXT!"
• It is a relatively harmless vandalism, since the page is labelled as unreliable. mikka (t) 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As in all discussions of justice, the benefit of doubt is of major weight here. 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• There is a very good reason hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates, because it is often tough to verify in a matter of minutes that an article in fact is a hoax. I myself have nominated two articles for deletion which I origianlly thought were hoaxes, but turned out not to be so, Like cola and Pseudowallerian degeneration, and I have also saved an article, Samuel Slocum, which was origianlly believed to be a hoax on the VFD debate. Verification of the fact that the article is a hoax is for the five day VFD process, not a two minute evaluation by one or two people. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Watching the upload log for images can be a depressing time. Many images are uploaded and have no source or license information. WP:CP and WP:IFD and WP:PUI aren't really keeping up. I wonder if there could be support to expand CSD in some way to include recently uploaded images which have no source or copyright info. Perhaps such a system could work like this:

• 1: User A uploads image X with no source or copyright info.
• 2: User B is on image patrol and tags image X with a template that puts it into a speedy-images category.
• 3: User C is on speedy patrol and goes through the images in the speedy-images category. When s/he finds images which were uploaded more than two hours previous, but remain untagged and unsourced, they get speedied.

If the image gets properly tagged before step 3 happens, then the speedy tag is removed and all is well. Of course, communication with the uploader on their talk page will be an important aspect of this, as well. I also don't know if the process could be made simpler by somehow sorting the speedy-images category by date added (I'm not much of a template-writing guru, but perhaps the template could include the current UTC hour as the sort key for the category?)

Anyway, I'm curious to see what people think of this. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No, not at least until image deletion can be reversed. A noob can easily not understand what to do, upload a self-made image, and then not realize it's going to be deleted. --SPUI (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, but as SPUI says, the problem is that a deleted image can't be restored without re-uploading the original. If a mistake is made on a speedied article, there is the chance to fix things using VuD. -- Solipsist 14:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Solipsist and SPUI. A person who uploades a validly PD or fairuse image shouldn't have that image deleted just because the uploaded faild to follow proper procedure. A delay-and-ask procedure is needed, similer to the current WP:PUI or IfD. Possibly the wait-tiems on thsoe should be reduced, but not to the level of ordinary speedy deletion, IMO. DES 14:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal, kmccoy. Ultimately, it must become the responsibility of the uploader to give the necessary information about an image, rather than the responsibility of others to seek it. I think there should some additional leeway, for Category:Presumed GFDL images, provided that becomes a temporary rather than permanent destination. Perhaps a week on GFDL-presumed, and then speedy deletion? That would give plenty of time to contact good-faith noobs. - Nat Krause 08:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The image upload page states prominently the rules of the game. Unless some image is rare and worth hassle, I say, kill mercilessly. mikka (t) 02:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If the "grace period" is 24-48 hours, then I am on board. Though, I think users should be notified somehow, just like what we do now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, so here is a proposed wording for a fourth criteria:
4. The image matches all of the following criteria:
• There is no (or patently false) source information given.
• The image must have had a {{no source}} tag (or equivalent warning of immanent deletion) for at least 48 hours or the user who uploaded it must have been previously warned about the deletion of unsourced images at least 48 hours ago.
• All pages from which the image is linked must have had a note made on their talk pages.
How is that? It gives everyone involved plenty of chances to get involved and allows for the instant deletion of unsourced images from abusive users. -Harmil 18:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have noted more than a few articles on bands or musical groups that appear, and go to VFD for being non-notable and unverifiable, with absolutely NO hits on any search engine. I'd like to suggest that the criteria be expanded to include any article on a band or musical group that turns up less than five results on a popular search engine. I'm aware of the recent failed proposal regarding bands failing to meet WP:MUSIC criteria, but thought that this might be a compromise that might work. In either case, I'm not sure how to go about proposing this change, other than listing it here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please call by Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. -Splash 13:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Does/should spam come under CSD?

The CSD for vanity allows speedy deletion about a real-world person that does not make a good-faith assertion of notability. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot contain a bio of all 5-billion humans, so there has to be some threshold.

Should we have a similar rule, similarly reasoned, with respect to obvious spam? I could see an aggressive deletionist interpreting the above rule to include corporations (which are persons in the eyes of the law), but that would be stretching a point. The reason, IMO, to include spam under CSD is that there is an incentive to create such articles, even if they are only short-lived, and that most companies now have a staff with the time and creativity to come up with new titles and ways to avoid the "substantially identical content" rule. A fail amount of VfD is spent on obvious advertisements, it seems to me.

This, of course, would not apply to good-faith attempts at NPOV articles about actually notable companies. Robert A West 14:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have seen it argued that spam, along with "jokes" and very obvious hoaxes, are formes of vandalism, and subject to speedy deletion as such. Does that seem correct to you? DES 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At present, some admins delete spam if it does not appear to be an attempt at an article. If it's just an ad, and there's no valuable encyclopedic content at all, that might be OK, though probably some users would object. Some falls under the present CSD if it consists only of links. Everything else has to go through VfD, as it should, because often such ads are expanded and become useful articles. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• If it's obvious vandalism, it can be speedied as such (WP:IAR). However, company advertisements can generally be turned into a decent article if the company has some notability. Radiant_>|< 17:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Of course, many such articels are copied from the company website, and as such are copyvios (few if any companies will release their website contents under the GFDL). DES 17:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Good point. Oh, I entirely forgot about this... in the CSD proposal, some people pointed out that the copyvio process might need some streamlining (one proposal was for deletion of any text copied from a website; this was voted down for being redundant, but maybe copyvio process could be speedied up). Radiant_>|< 17:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Since the first step of the process is to completly replace the copyvio with {{copyvio}} I don't see the huge need for haste later. There is a need for people to have time to respond in case the text actually is or can be released under GFDL (not likely for compapy ads but possible in some other cases, like text from personal web sites). In any case it can't be done as a true speedy, so it is a separate issue IMO.

Also, does the criterion, "Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title," include an article that is a contact page? Robert A West 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Any comments on Parker Law Firm? In this case, the article is clearly POV. While an attempt could be made to NPOV it, it was posted by someone who has been disrupting the VfD, harassing those who nominate/support the VfD, and using sock puppets despite repeated warnings against doing so. My offer to help the new user learn how to use Wikipedia was ridiculed. He has also returned to sock puppetry. I'd like to speedy this because of teh disruption, but as a nwe admin, I am treading carefully here. Ground Zero | t 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Image

What was wrong with the blank sign picture? Are we really to the point where we're being stuffy just for the sake of being stuffy? It'd be one thing to say "this is distracting" or "this is cluttering the page and making it hard to read", but I object to removing something amusing just because the page is Official Policy and "not the place for jokes". Lighten up. Isomorphic 02:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Previous agreed deletions reincarnated

Sometimes pages that did not meet criteria as a CSD are voted on under VfD, receive a consensus to Delete and are duly deleted... and are then recreated by the original editor. Shouldn't such reincarnations be CSD? Sorry if this is in the rules, but I can't find it; it seems to me obvious that it should be. seglea 00:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This applies only if the article was "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy.". It is WP:CSD G4. So if they've simply recreated the deleted page, yes it is speediable and it should be tagged with {{deleteagain}} so the admin can see why it is speediable rather than VfDable. -Splash 00:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

One more criterion

Shouldn't another criterion on speedy deletion be that an article has been determined by a non-admin closing a VfD debate that the article should be deleted? Obviously an admin would doing the actual deletion would need to check that the non-admin had not gone mad - but such a criterion may encourage non-admins to deal with the VfD workload (it certainly wouldn't do any harm), jguk 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I would exactly call that a speedy deletion, but surely paged validly designated for deleteion by a VfD (or a TfD or a CfD) process are deletable. I think a passage in one of the VfD policy pages on "what if a non-admin acts as closer" might be the better place to haandle that. DES (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd tend to discourage non-admins from closing the delete votes on VfD. Since the admin doing the deletion would have to check that the debate had been closed correctly anyway, there's not much effort saved. And there are lots of deletion debates that can be closed as keep or merge votes; there's no reason why a non-admin can't show their stuff working on those ones. (Keep and merge votes–the latter especially–require more work to close anyway, so admins would probably most appreciate the help there.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with TenOfAllTrades, especially when an admin does not really know the user who closed the VFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Kim Bruning was encouraging non-admins who are experienced editors to clsoe VfDs on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway as part of the discussion on what it takes to do a good job on VfDs. DES (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

An administrator can execute a VfD that has been determined by a non-admin closer, but that isn't really a speedy deletion (it takes at least five days to close). I agree that the executing admin has to double check the result; clearly Kim's intent--and I think it's a very laudable one--is to encourage non-admins feel the responsibility on their shoulders for a while. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly discourage non-admins from attempting to close a "delete" decision. They can't finish the work and any responsible admin is going to completely check their assessment before carrying out the decision. By the time you've reviewed the discussion and all the relevant facts in that level of detail, you've completely duplicated the non-admin's effort. Worse, you've also added several places where errors can get made and where discussions can fall through the cracks. I've had to clean up a couple of attempted closings like that. Rossami (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

I removed an edit that extended the criterion against previous consensus.

It was a heated discussion about this criterion, resulting in the decision that only real nonsense should fit this criterion. Any coherent text must have a benefit of doubt. What is more, there were several precedents (unfortunately I did not record them) of attempts of deletetion of articles written on rare topics, which someone quickly declared nonsense.

Please be patient with the label of patent nonsense. Unlike false and misleading information, it will do no harm to let it stay for 5 days of VfD. mikka (t) 20:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to differentiate between nonsense/hoax/fiction and the like and "articles written on rare topics." An article written on a rare topic will, I sincerely hope, be written in an acceptable tone and will quickly prove itself not to be a hoax by the encyclopedic nature of the entry. For example, if someone writes an article on a Big Breasted Cock bird, I really do think that actually looking at the article can give a huge clue to its significance - does it describe mating practices, calls, and give a link to a map of its habitat, or does it say "This is a bird that my friend found and he is from Calgary and the bird shits a lot." It's too easy to cite a fear of false positives.
We can also look at it from a semi utilitarian standpoint. Of nonsensical articles, how many are hoaxes or jokes and how many turn out to be that vaunted article of actual importance on a rare topic? I would wager it's something like 1,000:1. Perhaps, in our haste to clean up vandalism (and yes, I think joke pages are vandalism, which I believe is clearly stated in the policy) we might delete a real article. But in man hours, how long does it take to re-write or undelete that article (which shouldn't be hard if the article is worth keeping) when compared to the 100 things that get put on VfD every day that must be read, voted on, read again, etc. The greater good seems to be to broaden the accepted idea of vandalism to include effective nonsense, which I hasten again to differentiate from "articles on rare topics," and maintain some level of respect for WP.
Sorry to go on and on like that. Maybe there's another forum where this discussion is more active? -- Apollo58 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this is the place for the discussion. It has been held here several times (and also on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion) but I'm pretty sure it's been rolled into the archives and will be difficult to find. The question is one of false positives - exactly as you say. Unfortunately, we do have hard evidence that there are false positives - articles created on very obscure or even counter-intuitive topics which were initially accused of being "patent nonsense" but which more research showed to be real. For a while, I even started keeping track of them. (See User:Rossami#Reference list of "surprising" VfD discussions for a few examples.) You are correct that this is the exception. If anything, I would guess that your 1 in 1000 estimate might be high. But is that high enough to be an acceptable standard for speedy deletion? I would argue, no.
First, I do not believe that the quality of the initial article is or will be a useful filter. Many articles are very poorly written in their first draft. Obscure articles are likely to be contributed by specialists who want to add something new to the encyclopedia. My hypothesis is that these are more likely than not to be newcomers, not experienced Wikipedians. (If I had a novel topic, I'd have added it by now.) Being poorly written is not justification for deletion.
Second, I do not believe that any one individual can or should expect to be expert enough to recognize every instance of hoax vs. obscurity. As individuals, our history shows that we make these mistakes all the time. As a community, though, our track record is excellent. VfD allows time and visibility for the community to bring its expertise to bear. CSD does not. CSDs can be executed on the opinion of any admin who comes along.
Third, I believe that your argument depends on the community's ability to recognize and correct any mistakes which occur. If it is a truly obscure topic and it is speedy-deleted, I believe that it will be lost in the mass of truly deletable articles. The speedy-deletion patrol does not have the time or necessarily the skills to find and reverse any errors of this type.
I understand your concern. I also think that these "jokes" are a form of vandalism and that they harm the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think that allowing any admin to speedy-delete them immediately would do even greater harm. Five days on VfD (okay, 10-15 with the backlog) is not too high a price to pay for the articles which we do rescue. The VfD tag itself serves as a very clear notice to any reader who finds the article in the meantime that this is a page not yet to be trusted. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

redirects from article space to User: space

When is it ever appropriate to have a redirect from the main article space to a user page? I can't think of any reason to do this that isn't just vanity - e.g. if I create redirects from Freply Spang, Freply Ann Spang, Freply A. Spang, F. A. Spang, etc., to User:FreplySpang. I propose that "they redirect from the main article space to the User: space" should be an explict Criterion for Speedy Deletion of Redirects. FreplySpang (talk) 20:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. I believe that is the intent of #R2 (but not the present wording). WP:RFD doesn't like cross-namespace redirs in general, and into or out of userspace sounds like something that would be deleted by default. Radiant_>|< 00:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• One such redirect I recall was from Wikipedia space to Dpbsmith's BEEFSTEW criteria. I thought it was a reasonable redirect, but it has since disappeared. Denni 01:12, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• WP:BEEFSTEW (technically from the main namespace) and Wikipedia:BEEFSTEW are still around. —Cryptic (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Good point. Well, I don't suppose this doesn't occur all that often anyway. WP:RFD is far from overloaded and should be able to deal with it for now. Radiant_>|< 08:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Radiant, I'm not quite sure whether your last point is "RFA should handle all redirs into userspace" or "RFA should handle all redirs from Wikipedia space into userspace". FreplySpang (talk) 13:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Assuming you didn't want to nominate redirects for adminship :) - I first thought that CSD#R2 should be reworded to make all redirects to userspace speediable. However, Cryptic's example is a good one, so I suppose that (unless they are the result of a move action), RFD should handle all redirs from Wikispace into userspace. I still hold that all redirects from mainspace to userspace (or indeed any other space) should be speediable (unless someone convinces me otherwise with some good examples, of course). Radiant_>|< 14:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

(shifting left) Hey, if I'm an admin all my vanity redirects should be admins too! :-) Thanks for the clarification. This has been sitting here for more than a week so, "hearing no objections," I'll add it to the criteria and see if anyone squawks. FreplySpang (talk) 14:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The article spherocytosis describes a medical condition which results in abnormal shaped red blood cells spherocytes. However the spherocytes entry is just a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic article. Nor is it a stub, as all elaboration is correctly within the spherocytosis disease article. I copied the definition across to wiktionary, but am unsure what next I should do in wikipedia:

1. Do I tag the wikipedia entry for quick deletion, and if so, how? But this allows someone to try recreate the entry in future.
2. OR try a redirect from the wikipedia entry to wiktionary:spherocyte. But does actually work / is this acceptable?

David Ruben 21:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Generally an article about a real thing is never a dicdef for deletion. However it may be desirable to merge a very small article into the one with broader context. See how I've done this: Spherocytosis. mikka (t)

Would it be possible to get a speedy deletion tag for non-notable website advertisements. The criteria for including web-sites in their own seperate Wiki page seems to have an easy to apply threshhold. Specifically this would be useful for pages such as Potterish, an entry for a webpage of a small Harry Potter fanclub. (which is already listed in harry potter fanclubs). It might also be nice to have something similar for product adverts, at least products which are currently unknown and ungoogleable, a VfD simply doesn't need to take place. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, i see what you mean, they should probably be the ones to determine if any such conditions for speedy deletion exist. I have started a thread on that discussion. --Darkfred Talk to me 13:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultra-low Notability

I want to be able to speedy articles of the calibre of AR!, which doesn't meet any of the current speedy criteria. Perhaps an additional speedy criterion should be Ultra-low Notability - something which is transparently unencyclopedic, but not quite patent nonsense. Similarly, transparent advertising could also be speediable. Rd232 22:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Images in different file formats

There seems to be some confusion about the policy that states that a redundant image "does not include pictures that are merely similar, such as JPEG versions of PNG images". So I added the line "or any other picture that has been saved in a different image file format" to make it more clear. If you can make it more clear, be my guest. The point, as I recall, is that different file formats each have their own pros and cons (which are listed on WP:IUP#Format), and thus when you convert an image from JPEG to PNG, some of the resolution and quality may change. That is why they are not candidates for speedy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

VOTE NO ON ALL CSD CREEP

• Opposed to each and every creepy little extension of this "policy" -- no matter where attempted. All these do is give rabid deletionists more and more ammunition, greater and greater scope in which to exercise personal bias to arbitrarily delete whatever they choose.

The only really good criterion for speedy deletion is oops. That is, I created a page by mistake, and ask for it to be deleted. Nobody else has the right to pass summary judgement -- although any editor may edit any page to remove questionable content. There are a small number of other cases in which speedy may be called for, but these should be few and far between, not an everyday occurance.

Many pages are created that ought not be; this can be controlled in other ways -- ways completely outside any process of mechanical deletion. Contentious content must be dealt with by outcome of Community consensus -- not by a handful of overactive editors and abusive admins.

I don't doubt that many see their actions as both thankless and noble; I'm sorry that I do not. At best, well-intentioned deletion papers over serious weaknesses of our overall editing mechanisms; at worst, it affords a cloak of respectibility under which evil deletionists operate without check or balance.

Whenever any editor dares to ram through yet another addition to CSD, let it be known that my vote is opposed. — Xiongtalk* 03:25, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

You act as if the process of speedy deletion resulted in some kind of real, physical harm. "asdlfjasfkj" is simply not valid page content, and I'm sorry if you feel that it is. I'm happy that there are admins willing to mop it up. The same goes for hoaxes, discussion-as-article, etc. If you want a place where no one has the "right" to delete your random keystrokes, you can get pretty decent cheap Web hosting these days, and the MediaWiki software is free. You can install your own copy of the Wikipedia data and spew random noise into it until your heart bursts with joy. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and non-encyclopedic pages of any sort should be deleted out of hand, and only kept if there is some doubt as to their encyclopedicness. That's what the CSD are for. -Harmil 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Fortunately, I think, few people share that sentiment. I find extreme deletionism and extreme inclusionism to be equally untenable. --Ardonik.talk()* 03:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure if you were refering to me or Xiong, but I have to say I agree on the extremes. I started off thinking of myself as an inclusionist because I was really only thinking about valid articles. Once I started patroling RC and a few other sources, I started to realize that WP is flooded with truly egregious noise, and inclusionism breaks down fast. I'm still more inclined to inclusionism than not, but I have a deep sympathy for the poor bastard that has to go deal with 20 instances of keyboard-Tourette's from the same anon vandal. -Harmil 19:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to Xiong, or else I would have indented my reply further. Your own view I agree with. --Ardonik.talk()* 18:20, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• That is a very good point. Anybody who opposes deletion on general principle should run RC or NP patrol for a couple days to find out what the reality is like. Radiant_>|< 08:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

/me loves what Harmil said personally. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Harmil. The Wikimedia Foundation could not afford to keep up with things if we didn't get rid of useless junk articles, linkspam and vanity. Where the article title is of a valid article, however, e.g. if someone created Train with junk content, I wouldn't want that article deleted; I'd want it cleaned up. Some articles with arguably valid names, e.g. Shane McGowan (name taken from the air) might be validly titled - such a person might exist, and might one day be eligible for an article, but his article is a waste of server space while he's non-notable. Essentially, a fine line has to be trodden. Rob Church Talk | Desk 04:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• It's a good thing most people consider policy proposals on their merit, rather than on general principle. Radiant_>|< 08:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Transwikied and Deleted

Currently, all pages using the template Template:Transwikied and Deleted are candidates for speedy deletion:

Talk pages of already deleted pages unless they contain records of the deletion discussion and are linked from Wikipedia:Archived delete debates (this doesn't apply if the deletion discussion is logged elsewhere, like a VfD sub-page or other log).

Umm...so... shall we go ahead and delete these 100+ talk pages, and put the template up for deletion? Or add an exception to the criteria? I'd prefer the former. Coffee 10:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think there's little point to keeping those lone talk pages (those talk pages are also speediable per CSD#G8). But we could look at those articles and see if we can redirect them some place suitable. Radiant_>|< 10:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Double jeapordy for speedies

Extensive discussion around "re-created content" and speedy immunity:

This should be centralised to avoid repitition. So:

1. It's explicit at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General that an article may find itself deleted under multiple categories.
2. It also states explicitly in G4: Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.

Order of events:

• Article Ring Foo is created, content is: 'Ring Foo can cry from the result of hormones.' (and the only contributor was '311.69.171.69').
• Deleted under A7.
• Re-created. G4 (self-referentially) claims not to apply, but leaves window open. Criteria A7 applies.
• Deleted under A7.
• Rinse, repeat.

brenneman(t)(c) 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Response. Aaron, this is very good. I figured after the discussions the other day that the third sentence in G4 was probably written with the intention of providing a "window", as you put it. It also seemed to me that G4 can be better written, as there seems to be some logical inconsistency built in. First, the full G4:
4. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.
Now, consider for a moment new page X. X contains some feature that makes it a deletable under one of the CSD. It is found by an administrator, who promptly applies the criterion in question and deletes the page. The creator of the page then re-creates it— a "substantially identical copy" of the first page X. Can you think of a page that is all the preceding, yet cannot be deleted by one of the CSD criteria (including the one used to delete it the first time)? Off the top of my head, I can't. If there is no situation in which this can occur, what is the reason for the clause "[This does not apply to]...content that was speedily deleted..." in G4? If an objectional page that is recreated substantially identically is always deletable under the CSD that was used to delete it the first time, why is there a prohibition against deleting recreated speedies in G4?
Another way of asking this question is, what happens differently if I change G4 to read like this:
4. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.
Best—encephalon | ζ  15:34:47, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
NB. I have added Proto's page where some discussion took place, and diffs, for completeness.
Oh... that's good! Let we stew on that for a while. ^_^ - brenneman(t)(c) 15:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned at the time that this was a serious weakness of this CSD, although I believe I eventually supported it. I recall the explanations at the time saying that G4 was not overriden by other CSDs. That is, if speedied and remade, other CSDs can still apply. So if we go "nnbio-speedy-remake-nnbio-", it's ok to nn-bio it again — G4 does not withstand. This has been a point of contention since that time, and should be clarified. I personally do not think that an article should acquire this kind of immunity by being deleted! We should not give the trolls back their foodbowl just because they put the same thing in it twice. I would absolutely support the removal of the clause as Encephalon suggests. -Splash 17:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict. I agree wholeheartedly. I have failed to think of a single example in which an article which is a duplicate of a speedied page could be recreated and not just be speedied under the same clause under which it was speedied in the first place. I think that the original reason that this clause exists is so that if a page in speedied that shouldn't have been, it has protection from being speedied again for having already been speedied. That makes sense to me; articles occasionally get speedied that are very contentious and might even get kept if they went through AfD: see Harvey Jackson and his AfD for an example. However, since G4 can just be trumped be another CSD (in my Harvey example, A7) which renders the clause confusing and pointless, and multiply speedied pages get dealt with eventually, the clause should be removed as incompatible with the rest of CSD. --Blackcap | talk 17:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It does seem inconsistent, doesn't it? One more way to look at it is as follows. The phrase "[This does not apply to]...content that was speedily deleted..." seems to have been written into G4 to protect something. What? If it is true that any previously speedied article can be speedied again (if substantially identical), then it is difficult to see what that phrase is for. In the AfD discussion I took in good faith that that phrase actually means something; the rationale I attempted at AfD seemed one plausible explanation, if one accepts the premise that the phrase is actually intended to protect something and is not a mistake. In practice, it is almost certainly not applied by any sysop doing SD work. (Can you imagine deleting "unfdsuafnklksyhcdfd" once, coming back to find it again, and having to send it to AfD?) As far as I can see, that clause is logically incompatible with the rest of CSD if we accept the meaning of the third sentence in G4 that is here advanced. (You can draw the Venn diagrams to see). So it seems to me that one must go: either the third sentence in G4, or that clause in the second. Keeping both is illogical. The decision must be made very wisely— one choice, if enforced, will bring CSD to a complete, grinding halt.—encephalon | ζ  17:27:30, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

For reference, the voting on G4 is at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4 and its talk page. -Splash 17:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Encephalon: Which choice is that and why? --Blackcap | talk 17:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the clause was added to emphasize that a prior improper speedy cannot be used as justification for speedying a recreation. Of course, the original speedy was not according to the deletion policy, but the fact is they happen all the time anyway. :( —Cryptic (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Then we should clarify the phrasing along those lines, since it is confusing (to me, anyway) at present. Howzabout:
4. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was clearly inappropriately speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.

-Splash 18:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It still doesn't do anything, though. Since it can just be overridden again (as stated in the clause, "Of course, other criteria..."), and who's to judge what's appropriate or not anyway, there's nothing to stop the article from being inappropriately speedied again. Even if that wasn't a problem, it should be obvious to users that anything that was done inappropriately is not a valid reason to do it again. In other words, it shouldn't be neccessary to say that an invalid speedy is not a reason to speedy the content again.
I have seen that contentious speedies eventually find their way to AfD or resolve themelves on the talk page (e.g. Harvey Jackson). It also seems to me that there isn't really a way to makes that clause do anything without having G4 trump the other CSDs, which I think is a bad idea because troll content shouldn't have to go through AfD (and restrictions on G4 relating to troll content will be too arbitrary and are bound to be abused). For those reasons, I agree with Encephalon's wording which deletes the offending clause as unneeded, which it is. --Blackcap | talk 19:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hello guys. Splash's link was very helpful (thanks); it precisely confirmed my suspicions as to why this criterion was written this way. He is also correct that the very things we're discussing now were also raised at the time (by some you too, eg Cryptic :)). I think there were a lot of good intentions behind this version of G4, but, IMHO, some errors were made in the actual writing, such that it's giving rise to the logical inconsistencies that we're discussing here. Will post a modest proposal on possible solutions soon.—encephalon | ζ  19:15:10, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Also note on the voting page a series of explanatory bullet points at the top of the page, that were substantively relevant to the voting. I didn't understand why they were dropped in the re-writing of the CSD. I think they're helpful, and should be included somehow (and perhaps verbatim). Still, the removal of the clause itself would seem sufficient, but it'd be nice to have some of that explanation to hand somewhere 'official'. -Splash 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at all of the unnecessary verbiage this has generated. It boils down to whether or not an admin can speedy delete an article. If they can, they can. If they can't, they can't, but WP:CDS says they can. Encephalon is now saying that, once an article is speedy deleted, if it's recreated, even if with the exact same wording, an admin can't redelete it, it has to go to AfD. But that's a complete violation of the trend to try to cut down on the mess that is AfD by expanding the CSD rules. I, personally, intend to continue to delete recreated speedies, and if you don't like it, take me to RfAr. There's always VfU, which is only minimally used these days. Zoe 20:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Encephalon is suggesting the removal of that feature of this CSD. It has recently caused some confusion (the Monique DeMoan issue cited it more than once for example), and removing the restriction that you point out seems sensible, no? -Splash 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• I belive that the reason for this clause was the possibilityn of the following. 1) Page X is speedy deleted, say under A7 (nn-bio). Someone else undeletes it, claiming that the original deletion was invalid, because there was a claim of notability or becaue it was about a group. But now a third person (or the original person) says "Oh, but it is now a recration of deleted content, so get rid of it under G4". The exception for speedys was was that otherwise G4 could be used to say "speedies are forever" which would be wrong. DES (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• That is exactly why the clause was added and, yes, we did have people making the argument that they could keep speedy-deleting indefinitely even though the original speedy-deletion was contested. If an article is speedied under a specific case (such as A7), the recreated version may also be deletable under A7. But if someone in good-faith challenges that speedy-deletion, the article must go to AfD. Speedy-deletes are for non-controversial deletions only. If an article has only ever been speedy-deleted, G4 can not apply. G4 was created to enforce full VfD (now AfD) decisions. G4 may not be used to "enforce" a speedy-decision. Rossami (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Restoring

I don't imagine that this was the intention. That delete/restore conflict would be avoided if the article were either taken to VfU or the person who restores the article placed it immediately on VfD and notifies the deleting admin, as per existing policy. That seems to be an entirely different basket of fish from Ring Foo's recreation.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• What's Ring Foo? Your link is dead, and when I did a WP search, I couldn't come up with anything. --Blackcap | talk 05:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Hi Blackcap. I think Aaron is providing an example of a meritless page. Ring Foo is a non-notable person none of us have heard of, and in Aaron's example above is an A7 candidate.—encephalon | ζ  05:20:50, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the G4 criterion

This discussion has been helpful, and I thank Aaron for responding to some of the questions raised on the Cam Wilson AfD, and the excellent perspectives offered by him, Splash, Blackcap, Cryptic, DES and Zoe (who, while I think may have misunderstood me here, has always been an astute sysop I have learned much from and have a great liking for. And Zoe, I plead guilty to verbiage :). Can you forgive me?).

There appears to be a logical inconsistency in the G4 criterion, and it may cause some confusion as it did in this AfD and apparently has in the past in others. This was of course entirely unintended (no one intends confusion, even when they create it), and if we can find a way of expressing less confusingly the intent of those who passed the rule, it may be worth looking into. I do not know if this can be done, but maybe we can try having a shot at it, eh?

Intent

It is helpful first to understand the true intent of the G4 rule. Why do we have it? In its fundamental, most essential form, the G4 rule simply means this: if an article was found unsuitable for WP in the past, and you then find an exact re-creation of it, you do not have to go through the whole rigmarole of formally discussing it again before deleting it once more.

G4 is recognition that the community has dealt with a problem before, come to a decision, and doesn't need to expend resources to reach that same decision every time the problem is recreated. If the article is substantially improved, however, or very different, then common sense dictates it can be considered anew in the usual fashion.

That's it. That's the core of G4. I wouldn't be surprised if in its very earliest manifestations the rule was actually stated similarly to the above.

Concerns

What were the concerns that drove the newest proposal? I cannot be completely sure since I wasn't involved in creating it, but from reading the pages Splash has helpfully pointed out (and from listening to Aaron on the Wilson AfD!) I think the changes were driven by two things:

1. A wish to clarify that recreations under a different title, and recreations that were not exactly the same but nearly so, also fell under the purview of the G4 rule, and
2. A wish to place a check on the power of admins who deleted articles using a special authority, the speedy delete, that was not held by regular editors and rarely subject to their review.

I think they were very successful with 1, and slightly less so with 2.

The current form of G4

We all know what the beast currently looks like. At the risk of seriously pissing off the lot of you, I'm going to ennumerate them here:
G4. (Sysops may immediately delete a page [if it is])

i. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.
ii. This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy.
iii. other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.

The first sentence, (i.), is not confusing. It sets out the rule and and introduces the changes in (1.) that they wanted. Good stuff.

With (ii.), the problems begin. It says that this rule does not apply to previous speedies. That is, it removes the authority of G4 over articles that were deleted in the past via speedies. This is problematic. The reason it is is discussed at length above. Briefly, G4 is the CSD rule that empowers an admin to delete (again) something that was previously appropriately deleted, without having to use AfD; the clause however says that the G4 rule does not apply to previous speedies. This implies that an admin cannot speedily delete a previous speedy, but (urgh!) must bring it to AfD. Why was this rule written this way?

The question was asked in the proposal, and the answer provided by a thoughtful wikipedian of great experience:

If I understand this correctly, an article that was previously speedy deleted is reposted in its entirety, and instead of being speedy deleted a second time, it goes on to VfD because of the provision in the repost speedy delete criterion. Aren't we trying to reduce load on VfD some? Or am I mistaken with my thought process? Comments would be appreciated.
No, that's not what it says. It says that an article that is recreated after speedy deletion does not fall under criterion G4 (e.g. it cannot be redeleted solely for that reason) however it will likely fall under another speedy criterion (e.g. 'patent nonsense') and can be redeleted for still being patent nonsense. This proposal does not forbid redeletion of something that was previously speedied, it only requires that you find another criterion than this one for speedying it.

It sounds like the concern for potential abuse of power led to the creation of (ii.); and then (iii.) was created to provide a "window". In truth, there is a slight miscommunication in the above answer: any article that is deleted is always deleted because it violates a fundamental WP rule about articles, which all derive from the fundamental laws of the Wiki (NOR, V, NOT etc). An article is never deleted because it is recreated; it is always deleted because it is lousy. G4 is merely a method to delete articles quickly whose lousiness has already been determined in the past. Therefore, the correct use of G4 always obtains its authority from another SD or WP:DEL criterion. It is true that this is not always clear, and as DES points out, there are editors who might abuse G4 without understanding that principal. But the solution that was proposed co-opted the misunderstanding instead of clarifying it, and coupled with the "abuse of power" concern noted above, was responsible for the form of G4 we have today.

Possible solution?

Is there a way we can re-write G4 to remove its problems, yet accurately state the intentions embodied in the proposal? Possibly. I'm wondering if a simple rendition that just states what is expected of sysops might work. In truth, what the proposers were trying to do was get admins faced with a recreated speedy to make sure that it indeed violates a CSD (ie. that it was properly speedied the last time). How about:

i. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy.(unchanged)
ii. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy.
iii. Sysops faced with a recreation of a previously speedily deleted article should determine that the article did in fact contravene a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted, before they delete it once more.

Is this ok?

One objection might be: what if the first deletion was a valid speedy, but then the editor rewrote it properly. Does that mean it can be speedied under G4 just because the last speedy was valid? Answer: no. If it was rewritten to such an extent that it met previous objections, it is not a "substantially identical copy" and the entire G4 rule does not even apply. It should be considered anew on its merits. Remember G4 only concerns virtually identical copies of the first deleted article.

Another objection might be the issue that underlies the current problems. Let's say someone writes an article on George Washington (ie. eminently notable, non-deletable etc). Level 6 rogue sysop comes along and speedily deletes (doesn't like the editor's IP, or something). IP man recreates. L6RS re-SDs, then goes on wikivacation. IP man recreates again. You come along. Is there a way you can, in good faith, re-delete the article by claiming that the CSD it violated was G4? I don't think so, because when you apply (iii.) you will see that the previous SDs were not appropriate.

Is it "instruction creep"? I personally don't think so. I have removed two things (the problematic clause in the second sentence, and the whole third sentence), and introduced one. Tried to write it in the simplest version that will still retain meaning. There are many different possible versions (eg. removing "appropriately deleted" in (iii) and inserting "validly" in (i)), and it's also possible to simplify (iii) further. I felt maybe I'd just make this suggestion, and you guys could summarily dismiss it out of hand discuss this or other ways of approaching "the problem." Cheers—encephalon | ζ  05:05:11, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Encephalon, wouldja look at this. Nice work.
I think that your suggestion is a good one. For the record (it took me a few minutes to logic through this one), in your proposal it is no longer necessary to have a clause which says, "other criteria may still apply," because pages in userspace have to have some kind of consensus and are thus un-speediable, pages that have been undeleted are already of a WP standard or they wouldn't have been undeleted in the first place, and those are the only two types of articles mentioned under ii), correct?
The one trouble I have with it is the mildly unclear phrasing of iii). My change would be (changes boldened), "Sysops faced with the recreation of a previously speedily deleted article must determine that the original article did in fact contravene a criterion for speedy deletion...." The reason for this is that if we take the proposed iii) literally, then it sounds like just a recommendation, as it's only a "should." The reason for the other change is just to clarify which version of the article is being talked about. --Blackcap | talk 06:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Blackcap. These are good. Yes, "other criteria may still apply" is unncecesary in this version (that was meant to be a fix for a problem that I'm hoping the above simply removes). Must is good. I would not write "original" because I do not want an idea to develop that the versions are somehow different in a significant way. They are in fact essentially the same (if they aren't G4 should simply not be involved in the first place). We can write (iii.) above to refer either to the prior deletions or the current, it shouldn't matter much since the articles under G4 preview are substantially identical copies.—encephalon | ζ  07:55:18, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Great explanation, good idea, go to it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Bravo. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Goodness. I go to bed for a few hours, and look what happens! I think that's a excellent redraft backed by crystal clear reasoning. Some logical linking between the clauses would be useful, though: VfU is prone to lawyering over things otherwise. So, I think we should reverse (ii) and (iii), and add to the end of (i) "on the proviso that", or similar. But this is a welcome clarification of the question. Also, the CSDs are for meeting rather than contravening. Thus, taking the above suggestions into account as well, we have:

A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, on the proviso that
i. Administrators faced with a recreation of a previously speedily deleted article must determine that the article did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted, before they delete it once more.
ii. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy.

I have concerns over the potential for wheel warring over (iii) (e.g. "I am the Lone Gun admin, and must undelete this article to save the Wiki from Anarchy. Look, it says so here.". Lone Gun is then able to preclude any re-deletion by the original admin because the undeletion is in accordance with the undeletion policy as interpreted. On past performance, there's a fair chance the original admin will opt to overlook this fact. However, that is a point that is under discussion at VfU and is really VfU's problem rather than CSDs. -Splash 13:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I always understood the original wording to mean exactly that. This latest version seems to say exactly the same thing in more words. But if the current wording is really unclear, I suppose we must amend it. Rossami (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Some responses

JesseW, thanks for your comments (and congrats on sysophood!). Please feel free to suggest edits to this if you'd like.

Aaron, glad you like it. Do you forsee any problematic interpretations? Your (and Rossami's) perspectives as long-time admins will be valuable. Incidentally, Aaron, you played a big part in this. If we hadn't talked at the Wilson AfD, I would not have realized what the current rule was intended to mean, although I always thought it was oddly phrased. (By the way, if the above ends up being judged a lousy suggestion, we're all blaming you:))

Rossami, thanks for the thoughts. I'm not at all surprised that you always understood the current rule as it was meant to be understood— you have a deserved reputation for being able to make difficult deletion decisions and having an intimate understanding of policy. This exercise however is aimed at making it a little easier for those who are not Rossamis, Rossami. I'm not sure I'd say that the two versions say the same thing; I think it is possible to interpret the current version to mean what the proposed version tries to say simply and explicitly.

G4 is a rule that pertains to a subset of all WP articles: those that were previously created and deleted. In the currently used scheme, an attempt is made to exclude one subset of this subset (ie. articles that were created and then speedily deleted) from the purview of the rule, but yet also make it possible for precisely the action engendered by the rule to apply to this very subset (ie. the speedy deletion of previously speedied articles). Hence, the abstract gyrations that had to be made.

In the proposal under discussion here, an operational definition is used. The rule is stated, followed by the desired actions. This makes it, I think, simple to understand and to use. The basic scheme is like this:

Rule: Substantially identical recreations of stuff previously deleted can be deleted once more via speedy.
Desired actions:
1. For the subset of this that are previously AfD'd mainspace articles, apply this rule.
2. For the subset of this that are userpages, do not apply this rule.
3. For the subset that are articles coming out of VfU, do not apply this rule.
4. For the subset that were previously SD, do not apply this rule; simply check to ensure they were correctly SD'd the last time, and still retain the objectionable features which led to that deletion before deleting.

This is simplicity itself (methinks). There is no confusion as to whether a previously speedied article can be speedied again, etc., etc., as what should be done is stated pretty clearly.

Splash, my man! I love your suggestions. The reversal of (ii) and (iii) is good. I considered it; the reason I didn't put it in was the "This" in the second sentence (third in yours) was in reference to the rule, and I didn't want it too far removed. But the way you've written it is fine, since it has "on the proviso that". Incidentally, I wonder if that phrase will be objected to as (ostensibly) an example of needless wikilawyering. Or something. If I had thought of it my first instinct would have been proviso quod; maybe "provided that"? Although grammatically it isn't smooth. I personally have absolutely no problem with your version. "Meeting" v "contravening": superb catch. Critical too— it's exactly the opposite meaning. Lol. I've gotten into the habit of saying "X contravenes WP:Y" on AfD, and that carried over.

Regarding the VfU issue, if I understand what you're saying correctly, that's really not a CSD problem, is it? It's a VfU problem. If Lone Gun says, "I must undelete this article to save the Wiki from Anarchy," he can then point to CSD to stave off a speedy challenge; the problem however is not that the CSD bars challenge, it's that post-AfD conflicts presently occur in a somewhat policy-free zone (which may or may not be a bad thing from the point of view of a Wiki, although I happen to think it is). Furthermore, the reason we've been discussing this rule and the above proposal is purely to make an existing rule clear: I had no intention when I started to make any kind of change to the intent of the rule. That is however what we'd be doing if we took out the "does not apply to undeleted articles" caveat. —encephalonέγκέφαλος  07:36:05, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

• Yes, it is VfU's problem, and I'm rather conflating my policy discussions. I agree we don't need Latinate the phrasing, and I can see that the "provided that" is optional, especially gramatically. I think it's useful to tie the statements explicitly together, though; it clearly puts the duty on the admin. So I've written our current version out at the bottom. Oh, and I replaced "once more" just avoid somebody saying "you can't delete it twice more"! Also, since this is a 'G' criterion had has been applied more than once to cats and templates, I generaliszed the phrasing. -Splash 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I feel so proud that my abject misunderstanding of a simple sentence helped lead to all this discussion. Good work all! Proto t c 11:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You must abjectly misunderstand more often! Revisiting policies is always good. -Splash 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, provided that
i. Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted, before they delete it again and;
ii. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to the undeletion policy.

So if we agree on that, we need a friendly admin to come along and paste it in over the protection for us. I'll drop the Pump a note too, but this is a clarification rather than a change of wording, so there hopefully shouldn't be any problem.

Splash, two things:

1. Wikilinks are actually crucial in this case, as I recall some confusion as to what was meant by "deletion policy" in a discussion somewhere; my understanding is that "deletion policy always refers to that contained within WP:DEL. So the linking is good.
2. The proposed version is actually ungrammatical with the inclusion of "provided that," as we both agree. Nothing need ever be said ungrammatically if we work at it enough. How about simply replacing it with a period and "Note that"? Like so:
A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. Note that:
i. Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted, before they delete it again; and,
ii. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to the undeletion policy.
(Also, I've altered the placement of commas)

Finally, I'm not certain of the correct procedure to have the text changed. Does this require the attention of more eyes? Administrative or bureaucratic ones? I take it there's no need for a poll, because this clarifies meaning rather than changes intent, but can we confirm that? Thanks everyone.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  15:32:14, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually originally typed "note that:", so I'm fine with it. Trouble with the deletion policy is that is spread out over several documents, and WP:DEL is only a part of it (e.g. WP:GVFD describes the meanings of comments and other stuff). Still, it'll probably do. We would normally satisfy ourselves of consensus and then just be bold, really, since its a non-substantive change to a policy that has already been approved by the community. Anyone could of course revert, but they ought to refer to the talk before doing so. The only reason we need an admin in this case is the protection of the page, which ought probably to be released anyway. I forgot to post a note on VPP earlier. Will do so now. -Splash 15:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure we need to be this specific. If someone kept recreating a speedied article, it could be redeleted under the previous speedy grounds. If I wasn't sure, I'd list it on AfD. In extreme cases (such as recreation of an attack, threat, obscenity, egregious copyright violation or defamation) the article could be protected from recreation. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, what you say is certainly the intent of G4. But at least twice I've seen someone defend an article they had recreated (rather than undeleted) on the grounds that it was recreation of speedied material. That's not the intent of G4, but is an interpretation of it that it would be helpful to remove, no? -Splash 16:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There will always be questions about whether a recreated article is substantively different from another. When in doubt, a conscientious sysop will put it on AfD. If the sysop of your choice doesn't agree, find another one who will do it. I don't think trying to spell it out helps; people who don't think a particular recreation is valid probably aren't speedying because the rules say they can, but because they genuinely believe the recreation is no better than the original. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Tony, thanks for your comment. I guess I don't understand your misgiving. This proposal does not change anything in G4 that will affect the interpretation of "substantially identical". In fact, that precise formulation is retained. The only thing it does is make the intent of G4 with respect to a specific set of articles (recreations of previous speedies) absolutely clear (see reply to Nandesuka below). In your first comment you wrote: "If someone kept recreating a speedied article, it could be redeleted under the previous speedy grounds." This is the heart of the issue. In the currently used version of G4, it was not clear to everyone what the rule implied about handling previous speedies. In the new proposal, that weakness— and only that weakness —is addressed and solved.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:39:20, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Isn't "undeleted according to the undeletion policy" a kind of motherhood-and-apple-pie criterion? The net result of that will be that a revert war between admins will result in arguments along the lines of "I speedy undeleted this ages ago, which is part of my reading of the undeletion policy. Even though after my speedy undelete the content was deleted in a valid VfD, it is invalid to CSD this under clause 4 because of subclause (ii)." Yes, that's rules wanking, but I don't think it's unreasonable to anticipate that response. Am I missing some way in which this rewrite prevents that? Nandesuka 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hi Nandesuka, thanks for dropping by— I'd just thought of inviting your comment and you've saved me an edit. To address your question, this proposed textual change of G4 does not in any way seek to change the intent or scope of the current version of G4. There is only one thing it aims to do, and that it is to make expressly clear that the G4 rule does not prohibit previously speedied articles from being speedied again if they meet a SD criterion. That is to say, if a speedied article (eg. "ndfiuncvierdjfndj") is speedied once (in this case as PN), this act does not grant it "immunity" from being speedied again if it is recreated. In the current version of G4, there is a clause in the second sentence which appears to prohibit this ("This [G4] does not apply to... content that was speedily deleted"). This apparent prohibition was never the intent of the rule, but it is constructed in such a way that this interpretation can easily be made. The current proposal simply addresses this specific problem, by simply making clear what the current practice is. So, no, there is nothing in this re-write that prevents that; one hopes that the common sense of the community will prevail against such an interpretation of the undelete clause should it ever be made.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:16:18, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Note that the "undeleted according to the undeletion policy" clause was put in to prevent "rules wanking". Specifically, article Foo is deleted, it is then listed on VfU and duly undelted, but soemone tries to speedy it under G4, since it is clearly a "recreation of previously deleted content" as are all proepr undeletions. If you can suggest a wording which makes it clear that G4 does not authorize re-deleting properly undeleted content but is less prone to abuse, please do so. DES (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• OK, let me reiterate what I think I'm hearing then: the sole purpose of this rewrite is to emphasize that the following claim is invalid under current policy: "Article 'Foo' cannot be speedied again, because it was already speedied once, before I recreated it." It does not address the quite different proposition "Article 'Foo' cannot be speedied again, because it was previously speedied, undeleted, and then deleted in accordance with AfD." If my understanding is correct, then I agree that the rewrite as it stands will accomplish that purpose, and it reads well to me. DESiegel: no, I have no suggestion in the course of this discussion, since it's clear that my original understanding was out of scope. (And if I've still got it wrong, someone tell me on my talk page, please.) Nandesuka 17:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• You're absolutely correct.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:39:20, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Thanks, Nandesuka, I hadn't thought of that (particularly convoluted) case. It ought to be obvious to any sane user that the last valid action remains valid, that if article Foo is Deleted, Undeleted via VfU, and later re-deleted vis AfD, it is "deleted" content and should be subject to G4 if recreated. Mind you, i have never seen anything like this sequences, althouygh it is standard to list articles for deletion after they are undeleted via VfU, so it is not at all implausible. If we can think of a way to make the proper rule clear in this sequence without making the overall text too ornate or convolute, we should, IMO, but I don't have a suggested wording at the moment. DES (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I still think we're making up some pretty convoluted scenarios here. Let's deal with them as they happen. G4 as it is now seems reasonable and commonsense should prevail. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Tony, the two things you have talked about (ie. the relation of G4 to the undeletion process, and the relation of G4 to "substantially identical") are both not altered in the least in the new proposal. The new proposal does one and one thing only: it makes clear what G4 says about previously speedied articles; specifically that there is no "immunity" for articles simply because they were once speedied. Even this is not new: what is new is that the apparent contradiction in the currently used version has been resolved, and it's meaning is perfectly clear. If you have an objection to the proposed text, I wonder if you might address what about the changes that you disagree with (if any)? Cheers—encephalonέγκέφαλος  18:20:40, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I can't speak for other sysops, but I've taken a few undeleted bad speedies through AfD when undeletion was disputed, and have found they are almost invariably kept at AfD. In any case I don't see a problem with taking a speedy that is disputed between sysops to AfD where the issue is decided by consensus. The guiding principle of deletion policy is: when in doubt, don't delete. An article that appears to me like it should be deleted, belongs on AfD unless there is in fact a speedy criterion that applies. If I think a speedy policy applies and another sysop doesn't, I'll list it on AfD anyhow. There are borderline cases and AfD is specifically designed for making such decisions. I just don't see a problem here. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's interesting that you see this from an undelete point-of-view. I think the original intent was from a non-admin point of view: so we were well outside the orbit of being able to undelete anyway. I quite distinctly remeber NoPuzzleStranger (aka Gzornenplatz) telling me that my new speedy tag on his identical article for Dominique DeMoan was invalid because it was previously speedily deleted (as well as the other stuff, but that's a different kerfuffle). I've heard it at least once since, though I forget where, adn this discussion arose because at least another editor had the same misunderstanding/confusion. The rephrase won't in any way affect your policy ability to undelete/AfD as you describe (although the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion might; you could call in there if you've got a minute). It will only make crytal clear that if "adfaskljhf" is deleted and recreated, it can be deleted again. The same is true of "Mr Vain is cool" — recreation doesn't prohibit redeletion. Recreation is quite different to undeletion because it must be a fact that an undelete was performed by an admin in accordance with the undeletion policy, and their restored article is specfically protected in the rephrasing, wheels wars aside. -Splash 00:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Splash writes: I quite distinctly remeber NoPuzzleStranger (aka Gzornenplatz) telling me that my new speedy tag on his identical article for Dominique DeMoan was invalid because it was previously speedily deleted (as well as the other stuff, but that's a different kerfuffle).
Well all sorts of people make very odd statements on occasion. It doesn't mean that you have to take them all seriously. Of course any article can be deleted at any time for a valid CSD or because a consensus to delete pertains on AfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No poll required

As almost everyone seems to agree with these well-reasoned clarifications, and as this does not change any policy, no polling is required, "Feel free to update the page as needed".
brenneman(t)(c) 23:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, it's protected because people keep on debolding those letters. However, Tony is not (yet) persuaded there is any value to the rephrase, and since he spends much of his time digging through the speedy-deletes I'd like to hear him out. Certainly no poll is required; I don't think anyone suggested it. -Splash 00:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... yes. User:Aaron Brenneman receives 30 second block for spilling the beans. Protecting a page for conflicts over bolding is a bit extreme, isn't it? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for being dense. I didn't realise that the article had been protected. I've no idea why or when this was done.

As you're undoubtedly aware, I'm not the only admin on Wikipedia. But if you want to persuade people that you're making suggestions in good faith, might I suggest that you refrain from attempts to needle people? --Tony SidawayTalk 01:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? If I have caused offense in some way, I apologise unreservedly. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Uh, sorry. I didn't mean to needle anyone. I meant it. Aaron was suggesting we go ahead and make the change, I thought it was fairly clear that you didn't think the change was necessary. And since you've said before that you spend a lot of your time on resurrecting speedies I figured it only sensible to let the debate run a bit. I'm sorry if I gave some other impression. -Splash 01:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I understood the debate as being mostly closed. I also understood Tony's concerns to be more a case of "Well, what for?" as opposed to "For god's sake no!". If I was incorrect in these, I do apologise. I suppose there is no rush, but unless someone has a concrete and actionable objections, I think that rough consensus indicates these changes should be made. (Although I'd take out at least one comma!)
brenneman(t)(c) 00:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any further discussion: Changes made, one comma removed. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That's ok by me. -Splash 01:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I've actually been waiting [3], [4], [5], [6]. I tried very hard, in good faith, to get all points of view and make the proposal the best it could be. Had hoped we could have complete unanimity on it. But at least we got within a whisker. Thanks once more especialy to both of you.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  02:59:07, 2005-09-12 (UTC)