Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50



Just a clarifying question, really, to test opinions about where the intended boundaries of G4 are; I'll give a set of hypothetical cases and ask whether each should be G4-able.

  1. A page deleted after a deletion discussion, re-created with similar but not identical text and one extra source not considered during the AfD.
  2. A page deleted after a deletion discussion, re-created with similar but not identical text and two or three extra sources not considered during the AfD.
  3. A page deleted after a deletion discussion, re-created with similar but not identical text and quite different sources, BUT in the reviewing administrator's opinion those sources don't overcome the reasons for deletion established in the AfD.
  4. A page deleted after a deletion discussion, re-created with some similar text but other new text, with different sources, BUT in the reviewing administrator's opinion those sources don't overcome the reasons for deletion established in the AfD.

Thanks in advance for your views.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Presumably in all these cases you're referring to an article deleted for failing WP:N (or one of her bastard stepchildren). I'm not sure how to answer it, because it assumes a lot of things I don't buy into, I think (the questions are phrased very strangly to me, anyhow).
The very short of it is: The relevant question is whether the changes address the rationale for deletion. In case 1. if the article was deleted as it was only sourced to the person's blog, and the new extra source is their facebook page, yes, I apply the G4. If the new extra source is a New York Times profile, no, I don't apply the G4. And so on (i.e., in the second case, + 45 wordpress blogs doesn't address "fails WP:N", while one article in Nature does). So I guess for 1 and 2 it's "These questions don't specify relevant details, and are unanswerable", and in 3 and 4 it's "delete, but pre-emptively offer DRV", though I'd change the woridng "don't overcome" to "no one would reasonably think overcome" - i.e., only if it's not close. WilyD 09:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the un-clarity there, but I think you've provided the exact answer I needed. I think you're saying that with a G4 deletion where new sources are presented, the deleting administrator can and should evaluate those sources, on his own authority and without input from the community. Is that right?—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, or her own authority, but only apply G4 where the deletion discussion still unambiguously applies. Don't ask yourself "Do I think these new sources are sufficient?" but "Could a reasonable editor find these new sources to be sufficient?". WilyD 09:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think WilyD has it just right. The question is whether it's worth a new discussion. This said, 80 or 90% of re-creations do not show any measurable improvement. and can be deleted by G4 without any ambiguity. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
What I don't really like about this is that it makes sysops arbiters of sources (which is a content decision). I'd always taken the view that only the community is authorised to make content decisions, so new sources would have to mean a new discussion.—S Marshall T/C 08:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
That would lead to absurdity. If someone recreated an article exactly the same as a previous version except with the addition of a link to the subject's Facebook profile then the article would have to be sent through a new AfD. The deleting admin should be generous when evaluating a G4 request: if there's something in the article that they think a new AfD might decide demonstrates notability then the article shouldn't be deleted under G4. The standard isn't whether the reviewing admin happens to agree that the addition demonstrates notability. Hut 8.5 09:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have said "substantially new sources would have to mean a new discussion". The addition of one or two trivial sources wouldn't... in the case that prompted this question, there were substantially new sources. But I appear to be off-base and it seems to be normal for administrators to evaluate sources on their own authority, alarming though that is.—S Marshall T/C 09:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If the issue was notability, the addition of a single reliable source invalidates the previous AfD. Well, that's shorthand, but not exactly right--it renders the new article sufficiently different from the old one that G4 won't apply to it, and a new deletion discussion, if desired, is in order. Of course, anything can be abused if done in excess, and an editor who kept re-creating an article in rapid succession with only one additional reliable source each time would be both counterproductive (he should put all the best evidence forward) and possibly disrputive editing. Articles deleted under other criteria would be far less clear-cut, of course, but should still be subject to a new discussion when an editor has made a good-faith effort to address the issue and believes it has been remedied. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much apart from U1 (and maybe one or two I'm forgetting), all the CSD require some level of admin discretion in applying them. A7 requires an assessment of what's a plausible assertion of significance, and G11 requires an assessment of whether something's blatant advertising and whether it requires a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic. Both are probably far more problematic in this regard than the occasional G4 where someone says "No, adding a facebook page as a source doesn't address a fails WP:N close." If a particular case was fucked up (which happens - we all fuck up from time to time - at least, I hope it's not just me), maybe it's better to discuss a particular case? WilyD 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Even U1 requires admin discretion, first to ensure that it's not a talk page, second to ensure that the {{db-u1}} really was placed by the user (for example, this was not a U1 but might well have been). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that "discretion" though. Yes, the admin needs to check certain things, but those are all objective and requires no judgment. -- King of ♠ 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the language of WilyD, use the standard of "Could a reasonable editor find these new sources to be sufficient?" and leave it to admin discretion to apply that standard. A hard and fast rule about X new sources is likely to be gamed unproductively. And there is always WP:DRV to review the admins discretion. Monty845 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry to WilyD for messing up copying his username and pasting what was in my clipboard over it. Monty845 15:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple URLs for G12

How do I put more than one url into the G12 template for say an article which is copied from two pages. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In the rare cases where I've needed more than one URL in an F9 or G12 request, I've just separated the URLs by space, or included them as wiki markup: "" or "[][][]". --Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I just write it out as prose: " and", or " and various other subpages". VernoWhitney (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have also done the same, but the Duplicate detector report doesn't work in such cases. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, you can always try fixing up the template to handle multiple URLs, or you could just accept that in such cases any review must be done by either going to directly and then entering in the multiple URLs one by one or just clicking on the links themselves and looking at them in person. <shrug>
Reviews should really be done by going to the site(s) directly anyways to confirm that it's not a mirror or apparent reverse copyvio or freely licensed or any of a number of other reasons that it shouldn't be deleted under G12. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign language redirects

Of late there have been a slew of foreign language redirects at RfD; currently we have a bunch at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 24, and there were a bunch of discussions that can be found using this search (most of them cited a discussion about a bunch of redirects to Selena Gomez). I know of discussions back to January 2011, and I'm sure if I searched harder I could find more. My proposal is to explicitly include foreign language redirects (either in R3 or a new criterion) here. To be clear, I am specifically not talking about redirects that have sort of connection to the subject; 日本酒 and nihonshu (the romaji) are redirected to sake, and Les Trois Mousquetaires is redirected to The Three Musketeers because they're plausible search terms (sake being a Japanese drink, and The Three Musketeers being a story originally written in French). However, to use a not-so-hypothetical example, it's completely unnecessary to redirect 셀레나 고메즈 to Selena Gomez, as Gomez is an American actress who doesn't have any connection whatsoever to Korean. It's very easy to determine such a connection from looking at an article, and if properly worded to only include the latter the chances of this being abused are very minimal.
These sorts of redirects have never, to my knowledge, been kept at RfD in recent years, and the consensus on that has been very strong. In addition, they increase the chances of harm being done. Very few people on can read or speak any given foreign language, so add to an example I've used, anyone quickly scanning a list of redirects will immediately see Will Smith is a fag → Will Smith or Fuzbaka Ulana → United States, but it's much less likely they'll see クソボケ → Will Smith or 新幹線の食べ物 → English (I hate making an example out of John Doe all the time, so I like to mix it up with names; as for what the Japanese means, if you don't know use, nor will someone be likely to notice if one of these is retargeted to a completely irrelevant subject. I'm not up for trying to pound out exact wording at the moment, because I first want to see if people even think this is a good idea, but if people think it's worth trying I'll work on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good idea, as it is nontrivial for admins not understanding the language (or unable to read the script) to determine whether a foreign language redirect is appropriate as a possible search term or not. CSD criteria should be obvious for admins with zero knowledge of the subject and language. —Kusma (t·c) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand that to a point, but I really don't think one needs to be a linguist to recognize that ニューヨーク → New York or ojciec → father aren't in any way plausible search terms in English. I honestly can't think of an example where reading the article the redirect points to would make it obvious whether the redirect is useful (similar to the way G4 works; if you see the discussion/deleted article it's immediately evident whether or not sufficient changes have been made to prevent it from being deleted per G4). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not convinced that people would figure out that 国父 is a decent possible redirect to Sun Yat-sen (it is the Simplified Chinese form of a much-used honorific). Or that 高德纳 is really Donald Knuth's Chinese name (okay, that one is easy from his webpage). Having people who speak the language in question look over it should really be a requirement before deletion IMHO. —Kusma (t·c) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma; even the most language savvy users here could not possibly be able to judge every case. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that 国父 would be covered under "the language having some connection to the subject"; a Chinese-language redirect to Sun Yat-sen would indeed require an RfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The consensus not to keep such redirects is quite weak, really only possible because RFD is poorly populated. Including it here doesn't serve any purpose other than an end run around discussions which're likely to overturn a bad and pointless precedent in the forseeable future. WilyD 14:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
From what I've seen, you're basically a group of one in these RfDs; that's not a problem, but also not enough to state that the consensus is quite weak. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's maybe four editors who support deletion, which is unsupported by policy and antithetical to the goal of creating an encyclopaedia - it's more or less the result of RfD being poorly trafficed, which is why the whims of new page patrollers are being prioritised over the needs of the readership - because so few people paying attention. So yes, I'd call it weak - certainly not appropriate for CSD. WilyD 20:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The consensus to remove such redirects when they have no connection with the subject is not weak, the discussions are only weakly populated because almost everyone assumes this as a matter of course. Blade, we've settled this some time ago. Still, they need to be listed, because of the impossibility of admins being able to judge individually--they need to be displayed so people can see them. Nobody who does not actually understand the language issues for a particular case should be listing them for discussion, or deleting them. It is much too easy to make an error. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps my archive search-fu wasn't working too well, because I couldn't locate any other serious discussion on this; I apologize if I'm attempting to resurrect long-settled matters. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


  1. Is it appropriate to tag files as F4, if they explain in plain text, what the source is, but doesn't use the template? I've seen several old files tagged with F4, but if someone were to read the file page, they would understand what the source was.
  2. Should files be tagged with F4, when the image in question is clearly over 200 years old? (such as photos of people who died over 200 years ago, or buildings destroyed over 200 years ago) Shouldn't this go to FFD instead of going through F4?
  3. Should files be tagged with F4 if they have the fairuse template? Whether a source is indicated or not, we are using the file under fairuse restrictions, so I would think the file should go to FFD instead of F4.

-- (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. If the source is explained somehow, files should not be tagged as having no source, regardless of how the information is presented. If there is some information but not good enough to verify the licence status, it is in my opinion better to use WP:PUF. However, they may still be tagged as having no licence (another reason for F4 deletion).
  2. If the image clearly is over 200 years old, it shouldn't be tagged for F4 deletion. There are ways for 200 years old files to be copyrighted, but it is unlikely that that old files are copyrighted. It is better to take those things to WP:PUF. Personally, I try to avoid F4 tags if there is a possibility that the image might be PD because of age.
  3. Fair use files need to have both source (see WP:NFCC#10a) and licence (see WP:NFCC#10b). If either WP:NFCC#10a or WP:NFCC#10b is violated, F4 tagging is appropriate. Without sufficient source information, it is not possible to verify that the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want to delete under NFCC#10a, that is done through FFD, not speedy, is it not? The use of F4 for an unsourced fairuse file is the same as claiming deletion under #10a (market value prevents us from using the file), or so it seems to me. -- (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
{{Di-no source}} has a "non-free=yes" option which is designed specifically for fair use images. FFD is not for trivial cases where the uploader simply forgot to specify the source of a fair use image; those should be deleted unless a source is added. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


G7 says "Note that this does not apply to user talk pages, which are not deleted except under very exceptional circumstances: see WP:DELTALK." - which seems needlessly bureaucratic and pointless; if I'm the only person who has ever posted to a user talk page, why not allow a G7? (It's pointless, since presumably it'd never come up - but then it's pointless to waste time saying no, since it'd never come up.) WilyD 08:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Suppose I put a vandalism warning on a new user's talk page (that never had anything else on it). Are you saying I should be allowed to delete that under section G7, removing it from the scrutiny of non-admins? PleaseStand (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Why would you ever do that? Possibly if it was placed there in error - in which case, sure, why not delete a page created in error? Presumably, that's a G6 anyhow. WilyD 09:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
If a vandalism warning is placed by error, the appropriate action should be that the person who gave the warning must strike out the warning message by using <s> and </s>. It is a log that a warning message has been given wrongly. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Category criterion similar to A10 and T3

An user recently created template, articles and categories where (s)he replaced "Hindu mythology" with "Hindu history". While the first 2 were nominated for speedy deletion, there is no criterion for categories, so CFD needed to be used (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_13#Category:Hindu_History). --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

... And if it became a large or frequent enough problem, then maybe we should consider replacing A10 with a G criterion. Since it hasn't been a problem to date, I don't think a single instance merits a new speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

PD-Textlogo and F4-no source

Why are people tagging {{PD-textlogo}} images for deletion with "F4-no source"? If something is so simple, as to be purely simple geometric shapes a text, it cannot be protected due to lack of originality, so a source would be irrelevant, as it is public domain. If that fact that it is not simple enough to be not-protected is disputed, then shouldn't it need to go to PUF as a disputed PD-textlogo license? -- (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a bot which tags recent uploads as "no source", and this tag is sometimes applied to textlogos. Are there also other users who tag textlogos as "no source"? On Wikipedia, a textlogo (or any other {{PD-ineligible}} material for that material) doesn't need a source from a copyright; it is PD regardless. On Commons, I could see a possibility for PD-textlogos being tagged as "no source": the threshold of originality differs from country to country, and if the country of origin is unknown, then it is impossible to tell if the image is free in the country of origin or not. From an editorial point of view, a PD-textlogo might need a source since you won't otherwise know if the logo is the real logo or if it is hoax or vandalism. If you dispute whether something is ineligible for copyright or not, I'd advice you to use PUF (if it may be up to debate) or {{db-f9}} (if there is no question that the image is eligible for copyright, e.g. if a photo of a house is tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It's people accounts that are doing it. -- (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Then I guess you should tell people to stop tagging those files as "no source". --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging CSD templates and adding a new section to db-meta

I propose to merge Template:spam-warn into Template:Db-spam-notice but so that the 2nd part of the notice of Template:spam-warn is used even with Twinkle (see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 46#Db-spam-notice_and_othes). Would it be possible to add the "If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this" (if "blatant advertising" is too negative we could change that to "unambiguous advertising) onto {{db-notice}} so that even users that use Twinkle get the 2nd part of the notice on how to improve the page instead of "If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you." For CSD notices that don't need a 2nd half notice we can use the "If you think that the page was nominated in error....." for example G1, G2, G3 and G10 probably don't need the 2nd half and could just be left with the "If you think that the page was nominated in error....." while G4, G8, G11, G12 A1, A3, A7, A9 and A10 probably should have advice on how to improve them for example spam warn has advice on adding citations from independent reliable sources and A7 would have "if you think that you can assert the notability". The only template (at the moment) that has advice of how to improve it is A10, I propose that we should have more. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Example: Template:Db-spam-notice now has {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>db-notice |namespace = {{{namespace|}}} |target = {{{1}}} |nowelcome = {{{nowelcome|}}} |header = {{{header|}}} |header-text = {{{header-text|}}} |wizard = yes |text = A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#G11|section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read [[Wikipedia:Spam|the guidelines on spam]] and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Business]] for more information. }}<!-- Template:Db-spam-notice --> <noinclude> {{documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude> I propose

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>db-notice |namespace = {{{namespace|}}} |target = {{{1}}} |nowelcome = {{{nowelcome|}}} |header = {{{header|}}} |header-text = {{{header-text|}}} |wizard = yes |text = A tag has been placed on [[:{{{1}}}]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#G11|section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read [[Wikipedia:Spam|the guidelines on spam]] and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Business]] for more information. |additional text=If you can indicate why the page is not unambiguous advertising, [[File:Speedy delete contest button.svg|link={{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}|action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+{{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}}+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+}}]]. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit '''[[{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}|the page's talk page directly]]''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] from independent [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] to ensure that the page will be [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. }}<!-- Template:Db-spam-notice --> <noinclude> {{documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>

as another section in Template:db-notice. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


I occasionally see G5 for users who were banned for being POV-pushing sockfarms or whatnot, but where the article was created before the ban/block. Typically, I'm inclined in that kind of limit to delete the article (as long as the user would've been blocked if the socking was noticed), but I thought I'd ask here if I'm a bit off kilter or not. In particular, the question was just brought up to me regarding [1] WilyD 08:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case the sockmaster was engaged in corporate spamming, according to the SPI, so I think it's reasonable to delete these under even though they don't technically qualify for G5. Hut 8.5 12:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Why delete articles just because they were created by someone who was banned or blocked from Wikipedia. Shouldn't the content of the article be of primary concern? Just wondering. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Its a thorny issue. On the one hand, we do want positive contributions, and some banned editors do make positives ones. Yet to allow contributions to stand made in violation of the ban encourages further violations. Depending on the reason for the underlying ban, there may be an increase risked of copyright or other non obvious issue. Its a judgement call in each case if the benefit of the contribution outweighs the negatives/risks. Monty845 03:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That relates to bans, of course. But in this case, the problem was that the user wasn't (and isn't) banned, and that the user wasn't acting in violation of their block, as they weren't blocked until later. I agree that they would have been blocked had they been spotted prior to creating the article, but given that in the past we had limited G5 only to banned editors (with "past" defined as "three years ago" - this wasn't a recent change), I think it is worth considering if a further defacto expansion to G5 (including people who would have been blocked) is ok. I'm fine if it is, but it seems worth raising, as there are risks attached. - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The risk involved is in deleting good content that cannot be readily replaced. There are several people who have been banned for proven inability to cooperate, but whose actual content contributions was excellent before the ban, and even if they come back as socks, the content is remains excellent, & in those cases, generally some editor in good standing can be found to take responsibility for the quality of the article. But these troublesome cases are rare. Most socking does not create good content, and their articles can generally be deleted by A7, G11, or both, even if they didn't qualify for G5. I generally se no need to stretch G5 the way Hut 8.5 suggests--G11 is sufficient. Certainly when we block people or detect socks, we need to examine everything they have been doing; usually we do catch and remove the earlier problems besides the ones that may have led to the block. But blanket removal is too tricky for a speedy criterion. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This issue is being discussed over the article Mark Tedeschi. The article was deleted but the article was created prior to the ban. I have requested that the article be restored and sent to AfD for a consensus on notability. I understand why G5 would technically qualify as a punishment for a banned user attempting to circumvent a block; however, this is a "baby with the bath water" scenario. As stated in my request, I would refrain from voting, would like to see how the consensus turns out. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of blocked user, the same one involved with the article above. MER-C 05:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

R3 on very brief move

I just realized R3 doesn't allow speedy deleatons of implausible redirects created by moves even if the page was only at that title very briefly. Should we make that move excapiton only apply if the page was at that title for a significant period of time, say less then a few hours or less than a day? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should. I pushed for that exception when revisions were discussed in March, but it wasn't incorporated into the adopted wording. - Eureka Lott 00:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
If it comes up again, I'd also support that. It may take a note on my talk page. BTW, I cleaned up following a multiple place move of one page to 3 or four new names and deleted those 'bad' redirects a few weeks ago. No one objected. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
R3 does mention {{db-move}}, so G6 could apply instead (even if it's not intended to reuse the page name): and if the page move was obvious vandalism, I would G3 the redirect (see {{db-vandalism}}). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
R3 isn't needed for this. If it's vandalism it's G3, if it's truly a mistake then it's G6, if it's neither of them it needs to be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
What if it's not a mistake nor vandalism, but it's an implausible redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't meet G6 or R3 then it needs to be discussed to determine whether it truly is implausible. It isn't going to be doing any harm that it needs to bypass consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If I deleted these I would probably use the G6 summary ("housekeeping and other cleanup"). I don't think we need to try to micromanage it by changing the description of R3. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
G6 doesn't cover implausible redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It does cover obvious errors and redirects created in fixing them. The results of breif, implausible moves that are neither mistakes nor vandalism do not appear very often at RfD and as a non-current revision are unlikely to be doing harm, so I fail to see a need to speedy delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
G6 covers all sorts of routine housekeeping. I am simply saying that if, for some reason, I went through and cleaned up this sort of thing, I would use the G6 deletion summary from my drop down list. G6 has nothing at all to do with the plausibility of the redirect, it just signifies that the admin feels they are doing non-controversial housekeeping. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Another criterion


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that we create a new speedy deletion criterion that can be applied to articles that are clear original research, synthesis, opinion pieces or otherwise non-encyclopedic. This will allow editors to tag pages for speedy deletion under this new criterion whereas they would previously have needed to either PROD the article or send it to AfD. AutomaticStrikeout 22:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Also, this would require any contradicting policies to be changed to comply with this one. AutomaticStrikeout 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so NOTCSD also needs to be changed. AutomaticStrikeout 22:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. I guess this RFC is trying to change NOTCSD, but it's not worded as such. -Fjozk (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose All those criteria are in the eye of the beholder. There is practically no way to tell a new article without referencing violates WP:OR because the policy requires only that claims be "attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed". So if you want to dispute a factual position, you need to give its proponent time to find a source to support it, and then may need to discuss whether the source is acceptable, or if there are WP:SYNTH issues. Yet the hallmark of all CSD criteria is that they are for situations where there is nothing to discuss, its either vandalism or G3 doesn't apply, etc... Monty845 22:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, CSD is for something where there is nothing to discuss. As you can see below, this was brought about by an article that clearly does not belong here and no discussion is needed. So why not have an applicable tag for any article that is clearly just someone stating their personal opinion? Why is an AfD necessary for things like that? AutomaticStrikeout 22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict)Oppose, at least until the proposer explains what benefit this would bring to the encyclopedia, including an explanation of how such a criterion can be made objective. I would also suggest changing the title of this discussion to something grammatical. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the objectivity of the criterion is a problem. After all, we already have policies regarding the types of content mentioned, all we would be doing is making it easier to enforce those policies in a more quick way. It would help to cut-down on unnecessary AfD's and would only be applied in cases where the article was clearly against policy. AutomaticStrikeout 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
so the specific incident that provoked this was Remember the Annex! The 9/11 Raid on Benghazi. In the olden days, I might have just deleted that immediately. Instead, it's been sent to AFD. It's not even trying to be an Encyclopedia article; it's basically just a blog post or a comment piece. As to the objectivity problem, well - have you seen A7? We could have something worded as cautiously as that. But you know what, I don't think having at AFD doesn't do any harm. These articles seem pretty rare, and it's not like it's linked to from anywhere, so it doesn't do our reputation much harm. If we were getting a flood of such material, I might suggest figuring out a way of wording a clear CSD to include them. But we're not, so I don't think there's much point. Morwen - Talk 22:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The articles of this nature seem rare to me, also, but I don't follow AFD and CSD much. Still, there is nothing on Wikipedia that requires us to leave blog material, personal opinions, unsourced accusations against living government officials and personal advertisements. I removed everything that is not encyclopedic. If it is a copyvio, it is already a CSD, and should not be AFD'ed instead. Copyvios have no place on Wikipedia and it is a waste of everyone's time to discuss them. The current article says nothing and could have been speedied for lack of context and content. -Fjozk (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm guessing most people who tend to oppose expanding CSD probably don't do much new page curation. What I would like to see is something like:

A11. Personal essay posted as the contents of a recently created article. For recently created items in the Article namespace that appear to be personal essays or opinions, for which a cursory search of the contents does not reveal obvious primary or secondary sources.

Or something like that. §FreeRangeFrog 22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Speedy deletion criteria must be judgeable based solely on the article contents, as soon as you have to go looking for sources you are outside CSD's competence. The reason for this is that "cursory searches" are not sufficient for topics that are not prominent in mainstream Western culture or science - see Wikipedia:Countering systematic bias. Opinion pieces on notable subjects should be edited into npov articles, or merged/redirected to existing ones not deleted (although see criterion A10). Opinion pieces on other subjects that do not meet A7 or A9 should go to AfD to determine whether they are or are not notable (it's not always obvious). Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Speedily judging "clear original research" is easier said than done. It can be difficult (read: time consuming) to properly determine whether an article is original research or simply poorly sourced. Original research is currently specifically excluded as a reason for speedy deletion and I agree with that exclusion. --Ds13 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I have struck the original research mention from the proposal. I don't believe there is any harm in having a CSD tag for opinion pieces and essays and such-like. AutomaticStrikeout 22:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that CSD criteria need bright lines drawn that distinguish between what is speedy deletable and what requires discussion. So where is the line between a slight pov article that should be improved, and a hopelessly pov opinion piece that should be deleted. If you want to propose a CSD criteria, you need to have a clear rule that convinces editors that it will not be overly inclusive and end up resulting it acceptable or even salvageable content being deleted. Monty845 19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The existing CSD criteria are deliberately tight to avoid subjective interpretation as far as possible. As regards opinion pieces, that is also a matter of opinion, and hence subjective and cannot be clearly defined as a tight CSD criterion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • An essay can sometimes be WP:SOAPy enough to delete as G11. But if it cannot, people will have different interpretations of it. With respect to WP:NOT, Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) prepared a following criterion a year ago: An article on a thing (word, phrase, game, ceremony, philosophy, religion, etc.), which indicates that it was invented/coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Σσς(Sigma) 23:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, whether something constitutes SYNTH is not self-evident but requires a careful analysis and discussion of the sources. So not appropriate for CSD. The criteria "otherwise non-encyclopedic" doesn't even merit discussion here. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, especially the usage of the nebulous, undefined "non-encyclopedic" phrase which is just another way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT.OakRunner (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sufficiently specific, & a substantial number of articles that would fit in this group are improvable, or sometimes mergable. Prod works fine for this sort of material. And I rather doubt I & the other regular contributors here who are opposing this really fit into the group of those who "probably don't do much new page curation. " I'd say rather that with increasing experience comes a fuller understanding of how difficult it is to judge rightly. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, but I will say that on the Spanish Wikipedia this is a speedy criterion (criterion A1). If someone can say whether the Spanish Wikipedia is having trouble with this criterion and what kind of trouble, I might change my mind. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Let me translate roughly the Spanish speedy criterion A1 as it currently stands:
      • A1. What Wikipedia is not:
        • If an article mostly contains material falling into a WP:NOT category, including:
          • A1.1. Articles consisting solely of external links, or lists of internal links, except for disambiguation pages, unnecessary lists or galleries of pictures without text. If such articles can be merged with existing articles, this would be prefereable. (Most of this already falls into our A3.)
          • A1.2. Definitions, quotes and texts previously transwikied to Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikisource or Wikiversity. (This is equivalent to our A5.)
          • A1.3. Original research. (yes, this is a speedy criterion on the Spanish Wikipedia.)
          • A1.4. Essays and opinion pieces. (here on the English, the only such articles that get speedied are the ones falling under criteria G10 and G11.)
-- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 19:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for two reasons:
  1. Too subjective: As many have noted, deciding if an article is an opinion piece etc. is not obvious in many cases and has to be better decided by the community.
  2. Not a real reason to delete: If an article reads like a mere soapbox but the subject is notable and there are sources out there, then the article has to be improved by editing, not deletion. In theory it is not even always a good reason to AFD, let alone CSD.
--Cyclopiatalk 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've seen way too many of these be survive AfD (though often modified) to be comfortable allowing their speedy deletion. Where there's potentially room for two reasonable Wikipedians to disagree, speedy deletion isn't appropriate. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No citation

Which criteria would an article that has no citations for verification fall into? -XapApp (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

None on the basis of simply having no citations. That is not a reason for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If you spend a few minutes trying to verify an article and can't, consider WP:PROD. WilyD 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If the article without citations is about a living person you should use Wikipedia:Blpprod since unlike a regular prod it can't be removed unless a source is added first.-- (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed active editor notification requirement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To summarise there is a Consensus in favour.
I don't think anyone can argue that good communication is bad, and it is clearly good communication to notify users before deleting their articles. The arguments against this proposal assume that every CSD request is perfect and unchallengeable, which given humans are involved is frankly naive. They also ignore the importance of good communication between members. Given these points I don't find the position compelling.
Frankly if admins are regularly being called cunts by new users there is fairly clearly a communication problem and it does a lot of damage to the project as a whole if people regularly get insulted - this highlights the problems with not notifying users. Personally I have only been called a cunt once as a non-juvenile insult, and that was certainly a special case.
With regards to the time taken to notify users if editors aren't using Twinkle/Huggle - well good communication always requires some time, and in general there shouldn't be much increase in the notification burden beyond notifying the article creator - which you should already do - as most speedy deletion candidates aren't going to have lots of editors.
Obviously we should apply some common sense here, if the creator of the article requests deletion, the deletion is for housekeeping reasons or the page was created by a bot then they obviously don't need to be notified. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(moved from Template talk:Db-meta)

For {{db-xxx}}, some templates such as {{db-person}}, I propose changing the notification language

from: "Please consider placing the template ... on the talk page of the author."
to: "Place this template: ... on the talk page of the author and active editors."
  • "Please consider" is pretty soft. Editors bent on deletion will not notify.
  • Notifying only the author seems to lean toward deletion at all costs, since the author can't remove the template upon improvement, and authors are often sporadic editors. Notifying the author and active editors is better.
  • Talkpage notifications are better for urgent matters than the watchlist.
  • Nominator effort shouldn't increase if automation tools are used. Twinkle or Huggle could be expanded to automate nom/notify steps.

This proposed change should increase proper tagging+notification, and increase the chance for article improvement. This is intended only to increase the opportunity for improvement and justifiable removal of the CSD tag by involved editors, not to advocate or suggest discussion, or to slow down the CSD process. --Lexein (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Partially struck and amended above. --Lexein (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Amended to stop misquoting and refusal to understand intent. --Lexein (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Some points:
  • It is useless to notify interwiki bots which have just adjusted the interwiki links in an article. I suggest that bots shouldn't be notified at all.
  • As this will increase the number of notifications, users should probably be given an option to opt out from some or all notifications.
  • Would it be too much work for the deleting administrator to check that notifications have been given?
When nominating a file for deletion, Twinkle currently only notifies the user who made the first revision of the file information page. I've often thought that it would be better to notify all uploaders instead. This is what happens on Commons. I don't know if article deletion nominations would result in an unreasonably large amount of notifications. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Notification should remain optional. In fact, I would change the language to actively discourage notification rather than encourage it. If it's not a legitimate candidate for speedy deletion, the admin processing the request should refuse it. All notification of people that have an interest in retaining the article achieves is potential disruption by people that don't understand the guidelines for article creation and retention.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It would be pointless to make this mandatory in all cases. For things like housekeeping deletions, deletions requested by the author and pages created by bots it would be positively silly, and in other cases such as vandalism it wouldn't help much. Speedy deletion isn't designed to give the author the opportunity to contest the deletion. Hut 8.5 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Baby/bathwater. I said such as {{db-person}}. There may be others. I agree about maintenance deletions, requested deletions, and pages created by bots. --Lexein (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you name a case where making it mandatory would be desirable? Where a requested CSD should be rejected on the grounds that interested editors were not notified?—Kww(talk) 23:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Wrongly applied {{db-person}} w/o notification right here by a very determined IP editor 1, 2, 3. All it takes is a disinterested or overworked or pissed-off-about-BLPs admin to blackhole it. So, two motivations, article preservation as well as admin workload minimization. If several of us hadn't already been watching, it might have gone on. IMHO required notification is a cheap, low-impact check & balance. Ok, admittedly, I worry too much. But I have no idea how many decent needs-only-a-little improvement BLPs have gone down the drain due to non-notification. --Lexein (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Compared to the volume of correctly applied CSD tags that get incorrectly removed by parties interested solely in the preservation of the target article without regard to guidelines or policies, I think you are worrying about a rain puddle and neglecting the lake.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not the least concerned with improper removal of csd tags, because this is so easily detected, and dealt with. And the problem with people concerned with preservation of articles in defiance of policy, guidelines, and rationality is at AFD, where they can argue. If they limit themselves to tag removal at csd the article --and the editor-- will very soon no longer bother us, especially if someone thinks to apply create-protection. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strong support in general on grounds of basic fairness,and the critical need to continue to encourage good faith but not yet knowledgable editors. . The are a few exceptions--obviously maintenance and self-requested & talk p. of deleted article. but I'f also exempt vandalism and abuse and possibly test pages. Sometimes the editors do have to be notified -- & warned , but sometimes just quiet removal is the best policy. But when the reason is no indication of importance, people should be urged by all reasonable means to add something that will indicate some; for promotionalism, it almost always needs a follow up, either to warn or advise; for copyvio , notification is essential so they don't go on to more of it & so they have a chance to correct it. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As a substantial contributor to several articles, it would be great to get notifications when those articles are proposed for ANY KIND of deletion. At least it would save me the time and trouble of having to save screenshots for just-in-case scenarios. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support excellent idea, we should have done this years ago. However a few points, firstly anyone who has marked their edit as minor or merely added a category probably doesn't want to be informed; I'd suggest that active editors are the person who started the article and anyone who has added referenced material. Also U1 and G7s need to be excluded from this, and it isn't necessary or sensible to inform, dead, retired, blocked or banned editors. ϢereSpielChequers 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not all editors can use Twinkle/Huggle, and without such a tool, this has the potential to get extremely tedious and will bog down the new article patrolling process. Most CSD'ed articles cannot be improved, which is why they're speedy-deleted instead of being sent through PROD/AFD; I'm thinking of things like blatant nonsense, hoaxes, attack pages, many A7s ("sarah jane likes soup and has eleven cats"), etc. If the contributing editors to the page have no hope of improving the article, even if they know about its pending deletion, because it is inherently unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then what, exactly, is the purpose of notifying them? —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • perhaps to forestall the "why did you delete my article, you ****" rants that are a popular feature of the talk pages of some admins? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Any admin that deals with CSDs will have to deal with that sooner or later. (Heck, I've had to deal with it on reversions when I clearly explained the rationale for the revert in the edit summary. Some people just don't know how/where to look.) It is not too hard take the time to explain it when it does happen. However, the majority of the pages I've deleted never got such a query because they probably knew it was going to be deleted (like Sarah and her soup/cats, articles composed of nothing but "asdfaslkdfasdfadfa", and such; no rational person would expect such an "article" to be retained indefinitely), so notification seems kind of useless. If getting "why did you delete my article" notifications are seriously that much of a bother to any one admin they might just want to shift their focus away from CSD and towards a more formalized process like AFD. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
        • But the examples you gave are unlikely to have more contributors than the original author and the person who tags it for deletion, and if the article creator isn't contacted then how are they supposed to know what they've done wrong? "Blatant nonsense, hoaxes, attack pages, many A7s" are not really what this change is targeted at, this is targeted at the more borderline article where some people will add content and others would consider that a speedy applies. A very high proportion of goodfaith newbies do get told when the article they've just written is tagged for deletion, this is for the rare tagger who decides that informing authors is optional and decides not to do it, and for articles where more than one author has meaningfully contributed. If you are deleting articles that others have tagged then the authors have almost certainly been informed, if you are deleting untagged articles without informing people then please reconsider. ϢereSpielChequers 20:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I have had quite a few of the articles I created deleted with no notice - to the point where I now waste precious time capturing screenshots of the list of articles I started every week and when one is missing I compare the screenshots to find out which one has been deleted and by whom. It is time that I would much rather spend on doing something more constructive, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Or you could just ask for it userfying, you wouldn't even need to ask the admin who deleted it --Jac16888 Talk 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Perhaps you should thoroughly look over the CSD criteria and figure out what it is your articles have in common that is causing them to be speedied so often. It is typically not that difficult to defeat the speedy criteria, as long as you give adequate context and provide sources to meet notability concerns. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
                • @Scott5114, perhaps I need to figure out how to circumvent CSD's as per your suggestion. The point I was trying to make, though, is that when Wikipedian's are not notified that articles they worked on are in danger odf deletion, they start developing coping mechanisms that may overwhelm precious resources. In my case I use the toolserver every week, or more often, to take screenshots of the list of articles that I have created which have survived this far. If everyone did that the toolserver would choke... Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, speedy deletion is supposed to be speedy. Not much point in notifying people when the page will be deleted within the next 10 seconds to 2 hours (i.e. before people will even log in again). Use WP:PROD instead for pages that could possibly be saved, keep speedy deletion simple and speedy. Imagine a speedy deletion comes up for review at DRV. Do we really want the deletion judged on bureaucratic criteria like who was or wasn't notified in the 20 minutes between tagging and deletion or do we want it judged on the contents of the article that was deleted? —Kusma (t·c) 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a mandatory requirement, for very similar reasons to Kusma. Speedy deletion is not designed to be a process which enables wider review of problematic articles. Hut 8.5 10:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • comment: both Kusma and Hut 8.5 are assuming that there is no debate necessary when articles are deleted thru CSD, but I disagree. Here is an example of an article that I started which was deleted without giving me a chance to defend it. Admins are only human (and have too much work to do), and they do make mistakes, unfortunately more often than we hope for. Just my$. 02 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The whole point of CSD is that there is no debate before deletion. It is supposed to be for clear-cut cases. If mistakes are made, you can ask at the deleting admin's talk page or at WP:DRV and have the debate after the deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And a common request when I was a regular there was, can you copy the old version to someplace so I can fix it? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to redesign the speedy deletion process to require some sort of debate or consultation period then that's a completely separate (and much more wide ranging) issue. The fact is that at the moment that's not how the process works. Given the vast number of pages subjected to speedy deletion implementing the change would probably be a major addition to admin workload. Hut 8.5 19:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Hut 8.5, The way CSD works now (I get to use it quite often, sigh), is it provides a button to object and provide a reason for the objection, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So? Yes, it's possible to object to a speedy deletion, but the process isn't designed to make it easy for people to do that - articles can be speedied at any time with no opportunity for debate or discussion, unlike PROD or AFD. Hut 8.5 15:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Kusma, Hut, read the proposal and stop misquoting the proposal. I suggested mandatory notification to allow for improvement, not discussion. Nowhere is "discussion" or "debate" or "consultation" suggested or advocated by me, so get off it. I have no interest in slowing down the CSD process. If I see a CSD, and I can see an easy, obvious fix, I fix it, and remove the CSD tag. I'd like involved (yes, ref-adding) editors to have that same chance, by Talk page notice (and yes, orange top notice), and not only by watchlist. The article creator cannot remove the CSD tag, so there's little point in notifying a non-currently-involved creator. An observation: like vandalism (5%), some editors will always want to discuss. Deal with it. By the way the notice can be phrased to discourage discussion:
An article you have edited, Kong, has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please read the notice and make any needed improvements, if possible. If you did not create the article, but make the needed improvements, you may remove the tag. The tag and this courtesy notice are not intended to provoke discussion, only substantial improvement.
--Lexein (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The speedy deletion process isn't designed to work like that. Articles tagged for speedy deletion may have a life expectancy of minutes, or at most hours, and articles can be deleted without being tagged at all. If the article lasts longer than a few hours then the process is probably backlogged. Given the very short time window available for potential improvements there's little chance that the creator is going to turn up, let alone manage to fix the problems. If you do want to enable creators to improve articles tagged for speedy deletion then a better solution would be to add some sort of time delay.
I'm not saying that taggers shouldn't notify creators. It is good practice, and with commonly available tools it can be done automatically. But I'm against making it an integral part of the process. It would also have negative consequences such as allowing speedy deletions to be overturned if the creator wasn't notified, even if the article did meet the CSD criterion. Hut 8.5 14:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, wait a minute, I think I see a way out of this. See below. --Lexein (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Essentially per Kusma and Hut 8.5. The examples given were not really candidates for speedy deletion imho. And some articles simply can not be saved from speedy deletion, even when the article creator has been notified. It will create more drama in the end. Lectonar (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Speedy deletion is supposed to be speedy, reserved for cases that are unambiguous. If an article has existed long enough to have multiple editors, it probably is not a good candidate for speedy deletion in the first place - that is what PROD and AfD are for. It sounds like what is needed here is coaching for editors who post speedy templates when they are not warranted, not adding arbitrary notification rules that will bog down projects such as NPP. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Since the actual deletion can only be carried out by admins - do we also need to coach some of them as well? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, hmmm. This discussion has happened frequently enough, that now some things are gelling (I'm guilty of bringing this up several times, both from the "more time" argument which I agreed long ago would disrupt the process, and the "more notice" argument which I'm starting to agree may be not useful). From the last two discussion additions, I get a sense that there are some unstated assumptions, prerequisites, and boundary conditions that apply to CSD which I would really appreciate being stated explicitly somewhere.
  1. CSD is probably wrong for old articles, especially old articles with multiple editors (I wish I had noticed that). BTW: what's "old"? And how many editors?
  2. CSD is no substitute for AfD if there is the slightest chance that any discussion can be reasonably expected. (Just think: What would Lexein say? Face-sad.svg)
  3. CSD is only for resolutely, unambiguously, no-question-about-it cases which under no circumstances can be reasonably expected to be repaired by any editor in any amount of time with all possible resources.
I could be wrong about the above 3 points - help me out - but I think there's a need for better language in the guidelines and usage instructions which would resolve my original issue (above) without adding required notifications. There are a few editors (not sure if any of them are in this discussion) who prefer to keep definitions "loose" or "vague" - but that way lies madness, at least for me. Seems like coaching would be a good plan, if starting from nicely clear, consistent, and harmonized documentation. --Lexein (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
None of those points are quite right.
  1. There is no rule against speedying old articles. It is true that older articles are less likely to be valid speedy deletion candidates, but that's only because they have probably been seen by at least one experienced editor who didn't think it qualified for speedy deletion. Old articles are sometimes speedied - one common case is a previously undiscovered copyright problem.
  2. It is true that pages with a realistic prospect of surviving AfD should not be speedied, and the policy already says this (Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion). This doesn't go quite as far as your point though.
  3. If it is ambiguous whether a page qualifies for speedy deletion then it probably shouldn't be speedied (Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases) and if the problem can clearly be remedied with normal editing then speedy deletion isn't appropriate (Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way). Having said that, there is no requirement that the tagger or deleter verify that the article is a completely hopeless case that could not possibly be fixed. For instance if an article is tagged under A7, the reviewing administrator isn't expected to Google the topic to check whether it may be notable (and if the administrator feels that's necessary then the page probably isn't a good candidate for speedy deletion anyway). Determining whether an article should be speedied should be possible based only on the content of the article.
Hut 8.5 20:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
though I strongly support notification in all cases, because of the fundamental ethical principle of fairness, I do agree with Hut 8.5 that old articles can be and are speedied--there's a lot of old promotionalism, for example, which may have received some good faith additions from other editors but always was and remains essentially unfixable--I have no hesitation in using G11 here. Many things can be improved with exceptional effort, but we can't be put in the position of having to keep very bad articles around until sometimes does it from scratch. There are too many bad articles and too few good editors prepared to do this (I'm one who is prepared to do this, but I can personally do extremely few.) The wording "normal editing" is admittedly a bit vague, but the actual deletions and declines on this basis are reasonable and consistent: a quick check on google to add a reference or removal of a few paragraphs or stubbifying is normal editing, an extensive reference search or reorganization of the article is beyond that. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC) .

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MIDI files of public domain music

Note: This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#MIDI files of public domain music Ego White Tray (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD:G6. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That discussion has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD:G6, with no support for the speedy deletion of generated talk page redirects.
But it raises an interesting question... what circumstances is the line in the deletion dialogue edit summary drop-down menu for the article talk namespace that reads G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article intended to cover?
It was interpretted by Jenks24 to mean talk pages don't need redirects as a fairly broad principle, and to justify deletion rather than correction of a misleading talk page redirect. This interpretation was rejected at WP:AN.
But I'm on Jenks24's side to a point, in that I can't see any other interpretation of this line in the dialogue. I can't see any valid circumstance in which it would be a useful and valid rationale for CSD:G6 in fact. I think it's highly misleading, and this also received some support at WP:AN.
Comments? Should the dialogue be changed? What are circumstances in which this rationale is valid? Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads-ups posted at user talk pages of previous participants [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted my opinion at the discussion noted above earlier and it hasn't changed - The talk page created should not be a redirect, but should be a notice saying "The corresponding article was previously at title". The Mediawiki software should do this automatically. Also, you should be able to move a talk page over one that has nothing but this move notice. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

More on topic, deletion should not be allowed under G6. It's fine to blank it or put a notice up. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
So you'd favour removing that line G6: Talk page is a redirect created by move of associated article from the dialogue entirely?
I'm of that opinion too, as stated above. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On a related matter, if a talk page exists at the target, the current move dialogue doesn't allow the option of deleting the talk page. If you haven't deleted the talk page in preparation for the move, you then need to move the talk page separately. This is cumbersome either way.

If the move dialogue allows an admin to delete the target article by simply checking a box, it should surely allow a similar option for the target talk page, whose history is far less important.

Alternatively there could be a delete dialogue line giving a CSD rationale specifically for this scenario, but a check box in the move dialogue is far better.

Possibly a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves is a good idea at this point. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is something we can definitely agree on. It would make so many moves a lot easier – just today I missed that the talk page didn't move with the article and had to be reminded on my talk page. On the other issue, I think I've already made my position clear. I think it is useful and beneficial in some circumstances and would not like to see it removed, but if that's the consensus then so be it. Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's enough interest to establish consensus either way on changing the dialogue to address the other issue, so far. Pity IMHO. I'll try another heads-up at WP talk:RM. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Done. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There are already 2 other problems with db-G6 template under discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. (Problem 1) vanishing history on e.g. db-gb6 to move as "uncontroversial" a page previously reverted as a cut-and-paste controversial move. (Problem 2) editors whose db-gb6 is reverted by admins doing it anyway the moment the admin leaves. Latest example Starlet redirect. This aside from the basic problem that many db-g6 seem more controversial than those which go through WP:RM process. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree these are problems too. How do we go about addressing them all? Andrewa (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

See also #Speedy delete for pages blocking a move below. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A7 auto edit summary is grammatically inaccurate

The current summary is "A7:Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." This has always bugged me as the comma indicates a non-identifying/non-defining (or non-restrictive) relative clause i.e. the info after the comma is additional, non-essential information. In other words the article is being speedy deleted because it is about a real person. That is obviously not the case. In order to be correct it should be a defining relative clause i.e. "A7:Article about a real person which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Can we change that? Valenciano (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing the comma would be grammatically incorrect also. Furthermore, removing the comma makes the sentence even more ambiguous, implying that the person, rather than the article, fails to indicate the importance of the subject. The comma clarifies that the phrase "does not indicate the importance..." describes "article about a real person" and not just "person".
To remove the ambiguity one could say "Biography article that does not indicate the importance..." ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Good point, I never thought of that. "Biographical article that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" would be the best wording. Valenciano (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Or "Article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of that person." postdlf (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Also works just fine though I prefer the "biographical article that...." one. Valenciano (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

db-g6 listing

Should the page have a link to a list of all recent db-g6 "uncontroversial" moves? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can build a bot that will create and maintain such a list, why not? -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

R3 and "recently"

R3 is described as Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. Why only recently? If you find a duff redirect that fell through the cracks a long time ago, you should nuke it and move on. I suggest this is reworded. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A redirect that has been around longer is more likely to have incoming links, both on and of wiki. Further that it has been allowed to exist a long time suggests that other edits have not found it worthy of deletion. Monty845 03:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this doesn't apply to redirects with incoming links.
Your second point is illogical and construes an absence of evidence as an evidence of intention; it would suggest that every bad article we have should stay because it hasn't been found "worthy of deletion", when in fact it just hasn't been put up for deletion yet. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that I agree with the last point, but certianly, the longer a redirect has been around, the greater chance there is that someone will have put it in their browser bookmarks, or linked to it from another site. We have enough problem with dead links ourselves, so we shouldn't be creating similar problems for others. (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
If that were the case we'd never delete anything either, because somebody might have it bookmarked already. We're not responsible for the world outside, especially in the case of patently nonsensical redirects. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
We are responsible if we ruin someone's attribution that linked to something that people here renamed and then deleted the redirect. So for things that have been around a short time, eg a day with a spelling mistake, it is fair enough to delete the bad spelling, but if it was there for a year then no, the chances are that something will have copied it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"The chances are" - so much hand-waving, so little proof. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
We don't need proof to retain a possibly useful redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
But we're not talking about possibly useful redirects, we're talking about bad and stupid ones that nobody in a blue moon is going to use. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Can you provide an example of a redirect that is falls into this? Doesn't belong isn't needed but has survived for a while. Also how often do you find these? GB fan 14:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to know if a redirect is the target of off wiki links. And I'm not saying they can't be deleted ever, just that they shouldn't be subject to CSD. Monty845 17:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Experience at RfD shows that redirects such as this are far from always deleted when nominated, and there are many reasons for this. For starters there is the incomming links issue mentioned above, in many cases we can make a semi-educated guess about the likelihood of incomming links by traffic statistics, but this is not infallible and the figures can need interpretation and balancing against other factors (speedy deletion is not competent to do this). Secondly what appears to be implausible to one person sometimes turns out to be perfectly plausible after investigation of the history of redirect and target, talk page discussions, google hits, comments from the author and relevant projects, etc. Thirdly, some redirects are required for attribution purposes. In many cases although the original target isn't plausible, it is a logical search term for another page to which it is retargetted. R3 is already applied to cases where it shouldn't be, and if anything "recent" and "implausible" need to be more tightly defined than they are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I substantially agree with almost all of what Thryduulf says. However, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the terms should be "more tightly defined". One of the worst things that has happened to Wikipedia over the years is the endless instruction-creep, with more and more attempts to define situations precisely. There are two main problems with this. Firstly, this has made Wikipedia much less accessible, and more and more daunting for new users, who often get the impression that whatever they do there is some obscure clause in some policy, guideline, or "essay" somewhere that says they shouldn't have done it. Secondly, it has totally failed in its purpose of making things more definite. Quite simply, however "tightly" you define your terms, there will always be a need for judgement as to how to apply the principles. The more borderlines you try to lay down and define precisely, the more borderlines there are to have to make judgements about, so it does not make it any more objective or clear cut. The more borderlines you try to lay down and define precisely, the more borderlines there are for constructive good-faith editors to sincerely disagree about, and waste time discussing, and the more borderlines there are for unconstructive editors to wikilawyer about. There is no way of defining "implausible" precisely: however you try to define it, my idea of what qualifies will sometimes differ from yours, and any slight benefit from restricting administrators' freedom to use their judgement would have to be balanced against the increase in complexity, and the increased need for editors to spend time reading the precise definition and weighing up whether the case they have in mind qualifies or not. "Recent", on the other hand, could easily be defined more precisely: we could define it to the minute if we liked. But would that be an advantage? What would happen if I found an obviously totally stupid redirect that had escaped deletion for one minute over the deadline? I would ignore the unhelpful rule and delete it, of course. So what would I do if it was five minutes over the deadline? One hour? Five hours? One day? Where would I draw the line as to how far I could apply "ignore all rules"? Obviously, I would use my common sense and judgement in each case. So how would that be better than the present situation? Wikipedia has changed in many ways over the years, in some ways for the better. But one change which has done very little good and a great deal of harm is the gradual drifting away from Wikipedia does not have firm rules. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I could not agree with you more, particularly that this has been a very damaging trend in Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Note I said "more tightly" not "rigidly" or "precisely" or anything like that. In most cases on Wikipedia the best thing to do is to define the intent and spirit of the rule but leave the detail open to the good faith interpretation of editors/admins. However speedy deletion is very much not most cases, it explicitly lists strict criteria that are to be applied objectively and narrowly where the letter of the rule is at least as important as the spirit. This is because deletion without discussion is harmful and controversial except in these narrowly defined cases. R3 exists to allow the deletion of recently created redirects that have no plausible use, such as obvious errors and objectively incorrect links, which cannot be retargetted somewhere useful or converted into an article. Experience shows that "recent" has defined by different people as being about 7-10 days or 12-18 months - can you see the problem? Other CSD criteria operate with bright line timelimits (particularly image criteria) without the excessive petty wikilawyering you assume would happen here. Also, take a look at RfD sometime and see how many redirects nominated as being implausible end up being kept or retargetted - as a community we are very poor at determining what is and is not implausible. Finally, RfD is not overloaded, and any redirects that would cause harm by keeping around a short while while they are being discussed are almost all going to be deleteable under a diferent criteria anyway (attack pages (G10) being the most likely). Thryduulf (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A7. No indication of importance

Why does an admin who deleted a recent article I created tell me:

I deleted the article because it clearly qualified under WP:CSD#A7 for deletion. …Wikipedia:Notability and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people) are the applicable guidelines that describe the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

I understand this statement is incorrect because:

(A7)… is a LOWER STANDARD than notability.
If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
…Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion.

Since I have had several articles deleted with an A7 TAG, I would like to know once and for all if my interpretation is incorrect – what am I missing? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk)

In order to avoid speedy deletion articles do not need to prove notability but they should give the reader at least the slightest indication why a person would be considered notable. "So and so is a Canadian lawyer who was disbarred in October 2012 by the Law Society of Upper Canada." is a perfect example of failing to indicate why the individual is notable. Being disbarred is not necessarily notable and you have given no indication whatsoever why it would be in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's sufficient that the article indicates why something or someone should be considered important or significant, not notable as per Wikipedia's definition. That said, a lawyer being disbarred is not even indicating importance or significance because it does not indicate as to why this should be considered anything but ordinary. On the other hand, for example an article "X is a lawyer who was disbarred for bribing government officials" would indicate possible importance but still not be notable without further information. Regards SoWhy 20:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
See the OP's talk page to see the relevant part of my reply omitted from the quotation above, where I stated that the rationale for contesting deletion was invalid. Obviously, lawyers are disbarred all the time. That in itself isn't a credible assertion of notability, and neither is WP:ONEEVENT necessarily an assertion. The article in question would have survived if an explanation of notability was in there (that is, why she was disbarred). CSD A7 merely permits that explanation of notability be unsourced, but that explanation wasn't in the article. Therefore, I deleted it. Apologies if that wasn't clearer in my earlier replies. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
@Amatulić, the project page clearly states that A7 is a LOWER STANDARD than notability. Why do you use those terms interchangeably? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2012‎ (UTC)
I don't use them interchangeably. To survive A7, an article must make a credible claim of importance or significance that need not be sourced. That's a lower standard. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This criterion should probably make it clear that articles that look like they may meet WP:N, based on the sources cited, shouldn't be A7'd. Since the criterion is hopelessly vague, I usually ask "Does this article make an indication it may plausible meet WP:N?" But I'm not sure there's likely is to be a consensus in favour of that. WilyD 11:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In the particular case that sparked this discussion, there seems to have been a presumption that being disbarred grants a pass to the realm of "automatic notability." I don't even want to imagine what this project would become of losing the licensing or authority needed for your career conferered automatic notability. This is a very common scenario in speedy deletions, presuming some incredibly low bar for inclusion here, as in the constant stream of articles on no-name garage bands that managed to play at some local music festival or county fair. Any credible claim of notability is enough to stop A7, but it has to be a credible claim, not just "this person lost their job." If there is some other reason on top of that that they are notable, the onus is on the person writing the article to give some indication what that reason might be. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that being disbarred is an insufficient assertion to forestall an A7. ONEEVENT and N are completely irrelevant in an A7 discussion, because any time that notability is even remotely considered, A7 is no longer applicable. It should likely have been sent to a regular deletion discussion, absent BLP considerations, which probably applied here: if it was a primarily negative article without sourcing sufficient to demonstrate notability, it would have been better deleted G10. Short answer: right result, suboptimal reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. Sorry, but I fail to see how the mere fact that someone lost a job is a sufficient assertion of notability. And I disagree that our notability guidelines are irrelevant for A7. Those guidelines suggest ways to assert notability. A7 just allows that assertion to be unsourced. WP:BAND is one example we use all the time to apply A7 deletions to articles; if there is no assertion corresponding to any of the criteria there, and no coverage, then out it goes. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, equating "lost a job" with Disbarment is probably your first problem in seeing the assertion of importance. Disbarment is a big deal, often covered in the press, and generally involves some serious misconduct. Hence, me treating it as a serious indication of importance (not notability, but importance is the threshold for A7) as well as a BLP trigger. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Disbarment is not a big deal. The United States averages about 800 per year.[7] Sorry, but I'm not seeing any assertion of importance over an occurrence that's so commonplace that it apparently happens several times per day. People get fired all the time for misconduct. Disbarment is just the way it happens in one profession. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are 1,225,452 attorneys in the US (per Attorneys in the United States) it would seem to me that 800 disbarments per year are rare enough for an article to at least survive A7. Whether it should ultimately survive depends on the notability of the lawyer or the particular circumstances of the disbarment IMHO. As a separate point, the grounds for disbarments in most jurisdictions have an implication for the integrity of the system of justice because of lawyers' position in it, even if the circumstance of the disbarment is simply swindling client money. It's not the same as getting "fired for misconduct". DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Disbarement is very much not a big deal by itself. It may be one if it happens to a high-profile attorney – or during some other pressworthy event – but I would expect that's almost never the case. It certainly basically never is in Canada; maybe one or two cases a year end up having any media attention whatsoever out of dozens. — Coren (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. The quote in my first post in this thread is the deleted article in its entirety (except I replaced the name of the lawyer with the phrase "so-and-so"). The "hang on" reasoning on the talk page was "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because disbarred lawyers are (should be) notable." So, this particular user would have make disbarment a valid claim to notability across the board, meaning all 800 lawyers disbarred in a year in the US alone could have articles created on them and those articles would have to go through AFD to decide if they should be deleted. Does that honestly sound like a good idea to anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A better deletion statement would have been this: "I've deleted your page under speedy deletion criterion 7, meaning that it does not demonstrate the topic's significance. Hundreds of attorneys are disbarred in Canada every year. To demonstrate significance, you would need to explain why he/she was disbarred, and why this disbarment is different than others. Thank you for your contributions, and we hope to see more from you in the future. You can work on this article on your userpage until you feel it is ready to meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article." This does more than quote policy. Boilerplate is not the way to approach new editors unless the improper behavior is blatantly obvious. This statement goes beyond quoting policy and actually makes it relevant to the situation at hand and gives the editor guidance on how to write a better article, and encourages them to stay as a Wikipedia contributor. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. A7 is not notability, but assertion of importance. There is almost no question in my mind that there was no hope of the article surviving on a notability vs. BLP basis, but the fact that deletion was near-inevitable is not the same as A7 applying. If good faith editors can differ about whether A7 applies, then it obviously shouldn't, and a full deletion discussion is the proper approach. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
@Ego White: This is not a case of a newbie misunderstanding or a failure to properly educate. The user who created the article in question has been editing since 2007. As they hinted at in their opening comment, they have had many articles deleted for failing to claim significance. Here's another example from September "<some guys name> is an American businessman. He recently started another stock mutual fund." So, I think the problem is at the other end, if you take my meaning. After five years of seeing one article after another deleted for this reason one would think they would understand what is and is not a reasonable claim of significance. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
to return to the specific issue, I do not regard being disbarred as even a good faith claim to importance, any more than I regard being convicted of a felony. If something is asserted to indicate there is something special, or there are references that indicate the possibility, then it does pass a7. But the bare statement, no. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @DGG, I was hoping to get a more general issue resolved, but since it seems this discussion revolves around this one particular case, let me ask if the following would have been a better way to get this particular article past the speedy-deletion-stage:
A lawyer who was disbarred after trying to stop a Harry Potter movie from being shown anywhere in Canada ?
Ottawahitech (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about DGG, but I would tag the above for speedy deletion. I wouldn't tag for deletion the following: A lawyer who was disbarred for [insert reason here], which recieved significant media coverage. Or A lawyer who was disbarred for [insert reason here], which was particularly important because [insert reason here]. Singularity42 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This is what you seem to be missing, Ottawa. It is only now, with that remark, that you have even tried to indicate why her disbarment was important. The onus is on you, as the author of an article, to do that in the article text itself so that an assertion of importance is plain. All the article you submitted said was that she was disbarred and your only argument on the talk page was that you thought disbarment was notable by default. Why you waited until now to say what you actually meant is a bit obscure but hopefully this has served to demonstrate to you the difference between vaguely implying importance and clearly asserting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

G7 in the middle of AfD

There is an ongoing AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Hauptfleisch for Temple Hauptfleisch. In the middle of the AfD the sole editor of the article blanked the page.[8] Another editor then used G7 to request a Speedy Delete.[9] I believe the spirit of G7 is that it can only be done if it's not stepping on the feet of anyone else. In the case of the AfD, there was another user who had voted to Keep the article. Can G7 over-rule an AfD and ongoing consensus building if the original creator blanks the page even in the middle of an AfD? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Someone wants to keep this article, and the creator does not own it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the speedy tag. I don't see any reason that this can't be determined by AfD since it's there already. - jc37 03:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the interpretation I have always made as well. Two points: First, meeting a CSD criterion means that "deletion is permitted", rather than "deletion is required" (with the exception of G10 and copyright-related criteria); Second, an article should not be speedily deleted if anyone besides the article's creator opposes the deletion. Voicing an opinion for keep at AFD is precisely that, and we shouldn't nitpick over whether the opinion was voiced by !voting in an AFD or removing the CSD tag. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment Why other CSD criteria is applicable when there is already an ongoing AfD and the usual closure reason is "the result is speedily deleted". I guess there is no problem at all. Mediran talk to me! 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, if another editor has previously expressed a view in good faith that the article should be kept the speedy deletion is no longer uncontroversial and should not be preformed. A few exceptions apply here (G10, G12, etc) but none of them apply here.-- (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Consequently this could also help with a different hypothetical scenario in which the author sees that a consensus is forming on an AFD to deleted the article so tries to get the article speedy deleted to have the AFD closed as G7 so they can later recreate the article without needing to worry about a G4 deletion.-- (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not hypothetical, I have seen it happen; and I think that's why the AfD template on the article says: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked... until the discussion is closed." JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion after surviving XFD

Near the top of the page is a provision: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations". This is definitely a good thing overall; speedy deletion shouldn't be used as a runaround of XFD. However, this runs contrary to some of our common practices: for example, a redirect that survives RFD will be deleted under G8 if we later delete its target without a viable replacement, we'll delete an AFD surviving article under A2 after moving it to another wiki, we'll happily perform a histmerge for an article that was kept at AFD, and it's quite routine to delete FFD survivors under F8 after they're moved to Commons. Nobody's going to use this provision to object to Schuminweb's G8 proposal at the Historic fur portion of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 15. With that in mind, does anyone object to this edit? Note that I've self-reverted, since I obviously hadn't gotten consensus for the change. Nyttend (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I really hope we don't have to tell people that such deletions are permitted. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
What's the problem? These kinds of deletion are technically violations of this policy, but since they're harmless and since stopping them would be a 100% bad idea, we should amend the policy. These deletions are good WP:IAR cases, but when we're routinely IAR-ing in a situation, we should change the rules so that we don't need to ignore them. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the proposal. I'm just also hoping it's unnecessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you. I'd suggest thinking of it as a Statute Law Revision Act — it's not necessary to improve encyclopedic functions per se, but getting rid of a commonly-ignored rule is helpful from a housekeeping point of view. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a wordy and un-centralized way to put it. I'd rather see a single paragraph, expanding on those cases, replacing the "except for copyvio" clause, rather than the same text worked in in several different places. Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest a footnote including the other cases, in any case that is likely to be at all controversial, the only G12 rule does apply, and there is value in the strong, unambiguous statement. A more complex breakdown of when it doesn't apply may result in editors CSDing things they shouldn't be, thus its good even if it is not entirely accurate as to accepted practice. A footnote allows the record to be set straight, without weakening the language or de-emphasizing it. Monty845 08:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a better idea than I had, which was the only way that I conceived to avoid clogging up the introduction with lots of extra cases. I can vaguely imagine situations in which we'd delete pages under other criteria, but (except for A5, which I forgot to tag), they're all extremely unlikely. I'm not trying to get rid of IAR situations entirely; I'm simply looking to avoid the common reasons to use it. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
From previous discussions, I think an exhaustive list of exceptions will be required. See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs and WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 45#Pages which have survived deletion discussions. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Implemented. What do you think? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete for pages blocking a move

I propose a minor working addition for G6 (maintenance) deletions - When deleting a page that is blocking a move (one tagged as {{db-move}}, the admin should also actually do the move as requested. I would assume that deleting the page means the admin approves the move, right? If so, the admin should do it - otherwise the person who wants to move the page might not realize it's ready for hours or even days, leaving a redlink that shouldn't be there that whole time. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well if there is a link to do the move it makes it easier. Sometimes however, the exact proposal is unclear. The admin will get an automated option to delete when the attempt the move. So if they do not do it there is probably a reason! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Last time I did one of those there was a link right in the template that allows the admin to do both actions at once. I think most admins probably do this anyway, if there is one that is not aware of how easy it is to do both actions at once they should just be informed of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a link for deleting the target page but there is no such provision for deleting the target talk page when an associated talk page is also being moved. The talk page move therefore fails, with no warning that it has done so. See #Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6 above. Andrewa (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My sense has always been that G6 is for deletions that an admin does as part of a larger task, and for general housekeeping. I would find it very strange to delete a page under G6 based on someone else's request just to delete it; if I delete it under G6 then I feel like I should be doing something in addition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Page title

So, why is this page titled Criteria for Speedy Deletion? Why not just Speedy Deletion? This is the main page for the policy, right? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the driving policy is that of deletion in general where it provides for speedy deleting and then links here for reference about what its criteria are. — Coren (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I still see no reason that "criteria for" is needed. There aren't any other pages on the speedy deletion policy, are there? If not, we don't need "criteria for" and we're better off without it. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Given that speedy deletion is only permitted in these very limited circumstances, I feel that it is correct that the page title highlights that this by use of the word "criteria". There are already far too many out of process speedy deletions and so the last thing we want to do is downgrade the language we use about the strictness of when speedy deletion is permitted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that thee are already too any out of process speedy deletions, but there seems little interest in fixing this. I've highlighted above a problem with the application of G6. Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
There has always been a tension with CSD. On one hand, admins in general can delete pages whenever it is beneficial to the project (which includes being uncontroversial), as part of IAR. On the other hand, it's good to have some general guidance about which deletions are uncontroversial, which this page provides. Separately, non-admins started tagging pages for speedy deletion - even though admins have never needed to look for a tag in order to speedy delete pages - and this sometimes leads people to think that there is a formal process to speedy deletion. Rather than trying to micromanage things here, we usually handle out-of-control admins individually by discussion and eventually taking away their admin privileges. This may explain why there is not a lot a of desire to "fix" this page, since it is generally not broken. At the same time, having the term "criteria" in the title helps those who want to discourage IAR deletions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not see it that way. The policy is well established that the only noncontroversial deletions that can be done by an admin without community involvement are those which strictly follow the prescribed classes here. I (and a few other other admins) are prepared to summarily reverse any which obviously do not do so, though in order to maintain some degree of harmony, I do not do this just to make a point, but only when there is some chance at a satisfactory article. Anyone can take such an article to deletion review, where in general it will be overturned if there is any merit, though--again--not just to make a point when he article is hopeless. The problem of course is knowing about them, if you were not the person who wrote the article. I became an admin primarily for the purpose of checking these deleted articles, and said so at my RfA (though unfortunately the state of incoming articles is so deplorably that I've deleted 50 articles for every one I've rescued.) This said, in some cases IAR does apply, and I (and almost all admins) will stretch the rules just a little if no other way is suitable.
The real problem is not out of control admins--this is indeed something that very rarely happens; the problem is not even the few admins who use their private criteria for deletion, which in some cases do not accord with policy or consensus--some of the relatively newer ones can indeed be persuaded to follow the rules , but not some of the established ones. The real problem is the errors. I know the rules & intend to follow them, & I think I'm as careful & experienced as anyone here at this & but I do it correctly only about 98 or 99% of the time. But that means I've probably made about 200 erroneous deletions. and possibly half of them might have had some potential for articles.

Propose change to A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings).

I suggest a change in A9. to "No indication of importance (creative works)". Why restrict this speedy criterion to music? Doesn't the same reasoning apply to unremarkable creative works like drawings, short stories, etc.? LK (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. A9 also has the second requirement that the artist doesn't have an article. That second requirement is entirely objective, either the guy has a page or not. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Paintings, stories, whatever, still have artists - the second criterion could easily be applied. There just isn't, as far as I've seen, a volume of non-band artists flooding Wikipedia with articles about a particular sculpture or something. Are there articles on transparently non-notable paintings that need some kind of policy? WilyD 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Not paintings, but books, perhaps. We get a fair number of articles, often by the authors, about self-published or about-to-be-self-published books. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus that musical recordings by non-notable artists do not merit an article at Wikipedia. There is no such consensus for other types of creative work because there is not the same linkage between artist and work. In the last discussion about A9 that I participated in there was consensus that in some cases a work of art can be sufficiently notable for an article while the artist is not - iirc (and I may not, my search-fu is weak at the moment) books and sculptures were particularly mentioned. In other cases, works (particularly films and many non-fiction books) are not the product of a single artist. Thryduulf (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Baal with Thunderbolt is a good example here, there are plenty of historic sculptures where we don't know who the artist was. So it is important that we don't extend A9 to subjects like sculpture where many sculptures survive without knowledge of the artist. ϢereSpielChequers 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This relates to the Wikipedia concept that notability is not inherited. A wine may be notable for winning an international competition, but that doesn't mean the winemaker (arguably the 'artist') or the winery is notable. In the case of A9, my take on the consensus is that there is an inheritance relationship between music artists and their works; that is, if a music artist isn't notable, then we can reliably be confident that neither will work by that artist be notable — at least for the article submissions Wikipedia receives. That relationship doesn't hold true as consistently outside the world of music. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd strongly support this for books, at least (I just had to refuse a speedy deletion request on the execrable Winfred Cowell, Smedaphites, and the Aliens, becuase as a book, it's not covered by any speedy criteria). This discussion, which stalled without achieving any real consensus, might be worth revisiting (basically, a proposal to allow A7 or A9 to apply to self-published books only). I see the validity of Thryduulf and Amatulić's points regarding inheritance of notability, but I'd argue that whilst it's certainly possible for a notable author to produce a non-notable book, the reverse is rarely true - you'd be hard-pressed to find a worthy article here on a modern book where the author didn't also have a page. Historically, this is less true (there are notable manuscripts whose authors are unknown, for example), so any proposed change to A9 should take account of this - personally, I'd prefer to see A7 extended to cover self-published books or an entirely new criterion created. Yunshui  14:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, for even highly notable modern books, there will often not be an author page. We are extremely deficient in articles on authors who write non-fiction, on authors of books for young people, on authors from outside the main English speaking countries, on authors from anywhere who write in languages other than English. I might have agreed with self-published as a criteria, but in the last few years, even serious and reputable authors are doing this, especially in specialized fields. My experience in patrolling Prod, is that for about half the books suggested there, I can find book reviews that show at least a possibility of notability. (I try to check every single book that's prodded if they don;pt get de-prodded in the first few days, as they usually do, because someone else recognizes them as important) With children's books and authors in particular, articles are often started by naive children writing book reports--the articles generally need rewriting, and almost never properly indicate notability with sources, but the books are usually notable. In this field, people here tend to recognize only books of their own childhood, (& for some of us, those of their children's generation also), so for each of us admins, there will be gaps, and this is consequently a field where none of us can be trusted. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
In the case of self-published books (which is something that's becoming far more common), there should be some sort of criteria to determine if the work is highly-read, much like an album that has many sales. I don't know if there's a 'chart' for self-published e-Books? This has been my argument lately when I see YouTube 'personalities' up for AfD who seem to have millions of views and large subscriber numbers. In my opinion that should definitely be a criteria used to determine notability, since it's the latter-age equivalent to selling many records or videos. Unfortunately they do tend to get deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 20:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What DGG said. For films and other creative works, the situation is similar - either because the creators / actors / etc. are notable but have no articles or because the work itself is notable but the people involved are not. Unlike with musical recordings, the significance cannot be determined just as easy. The more complex a subject, the less likely it is that a single admin can correctly assess it. Regards SoWhy 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

New criterion under discussion

At WP:VPP#New policy based on TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Template suggestion

I don't know about other editors, but I know that when it comes to referencing speedy deletions, I often prefer to cite a criterion by its number and link to the description, instead of writing out a full explanation. The code I generally use for that is (using A1 as an example) [[WP:CSD#A1|A1]] - as in "I don't know, if it were me, I would've just speedied it under A1."

As far as I can tell, there isn't yet a template for this, and I was wondering if other editors would see a use for one: That, is, a template where typing in a criterion would generate a link of this sort. The basic code for it would be very simple - [[WP:CSD#{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. I've made a mockup in my userspace here (transcluding from here) showing how it works, and a few examples of where it'd be useful. Clearly a name would have to be picked (I'd suggest appropriating {{Csd}}, which currently redirects to the fairly infrequently used {{Db}}), and there are all sorts of other things that would have to be decided, but for now I'm just wondering who else would find such a template useful. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Suddenly just occurred to me that I could just write [[WP:A1|]] or the like. Well then. I suppose I won't retract my idea just yet, though, in case someone thinks of a reason that a template might be useful nonetheless. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For the sake of everybody except us, I would insist that any such template include both the letter/number and a short description - so, {{sd-a1}} would say A1 (no context). In fact, I had to got back to the project page and look up which one A1 was (I thought it was gibberish), and everyone else probably would have to as well without this short description. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Whilst the WP: shortcuts make the original idea somewhat redundant, with EWT's amendment such a template would actually be quite handy, especially when explaining (as I so often have to) the reason I deleted some new editor's page. I'd prefer multiple templates with the format {{A1}} etc., for ease of typing, but that's just me being lazy. Yunshui  14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Oooh a very good idea indeed, EWT. I'll get on it. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
New version, using this proto-template. (Good luck reading the source - you can't do reading-convenience linebreaks within a wikilink... anyone know a fix for that?) This is for a common-template model; setting up individual templates for each criterion, based on this, would be very easy, if that were the consensus in the naming discussion. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The fix is not to make a single ultra-complicated template but instead to make a simple little template for each criteria. This makes editing and correcting issues within the realm of the ordinary Wikipedian. I could never dream of even fixing a spelling error in a complex template that you seem to be making and I'm not even sure how to use it. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. As I said, this version is just to demonstrate how such a template would function. The actual implementation could be drastically different. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you mean something like {{Db-a1}} and the like? Or what else do you intend by "referencing speedy deletions", linking form talk?--Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot that I deleted my examples when I re-wrote the template. Please stand by. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. I put the examples back in to User:Francophonie&Androphilie/Transclusions. Hope that clears up what I'm talking about here. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks I get it now but as you reminded me that WP:A7 is even shorter than the WP:CSD#A7 I would probably still either say A7 or pipe it with something specific.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you would say A7 (no significance). A7 by itself is never sufficient. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The ability to add a definition is the point here - as an exercise in concise typing, writing {{A7}} is considerable shorter than writing [[WP:A7|A7 (no indication of significance)]]. As an example of useage, the sentence "I deleted your article under CSD criterion A7 (no indication of significance)" requires 43% fewer keystrokes if done with such a template. Yunshui  08:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't implying that a mere A7 is sufficient communication but mostly trying to understand what you have in mind. As in the examples that I didn't initially see, context is key here. Most creators get a notice of the type {{Db-band-notice}} (and I usually check that). If they then come to the admins talk page they get an explanation and probably I'd link underneath to the guideline. But I would not just tell them that their band has been deleted per A7 (no indication of significance). If on the other hand I have to explain the tagger why I declined to delete a band's article I might link directly to A7 since they chose it and focus on why it doesn't apply. As in "Publishing two albums asserts sufficient significance to pass A7" These are the two options I had in mind. You seem to be thinking there is a need for another template to link to the criterion combing the code and a short standardized qualifier. Personally I don't seem to have that need. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Indeed. Even the unnecessarily long (and overly vague) syntax I was stupidly using previously ([[WP:CSD#A7|A7]]) isn't that time-consuming, but since speedy deletions are, as the name implies, one of the areas of Wikipedia most requiring quick responses to questions and the like, it really all comes down to keystrokes. So, if the direction we're going here is to use the letter-number code templates, there are two issues:

  • One, this could probably only be done for the G-, A-, and C-series and maybe the U-, R-, and T-series. {{P1}} and {{P2}} are already in use (transclusion counts: [10] [11]), {{F1}} sees enough use that it'd be confusing to have {{F2}}, {{F3}}, etc. go elsewhere. U-, R-, and T- are all up in the air since the in-use {{U2}} has only 148 transclusions, {{R1}}, {{R2}}, and {{R3}} have only 32 transclusions combined, and, while {{T2}} has only 5 transclusions, {{T1}} redirects to the critically important {{tl}}. Anyways, for whichever templates we can't get consensus to change, seeing as they're all the lesser-used criteria, we could just operate them through my horrendously complicated, but quite functional one-size-fits-all, under the name {{Csd}}, perhaps.
  • For titles, I suggest {{CSDA1}}, {{CSDG4}}, etc. Unique titles in all cases, consistent (no guesswork needed), and still short and sweet. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Two, most of the templates that aren't associated with anything else currently redirect to the appropriate {{db}} templates. I have no idea how often they're used, but it probably wouldn't be a good idea to go changing templates that redirect to CSD templates without a strong consensus and a lot of courtesy notifications. I see that this page has 45.2 centijimbos, but as I imagine the bulk of those watchers are only here to revert vandalism on the project page, should I open an RFC?

Oh, I'll also go create some samples of the single-use (i.e. not one-size-fits-all) templates. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC) The "watcher" tool experienced a glitch almost immediately after I checked how many people had this page watchlisted. 45.2cJ is about 1,250 watchers.

Does G7 apply to IP user pages?

I've found several IP user pages tagged for CSD under G7, but that doesn't sound like a valid criterion to me. The authors can't be verified even if a request is made, for one thing. What's the general rule? MSJapan (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You can verify that the IP placed the tag. Isn't that enough? Of course, we wouldn't speedy a user talk page, and I wouldn't expect there to be many IP user pages anyway. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
If it's a valid G7, I don't see why you wouldn't delete it. Anytime the only creator/user of a page thinks it shouldn't be around, they're probably right. (And if not, let someone else create it who wants it). WilyD 07:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see why there might be a concern here. If the IP is dynamic, or a significant amount of time has passed between the creation of the page and the tagging, then the person who tagged the page may not be the same person as the person who created the article, even if they are editing from the same IP. Hut 8.5 11:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't quite about speedy deletes, but what about putting an edit notice that appears when anyone tries to edit an IP user page warning the user that their IP is likely to change and a future owner of the IP address may delete the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a discretionary judgement. If the content has some value, then reject on the grounds there is no evidence they are the same editor. If the content is devoid of value, use the G7 as an excuse. Not really the way Speedy Deletion is meant to be treated, but given the peculiarity of this circumstance, it seems the most reasonable result. Monty845 06:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

G4 for an article about an AFD'ed topic which has new sources

At User_talk:Sionk#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FMichael_Pollack and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation there was a discussion. A user believes that if a topic is deleted, but then a user finds sources and writes a new article with new sources, then the new article should be speedy re-deleted anyway under G4 (see the comment on my talk page) and the user should instead use DRV to re-create the article. I had the impression that if one finds substantial new sources, one can re-start the article without any prior discussion, and that if a party thinks, considering new sources, it should still be deleted, one will have to start a new AFD all over again. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This topic is currently being discussed on User talk:WhisperToMe. This article was re-created 10 days after the AfD closure and I'm unsure which new sources suddenly appeared in that short period. I've been involved in a large number of AfD's and, very occasionally, the subject is involved in a new story or notable activity several months later, which tips them towards being notable. This clearly isn't the case here. There were a couple of experienced editors who erred toward 'delete' at the AfD. I fully expect they'd take a dim view if the article reappeared so soon! DRV seems the safest route to restoring the article. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The old article was mainly sourced to Pollack's website. The old AFD discussed a small number of sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pollack - Compare to the large number of sources at User:WhisperToMe/Michael_Pollack#References - I argue that G4 cannot be used when the new article has a radically different amount of sources from the old one and/or has radically more sources than considered in the old AFD.
DRV specifically says that it takes "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article, to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article (called a history-only undeletion)," - so that suggests to me if significant new information (and I define that as anything the old AFD didn't discuss or consider, or find) is found then I should write a new article (especially considering the old one was mainly sourced to Pollack's website) and expect noone to speedy it on the basis it is a "recreation" of a deleted article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it needs to be a discretionary call, if the sources may really change the determination of notability, and were not in the original AfD, then yeah, decline the G4 and start a new AfD. But it shouldn't be a case of find a random new source and avoid G4, the source(s) need to be high quality, independent and reliable sources, preferably more then one. Monty845 13:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I found multiple sources - The "new" sources include the articles on EBSCOHost from The Business Journal and copious Arizona articles (Arizona Republic, Phoenix Business Journal, East Valley Tribune) as well as a few in the Houston Chronicle - While some Arizona and Chronicle sources were found for the first AFD, I found multiple new sources for the draft in the userspace. - The original article was mainly sourced to Pollack's website WhisperToMe (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
CSD#G4 reads in part This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,... [12] so it seems to me that the impression if one finds substantial new sources, one can re-start the article without any prior discussion, and that if a party thinks, considering new sources, it should still be deleted, one will have to start a new AFD all over again is spot on.
It also seems rather silly for either speedy deletion or PROD to be allowed in these circumstances. PROD should not be allowed as, presumably, the recreator objects. And surely, if it's not a candidate for PROD, then even more so it's not a speedy candidate either?
Appreciate that not everyone agrees that the new sources were substantial, but I think we need to first clarify that this is indeed the issue. If that's agreed, then we can ask the specific questions about this case. (And if not then the details are irrelevant anyway.) Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Other discussion venues:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe, I commend you for putting in all that work you did to develop the article as an AFC, wait for it to get reviewed, see it get shot down on what's really a process/red tape point, and then patiently bring it here for further discussion. Kudos, seriously. I think Sionk has a good point about DELREV. I occasionally comment on AFDs but don't 'live' there. Now that the AFC door has been pretty much closed, your options are be BOLD and just move to mainspace, or DELREV. I think Sionk is giving good advice to take it DELREV and bring your article. Nothing succeeds on Wikipedia better than good content. If you take it to DELREV please drop me a note. I'm Watchlisting Michael Pollack. Zad68 03:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I started Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_9 WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A possible need to refine the attack page criteria

It appears we may need to consider revision criteria G10, attack pages. Slick Willie, a redirect to Bill Clinton, was redirected as a G10. This is a well-known and heavily reported nickname and unquestionably deserves a redirect, even if it is negative. So, does G10 need a slight revision warning to be careful about redirects from negative names to neutral ones? Ego White Tray (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you just need to point out to the deleting administrator that there are reliable sources for the nickname. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
And this could be far better prevented by creating a talk page for the redirect, and by redirecting to the section Bill Clinton#Public image rather than to the top of the article. The section redirect is more helpful both to the reader, who is taken to the section that specifically mentions this nickname, and to the admin, who is taken to the reference that supports it.
The more help you give the admins, the better we can help you. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes that would help the admins, but the admins got to do due diligence. A simple Google search would reveal this obvious connection in five seconds - or search the Bill Clinton page where the name appears. Also, I haven't heard from the deleting admin, but it's possible that the admin knew that Slick Willie is a name for Bill Clinton and thought it should be deleted as a personal attack. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible, but WP:AGF applies to admins too, so this speculation is quite uncalled for. Agree admins got to do due diligence, and there is no evidence that it was not done. See below. Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
"Due diligence" is required everywhere. There's no need to single out "G10 redirects" for extra due diligence. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
No, if it is unsourced and negative then you are not obliged to look for sources, only to check that there isn't a sourced version to revert to. That's because we err on the side of caution when dealing with unsourced negative articles, especially if they are about living people. Yes that means that some articles deleted G10 will have to be recreated with acceptable sources, but when it comes to attack pages speedy should mean speedy. We can't be ultra cautious about negative BLP material and also expect admins and patrollers to try and source G10 articles. ϢereSpielChequers 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
But this wasn't an article, it was a redirect. And the name in the redirect is in the target article and sourced. The name is well-sourced and there is no BLP violation and it definitely wasn't an attack page. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
IMO the admin did everything they should have. I've now fixed the redirect [13] [14] [15] and its target.
You have made your point that you think the admin should have done more. I'm afraid I think this is unreasonable, as do some others. It was fine to raise the question, but as is said below you really should have given the admin the chance to reply before coming here. And in any case I think you now have the answer, and the redirect is restored. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any need to change the criterion in any way, but rather a difference of opinion about a particular application of the current criterion. If you wish to query Peridon's action then the thing to do is to ask on his talk page (as you have done) and wait a reasonable time for a reply, allowing for the fact that he may be in a time zone where it was just after midnight when you posted, before raising the issue on a public board. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Responding to several comments above, speedy deletion is supposed to be for pages where there is no possibility that it could be disputed. This is far from the case here. If the admin applied due diligence and his actions were reasonable and this redirect was still deleted, then the criteria needs fixing, simple as that. If a reasonable admin applying proper due diligence could delete this redirect then this criteria either needs revision or should not apply to redirects. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your point is well taken: the admin did not do due diligence, because appropriate due diligence, or even vague familiarity with 1990's US politics, would have precluded unilateral action. We are supposed to take assertive action to prevent real attack pages from lingering, but derogatory nicknames for public figures are hardly G10able when reliably sourced. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a stretch to call this redirect reliably sourced when it pointed to a lead that did not mention this particular nickname. The reference was a long way down in a long article. Going to the References section would not help as it wasn't obvious which reference supported this particular nickname. So, the claim in the article was adequately sourced, but the redirect was not. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Exempting redirects from G10 speedy deletion is an awful idea. Suppose someone were to create something like This guy is a pedophile, redirecting to an article about a living person. Something like that should be deleted as soon as possible. Hut 8.5 17:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was to exempt redirects from G10 and make a more tightly worded standard called "R4" to use for redirects. One that would delete "this guys a rapist" but retain "Slick Willie". At the very least, we should require that any nickname listed on the redirect's target can not be deleted. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
To me, it looked like one of the silly and/or derogatory redirects that often come up at CSD, aimed at both individuals and companies. I've no objection to the redirect leading to a relevantly sourced section of the Clinton article. The message on my talk page appeared after I was in bed, and I was out of the house throughout the daytime following, and the re-creation and redirection of the re-creation were already in place by the time I was again online and found out about it. I am always willing to restore or userfy things when I get a reasonable explanation, and don't object to anyone who has a reasonable explanation doing the same. Out of my 20,000 or so deletions, I've had about four or so that I know of going to DRV, and one on to AfD. All were redeleted or remained deleted. I don't claim to be perfect - I would distrust anyone who did. Perhaps I should have read the Clinton page more thoroughly. Something like a redirect is easily replaced if justified - but an attack is an potential invitation to legal action. Peridon (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No change to the CSD criterion is necessary. Of all the types of errors that can be made in deleting pages, an administrator's incorrectly deleting a redirect out of concern it is an attack is exceptionally easy to fix. On the other hand, I have seen far more attack redirects deleted for valid than invalid reasons. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Changing the rules about attack pages so that admins should hold back and do some Google searches before deleting unsourced negative information about very notable individuals would be a big change to our speedy deletion criteria. I'd expect at least a well publicised RFC first, and I for one would not easily be persuaded to support such a change. My bet would be that the community would be unlikely to make such a change, having extra attack pages sitting around for longer is a high price to pay, and to get consensus you'd need some pretty strong benefits to the pedia. Remember we are a very diverse global community, I doubt that we have many admins who couldn't name all the US Presidents in their lifetimes, but that doesn't mean they are going to be aware of details that don't even get a whole section in their articles. Also if you did make such a change you'd have endless arguments as to where to draw the boundary between people so famous that one couldn't delete unsourced negative stuff about them without first googling it, and people who are sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, but not so notable that you had to google before removing unsourced negative information about them. We have arguments enough about the General Notability Guideline and the lesser criteria of a "credible assertion of importance or significance" do you really think the community would benefit from also introducing a Hyper Notability Guideline, and if so how would you codify it? ϢereSpielChequers 21:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree. See second level bullet below. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In order to err on the side of caution to protect named individuals attack pages should be deleted as quickly as possible, which precludes doing any research. That said, nothing is irreversible here on Wikipedia. One of the problems is that inexperienced NPPers often do not recognise subtle attack pages as such and frequently just tag them for A7 which means they can sit around for several hours before being deleted. I see no need or compelling arguments to change the existing criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree as far as this goes, but I would go further. The possible damage from performing the speedy delete was slight and almost entirely reversible, but the possible damage from delay was far greater and almost entirely irreversible. To say that the admin did not exercise due diligence is completely uncalled for IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The solution is not greater diligence from admins, on the evidence. This request was processed in an entirely proper manner. The solution is greater diligence from the creators of such redirects. Even after I posted the solution, nobody bothered to do anything about it. So I've done it myself, see above for the diffs. So I'll say it again in slightly different terms: If you want the admins to have more time to deal with each request, one way to achieve this is to spend a little time doing things like fixing this redirect which don't need admin powers. Then we will have more time to do the things that do need admin powers. It's not rocket science. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Another loophole on the misuse of db-G6 theme

Just a note: I added a further comment relating to db-G6 diff] at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. More than one editor avoiding WP:RM by gaming these loopholes so have avoided specifics and concentrated on the loophole itself. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clearer, this involves admins here (on this Talk page) unknowingly and in good faith being played by loopholes in the db-G6 process into undoing each others' work and inadvertently enabling moves counter RMs and RfCs. It's not a major issue, but it does undermine WP:RM which is one of the few "democratic" balances en.wp has. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, the G6 rationale is for when an admin is actively doing something, and needs to make a deletion en route. It doesn't make much sense to me for a non-admin to tag an article for deletion under G6; instead the non-admin should request the overall task that requires the deletion, and if there is consensus for the task an admin will carry it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • There is no need here for more bureaucracy. If someone tags an article G6 to subvert an RM or other discussion outcome, and an admin unknowingly carries it out, the solution is to contact the involved admin. Bad faith use of G6 tags for controversial moves is a user conduct issue that can also be addressed. We don't need a rule for every eventuality, and in this case, I think the harm caused by not closing the loophole is small and easily dealt with. Monty845 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Monty845 makes a good point. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Monty845, thanks, but in your memory has anyone ever been disciplined or even warned for misuse of db-G6? Even if so, that assumes that (1) anyone is watching the Deletion Log, (2) anyone can spot such a move after the event. Since the process involves deleting page histories sometimes (more than once in recent observation) means which admin made the move isn't even visible to contact. Even if the page is on someone's watchlist a db-G6 move may not show up (I'm not 100% clear on the technicalities as different information seems to be deleted in different cases). Couldn't there at least be some safety checks? e.g.:
* "Check to see you are not reverting a previous admin refusal"
* "Check to see there hasn't been a contested RM"
* "Check to see that User isn't on the db-G6 observation list for previously requesting controversial RMs as db-G6s or carrying out/rerequesting reverted/refused db-G6s"... etc.
The reality is that is someone is bent on what they know to be unpopular moves at WP:RM it's a lot easier and more efficient to game db-G6 to get good faith admins to do it than to argue a case at WP:RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You should see multiple deletion log entries on your watchlist. I'm not aware of anyone having been sanctioned for doing it, but I'm also not aware of anyone having done it and gotten away with it. While speculation, I would imagine that if it was at all common the editors doing it would be noticed, and promptly dragged to AN/I. Monty845 15:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Monty, well I can only say that observation indicates that someone playing the db-G6 system is more likely to be regarded as naughty but clever at ANI. I don't really know how common it is, but having seen it before, and seen more than 1 User make moves gaming the db-G6 system in different ways in the last week, and at least one move in the Deletion Log counter a previous db-G6, I still believe that a slight upgrade of safety checks rather than relying entirely on it being spotted would help. Or even simply a warning, "users who knowingly revert admin decisions on db-G6, or apply for multiple db-G6 until they get the required result, may be placed on an observation list in regard to access to the db-G6 template" - which would put more onus on those misusing db-G6. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
As someone who has declined a handful of G6/move requests myself, all I have to say is that admins who perform speedy deletes should be vigilant. Any time I see a G6/move proposal, I look at it carefully. If it seems like the move might be the least bit controversial, I look to see if there's an RM discussion, or any discussion on a the source or target talk pages. If not, I'll decline the G6. Most of the time it's a reasonable proposal. Once or twice someone challenged my declining it.
One thing I haven't done, and probably should, is keep track of who made the G6/move proposal each time I decline it, to see if there's a pattern of behavior that emerges from a particular editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Amatulic, I have to say I have noticed your care in the past, and you have my respect as one of the most diligent and observant of the db-G6 admins (in fact I noted that you caught one on Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Blocking a second move after admin db-g6 self-revert, before moving the Talk subject here), but even you were blindsided 07:01, 24 November 2012‎ moving a page which had previously been db-G6 once contrary to a class RM, and reversed once already by Edgar181 with summary "reverting my Oct 2011 G6/move because it wasn't uncontroversial". But the second bite of the cherry still worked. There are just too many loopholes and some users who see the the db-G6 as way to avoid an RM. Even the very best admins will be tripped up. Rather than go after the users who will just laugh at it (so please don't) the system needs tightening. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, what can I say? I agree some tightening up is needed, but until then, diligence is the key here. I have to admit my own has not been up to a high standard now and then, much as I try. I find it interesting that the editor trying to circumvent RM in the case of Starlet you mentioned above, actually challenged me on my talk page, ignored my response, and tried the same thing again, and I didn't notice. Someone did, though, and reverted everything back the way it was. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that and ashamed to say had a smirk. That's not untypical actually, this is by no means a scientific sample but I'd estimate in a third of cases where a db-G6 has been requested in not-very-good faith then reverted by a db-G6 admin because it "wasn't uncontroversial as claimed" the user, or one-in-three of these users, will be back within hours days or weeks to move it him/herself when the admin has safely gone away, because there's now no lump in the redirect history to leave a "lock" (unless, which I haven't seen, the admin has the foresight to him/herself add a little gratuitous history-saves to recreate a history-lump an non-admin can't move past). All kinds of creativity goes into shuffling things from A to B and back again rather than actually contributing to article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have learned to be rather careful on g6 where a merge or a move is involved., and to check carefully the full context of the suggestion.. These requests can be more complicated than they seems, . Ideally the requests will be either for situations where the matter is blindingly obvious, or where there has already been achieved consensus,and it just has to be implemented. Unfortunately , many requests seem pre-ementive measures for things that really need more discussions and we w= should be s just as willing to send these back as we would be send back a speedy that really needs a afd or prod DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
One place I have been caught out is renaming based on absence or presence of diacritics. It ends up tat this is controversial with RFCs for the various languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Graeme, and Greek/Turkish issues, USPlace, nobility, etc. Diacritics overall isn't controversial, just controversial in some pockets, for example there was a large and unanimous RM to put an end to the Czech Hockeynames disruption, and there's been no disruption in that area following (of course it helped that the instigator had been banned).
What I would say however is that the existing software set-up of db-G6 tends to undermine the work of db-G6 admins. For example one case you recall where I notified you that you had in good faith actioned a db-G6 on a page where Talk-page evidence of a contrary RM result had been deleted, you quickly restored per the RM, but your restore didn't create the history 'bump' at the redirect to prevent the article being moved back again, so the db-G6 circumvention of the RM result worked even though you had restored it. Admins can't place on their watchlist every single problematic db-G6, so perhaps there needs to be some tweaking of the software so that when an admin moves a page back a 'bump' is created to superglue in place your self-revert, or Amatulić's Starlet self-revert above, or several others I've seen where db-G6 were carried out despite admins reverting them. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think one reason that some editors try to abuse G6 to get around the WP:RM procedure is because Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog is perpetually rather large. Editors notice this, and rightfully conclude that any attempt at RM discussion will be pointless because it takes forever for an admin to come along and act on it. The resulting frustration, I believe, encourages more expedient work-arounds.

I've taken a stab at reducing the backlog now and then, when I have a block of idle time to spare and don't want to attend to more urgent admin tasks related to preventing disruption of the project. When I do it, it feels like Wiki-gnome work. And I think other admins feel the same way, given the apparent low-priority of closing WP:RMs among the admin population at large.

This situation suggests that G6 isn't broken, but rather the RM process is broken. Perhaps a new user right is needed, similar to File Mover, but allowing trusted users to move articles when the destination page already exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Amatulić, this sounds like a possible suggestion for reducing WP:RM's backlog, but I don't see how it would solve the db-G6 misuse? The fact that some users go back for a second bite of the db-G6 cherry suggests that their objection isn't the 7 days of an RM, but that they know the RM will fail. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Fixing RM may not solve G6 misuse, but may reduce it. My point was that the endless backlog may be a factor in discouraging use of RM and encouraging G6 misuse. It isn't 7 days. The backlog consistently goes back a month or longer. As of today it's about six weeks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
True, it can be a factor with the more good faith db-G6s, your point is taken it may reduce it, fully agreed, but again ironically the backlog has until very recently included several (ultimately successful) RMs to revert "uncontroversial" db-G6, so bad faith db-G6 themselves lengthen the very backlog.... (Thanks for your discussion btw, very helpful) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with In ictu oculi and Carl. CSD#G6 is easily used to circumvent going through the RM process, and the need for a non-admin to be requesting G6 deletions is not usual. I do think that the WP:RM process is in bad shape, but it should be improved, not circumvented by tricks. Admins should be advised to be hesitant to fulfil G6 requests, and all should be advised that if a deletion is required to enable a move, then it should be sent to WP:RM#Technical requests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that admins should exercise due diligence when fulfilling G6 requests. But why should all moves that require deletion be sent to WP:RM#Technical requests? That's effectively identical to {{db-move}} anyway, which is a special case of G6. A vigilant admin can exercise the judgment needed to fulfill or decline such a request; indeed, most of these G6 moves aren't controversial. Abuse of G6 isn't that commonplace an occurrence. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Because a listing at Wikipedia:Rm#Technical_requests will attract the attention of admins up to speed with the idiosyncracy of WP:RM and not-really-uncontested moves.
  • Because there are unexpected controversies with inocuous appearing page moves. Because it is so easy for an editor acting in good faith to request a controversial move unaware of potential controversy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
@Amatulić, yes "most" is true, but even so, scrolling down even the implemented G6, after refusals, of "make way for move" a significant number of them could be controversial, at least enough to justify an appearance on WP:RM#Technical requests. And WP:RM#Technical requests is different from {{db-move}} in two respects I believe, (1) visibility, visibility in being on a more "public page" where editors with an interest in WP:AT regularly check, wheras the db-move doesn't have a visible list (such as a link to WP:LSD) and isn't even acknowledged as existing on WP:RM. Even if WP:LSD was linked on WP:RM it doesn't actually show what are db-G6 and what are just normal vanilla CSD. (2) I believe, perhaps wrongly I find out now, that WP:RM#Technical requests get given 24hr before someone implements. But I'm not clear on why I believe that, I can't see the "24 hr" mentioned anywhere (did I imagine it? possible). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If there was an equivalent of WP:LSD which narrowed it down to just the db-G6 (is there?) visibility would be better. I just tried using what links here to template db-move then CTRL F in Firefox to find "transclusion" and the first one I find is this, an evidently controversial diacritic move by a Korean editor, Sawol whose Talk page looks as if admin CactusWriter already caught misuse of db-G1. Then a few more Korean db-G6 down a db-G6 on a hyphen move Beau-Bassin Rose-Hill, I don't follow hyphens :) but I know some consider them controversial. I can't see any transclusions which are guaranteed "uncontroversial" (isn't there an easier way of looking at the db-G6 proposals?) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at WP:LSD again to see if I could work out how to distinguish the db-G6 and other CSD (I can't) and note all the "transclusions" have been actioned.
@DGG, please don't take this the wrong way - this just happens to be an example that stuck out - you say above "I have learned to be rather careful on g6 where a merge or a move is involved., and to check carefully the full context of the suggestion." and I truly 100% believe that you do and are, I have no reason to believe any of the small pressed team of CSD admins are any less than careful, but immediately after saying this you just got snared by a "second bite of the cherry" db-G6, and reversed an action by fellow admin Graeme Bartlett who had already reversed a first db-G6 diacritic move as not uncontroversial (Graeme reversed his db-G6 it when it was pointed out that Talk page RM tags had been deleted and the contrary RM bumped into Archive by IP-puppeting). To me this illustrates that the db-G6 system is broken, even if only broken by lack of checklist of danger zone topics or central record of previous db-G6 mischief (such as Amatulic suggested above). If it was incompetent or lazy admins it'd be a different issue, but it isn't it's evidently everyone trying very very hard (as above) and yet still getting tripped up by creative Users. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Understood, but: WP will always attract users who wish to outwit the system, it's a perpetual arms race, just like vandalism and the abuse filter. Calling something "merely technical" is an obvious ploy seen in very many places, most frequently edit summaries, where "cpyed" or the like is used to try to disguise contentious edits. Yet we still need quick ways of handling the really technical ones. It's not G6 that's the problem; it's the entire move function-- like redirect or merge, it can be used wrongly or evasively. The best approach is human cares--sending everything to RM is like sending everything to AfD--I would be very reluctant to mandate additional material going into WP:RM. What I think is needed is attention to the move log, and perhaps a real-time display of it, just like New Pages. perhaps there is one?) And, though that's not the problem here, all moves from AfC and user space to main space should go to NPP. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
@DGG, sure, what you say makes sense, understood, which is why I'm not suggesting go after the various clever users. However a real-time display of it, similar to New Pages sounds possible, particularly if it could include ; DATE ; USER REQUESTING DB-G6 ; ADMIN RESPONDING ; MOVED/REFUSED ; such a record would markedly increase transparency, and transparency cuts down on clever users. It might also help unclog things at WP:RM if this could be cross referenced from the Technical Moves there so that consistency between what is "controversial"/"non-controversial" at WP:RM and at db-G6 should improve. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
PS, when you say "the move log" can you link? I'm not sure what you mean, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO, in most cases changing a primary topic should also be considered "controversial" and require some discussion. That seems to happen occasionally when a user moves disambig page X to X (disambiguation), then tags the resulting redirect as db-G6 so he can move X (Y) to X. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

...interestingly there doesn't appear to have been a controversial db-G6 on WP:LSD to move a page counter an RM or counter a previous db-G6 admin revert for 72 hours. Maybe it's coincidence, or maybe this discussion page is on some users' watchlists? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bless me Father, no perhaps don't

... for I have just committed a G6 about which I'm unrepentant but not altogether comfortable.

Scenario: RM in which I have already "voted" and in which there was IMO a rough consensus but also a long discussion with the one dissenting voice was non-admin closed as moved and the target page flagged db-move.

I've done the speedy deletion under WP:SNOW and WP:IAR and think it was arguably a valid G6 but that it was neither a valid non-admin close nor a valid db-move candidate. The problem is, again, our documentation (guidelines, template use instructions, drop-down menus) isn't consistent on this.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, at least if you're still talking about this RM. How was this not a valid NAC? --BDD (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. IMO it was a controversial move, that's why I cast a vote rather than simply performing the move. But that's incidental to this talk page. The important thing for this discussion is, the G6 seems to meet the criteria according to some parts of the documentation but not others.
No criticism of your using the template is intended, and thanks for completing the move so promptly. Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I see what you're saying, and I think I agree to some extent. {{db-move}} can indeed be used in cases like this where a move can't really be called "non-controversial," but I think the template is still appropriate as it's "consensual." And as you probably know, the instructions for RM NACs prescribe this template for just those cases. So I agree that it's a bit odd that this throws resolved RMs in the same boat with obstacles to technical requests (cf. WP:RM/TR). It might eliminate some confusion to create separate templates for non-controversial and consensual moves, but I don't really think the process as it stands is broken. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If the move consensus was closed saying to move it, and you need to delete a redirect to make it happen, do it. It counts under G6-move, and it also meets the spirit, if not the letter, of G6-xfd (the consensus to move is also a consensus to delete the redirect that's in the way). Ego White Tray (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree, and I done it. The whole question here is to improve the letter of the law. Andrewa (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Back again

Yesterday the db-G6 template was back being used to attempt moves contrary to RM results again. Can I ask what actual action/conclusion was drawn above? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The RM-result argument would be a lot more convincing if you moved Édouard Hambye back where he belongs. Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Kauffner, your name hasn't been mentioned here. And I have no idea what the above means, I didn't approve that move (see Talk) and have no intention of moving Édouard Hambye anywhere. Nor can I see the relevance of Mdann52's close or KarlB's move there per FRMOS to using db-G6 counter RM results. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can we perhaps at least tighten the text on WP:RM?

If the only obstacle to a technical move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:

— page to be moved here, reason for move
This will list the page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Can we add "this should never be used for example for (a) .... (b) .... (c) .... and list the 2 or 3 most problematic repeated misuse areas that have repeated with db-G6? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals for criteria alteration, process development

The following proposals originated at the Village Pump:

Having participated in a few MfD discussions recently, I've noticed that many deletion nominations sit ignored for a time. Perhaps a more efficient process would be beneficial, along the lines of CSD but regarding MfD? It would take the drafting of some criteria to determine what could be addressed through this process (userspace fake articles and other uncontroversial deletions), but I think this would be an easier and simpler way than the current method. A user would mark it, and an admin would check it; gone would be the long periods of articles waiting at MfD. dci | TALK 05:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, I've been thinking that WP:CSD needs a G13. Non-admin close and uncontested deletions. for a non-admin who closes a successful XfD, or for a participant in an XfD that has gone through a full deletion discussion without being contested, but has not yet been closed. Such a proposal should probably be at CSD, though. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 10:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would help with efficiency. To increase the chance of input on these ideas, I'll make a note at CSD's talk page. dci | TALK 21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Even though it is presented as a CSD criteria this proposal is actually about changing wp:AFD in two very significant ways:
  1. Giving non-admins full power to close XFD discussions (compared to the very limited non-admin closures we have now)
  2. Making "uncontested" nominations default to delete (This varies per pagetype, but article nominations without comments are relisted or treated as expired wp:PRODs).
I am not seeing how either of them improves "efficiency". (for example, I assume the deleting admin should check whether the XFD was correctly closed? If yes, then how is this more efficient than the admin closing the discussion himself?). There also seems to be a misunderstanding that letting nominations run for several days/weeks is somehow "inefficient". Those waiting periods are intended to give people time to respond, as many editors edit infrequently. Yoenit (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that Vanisaac intended to suppose radical AfD changes; I think it's merely a way for the most uncontroversial of nominations (the ones currently allowed to undergo non-admin closure) to be dealt with most expediently. As for the first proposal, it regards MfD, and, in my eyes, improve the process by taking away from the long list of uncontroversial userspace noms. dci | TALK 22:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this may, in fact, result in a shift in XfD; I'm under no illusions that everyone would consider this a merely cosmetic change. My take on non-admin closures is that admins are not supposed to be another caste, but are just editors who have been entrusted with tools to enact certain outcomes on behalf of the community. If the reason why non-admins cannot do XfD closures is simply because they don't have the tools to do it, then a CSD for enacting an XfD close would enable people who are morally authorised, but currently lack the tools, to close XfD discussions. If only admins are morally authorised to do so, then the WP:XfD guidelines need to be rewritten, because they have instructions for non-admin closes: the only limiting factor is that the lack of tool usage means that non-admins can only close no-consensus and keeps. If a non-admin has the moral authority to close a keep, why does (s)he not have the moral authority to delete? That's why I think this is appropriate.
Likewise, if an XfD discussion that has gone through its paces (read 7 days), and has been uncontested, then the proposer or a contributor should be able to get a soft delete on his/her own. Now maybe that should be a different criterion than a non-admin close, I couldn't say, but uncontested deletion discussions should not be sitting around, waiting for an admin to pop by some time. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So many MfD nominations are not worth their time, with obvious solutions to the suggested problems often being (1) ignore it, (2) blank it, or (3) redirect it to the better page, and with no evidence at all that the nominator has considered these options. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I am quite aware of these options; I merely think this would be the most efficient way of going about the process. Again, this would normally entail the deletion of uncontroversial but still WP-inappropriate content. dci | TALK 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Much WP-inappropriate content needs not be deleted, just fixed by editing. We shouldn't go for deletion tools to fix unimportant things when fixing by editing suffices. There is no danger in leaving a stale draft blanked in a userpage history. there is danger in loose, ill-defined unilateral speedy deletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
        • That's true; I don't consider myself a "deletionist", but I think there is content on Wikipedia that doesn't further the aim of improving the encyclopedia. This content is often unharmful and can be left perfectly alone. However, there's cases (see WP:FAKEARTICLE) where such content is simply unnecessary to maintain on the visible site. The proposal isn't suggesting unilateral action; indeed, it would entail the determination of an administrator before deletion could ensue. The discussions affecting such material currently present at MfD take long periods of time to receive substantial feedback, and this would, again, improve that process's efficiency. dci | TALK 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
          • That sounds like you are trying to push for UserSpaceProd, which has had its proponents, but was opposed due to minimal watchlist of userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm actually unfamiliar with that proposal; I suppose the gist of mine is much in line with its. dci | TALK 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with trying to expand CSD to cover more things at MfD is that they can be very detail specific. The line between a somewhat stale draft, and a fake userspace article is very hard to draw. And in the case of a stale draft nominations, the slowness of the deletion process allows the author to notice and respond. Monty845 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Plain and simple. A CSD is supposed to merely to spare the community's time at AfD. If in doubt, it's to be declined and AfD is the next step. We shouldn't be running to CSD to bypass an AfD.

So if the discussion is open, why add on CSD? Just close the XfD.

And a flat no to PROD outside article space. There is no deadline. - jc37 06:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a pointless suggestion. Uncontested MfDs are piss easy to close (and are being done pretty quickly these days). They're also about the least urgent things one can imagine. We shouldn't be encouraging non-admin closures of MfDs that are contested, either. WilyD 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe that there's a bit of a misunderstanding regarding the MfD proposal; it's not meant to further non-admin closures. An admin would be "closing" a speedy MfD, it would just be a non-admin nominating it differently than before. At any rate, these would be uncontroversial MfDs, to give more emphasis to those pages that require much greater deliberation prior to deletion. dci | TALK 19:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Partial withdraw

I'm more or less going to withdraw my original proposal; I do not know what Vanisaac's take on the matter is and presume he has not withdrawn his ideas. This is in light of a recent post at the MfD talk, which I wholeheartedly endorse as an alternative for deletion. dci | TALK 03:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on tag

Hi there CSD people,

I've tagged Bit Slap with G3 (obvious hoax) but I'm not sure if it's the correct tag. The entire content of the article is (in case it's already been deleted:

Bit Slap : A variation of Bitch Slap specialized for developers in the IT era.

I first tagged it with nonsense but I removed that tag as it was incorrect. Is hoax appropriate here or would vandalism be better? I'm attempting to get into CSD a bit more but sometimes it can be difficult classifying articles so I thought I'd check here. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 15:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

PROD is the best tag - whether there's an appropriate CSD tag is ... unclear (per above discussion). WilyD 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent use of G3 on clear true, but clearly "made up in school one day items"

I see regular tagging of things that are obviously true, but also obviously non-notable, recently made up things as G3, and often explicitly as G3-hoax (rather than the highly nebulous "vandalism"). My instinct is to decline and PROD (e.g., Aug-o-well-o-ween, or occasionally speedy under another criterion; this discussion was prompted by one such case I deleted as G10 - it was an almost certainly true term of disparagement made up to disparage a single person), but the tagging occurs to often to be ignored, and I occasionally track back and find that another admin has deleted it as G3 (e.g., Romantiqueo, Cosomi, The Dyon Skull, Yuerrazikk-opa-gi "comb" lake monster). Am I crazy? Should an article that reads:

A Huge Erection is a cocktail made with Tequila cream liqueur and Coconut rum without mixing, which is served with a banana with a straw inserted into the banana lengthwise. It is often garnished with two lychee.

Be speedily deleted as a "hoax" even though it's almost certainly true? (Indeed, it is true. Try it. ;) ) WilyD 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd prod. I usually do in cases like that. It's not an easy one to Google, either, if one is of a delicate disposition... I must say I find more misuse of G1 than G3, and A7 on attacking or obviously ridiculous articles. (Personally, I'd prefer two strawberries in it instead of lychees. Sounds good, though...) Peridon (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd have quite happily deleted the lake monster and Cosomi on sight, by the way. Romantiqueo, I'd have passed by on the other side. I know nothing of reggaeton, and don't think I really want to. Having created many a fairy tale myself (and listened to excuses made by assorted children), I might recognise them easier than others who haven't had those opportunities. Even fairy tales have to have a coherence that that monster didn't. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I could see an argument for deleting Huge Erection as a vandalism G3, but the problem for a hoax deletion is that there is no claim that could be false. Now if they claimed it was popular, or widely known, and you find it isn't, fine, shoe horn it into a Hoax deletion to avoid a pointless delay, but we shouldn't be speedy deleting things that clearly don't meet the criteria. Monty845 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps time to raise Fuhghettaboutit's proposal again? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that in such situations, the admin should go ahead with the deletion, but state in the deletion log that it was an WP:IAR hasty prod. I usually prod these things, but when they get speedied I never object.
As to drafting a speedy deletion criterion specifically for these things, the wording should be carefully studied as to not encompass stuff that does have a chance of surviving. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 07:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The other choice besides an IAR vandalism delete, is an IAR Test page delete. That's what I do when it seems necessary, because if I have made a mistake, the deletion summary is much less condemnatory. On the whole, even though I do not really like to have to use IAR on speedy, I think we'll make many fewer mistakes using it, than we will if we try to draft a new criterion for this sort of stuff--its too nebulous to define. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
So no {{db-snow}}? Too bad. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Lychee" should be plural. It shouldn't be speedied. It could well be real. I don't dare try google searching. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So, in other words, turds are being flushed, but the handle is being pushed in slightly the wrong way. What a tragedy. This is exactly why we have Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We shouldn't criticize the right thing happening because Form 113491194-A rather than 113491194-B was filled out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Of the four examples, Romantiqueo was not a turd - I suspect a spanish speaker might've been able to bring it up to snuff. I wasn't able to find adequate sources, but my reading of the not-individually-reliable-but-I-tend-to-believe-them-in-the-aggregate sources lead me to believe it's probably true. Similarly, I've more than once declined this kind of request on worthwhile articles, or at least plausibly worthwhile articles. WilyD 09:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Many displeasing subject titles do not get deleted. Generally, project building is not run as a bureaucracy, but when it comes to privileged users and unilateral deletion, the first substantive line of WP:CSD is quite explicit. Five days of PROD don't hurt, and like I said, it could be real. CSD, PROD and AfD are not pointless forms of tricial difference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • If you have not yet seen Brazil (film), you really ought to. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • While I am not sure I agree with the implied analogy, it is a great film. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Did my comment get moved? This was in direct response to Seraphim's "incorrect forms" statement. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I can understand the desire to get those deleted when Google was indexing them, but if we are now No-indexing new articles then I don't see a problem in them sitting unindexed for a few days with a deletion template on them. Afterall for all I know that could be a trendy cocktail that people who are more au fait with popular culture regard as more notable and even better selling than a pan Galactic Gargle blaster. Obviously we need to get rid of attack pages pdq, but for some things prod is the best process. ϢereSpielChequers 21:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Are we not entitled to presume that something is a hoax if it never been reported in any reliable sources? Unlike SmokeyJoe, I dared Google searching (specifically for "huge erection" AND rum AND banana AND lychee), and got zero remotely relevant hits on Google, Google Books, or Google News. Same for "Aug-o-well-o-ween". bd2412 T 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No we shouldn't assume that things which could well be unimportant are hoaxes just because they are not reported in reliable sources. We can and do assume that they are not notable, but it would require a complete reversal of AGF to assume that every non notable cocktail, card game or Masai boma is a hoax. Remember when we delete something as non-notable we generally assume that the editor is of good faith when we reject their work, if we start deleting such stuff as hoaxes then we are being very bitey to the editors involved. Before we brand someone's work as fraudulent we need to check that someone else won the award or number one slot in question. ϢereSpielChequers 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The point is then obvious - despite finding no Google hits, it's not a hoax (I have, in fact, drunk a Huge Erection - I don't recommend it). If we mean something else, we should say something else, but to presume it's a hoax is daft. WilyD 09:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The obvious solution to this is to create an entirely new CSD criteria for things that were obviously made-up. I know that's been suggested many, many time before and rejected, but since almost all of these articles have no chance at either PROD or AfD, it would probably be best to just speedy them. The only problem is that it needs to be strict, something with the likes of of

    This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a neologism, sport, activity etc. that was clearly made-up one day, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and where a source is not given.

Such a criterion would not apply to such articles if they have any link as a source, even if unreliable (like Facebook). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Aside from the difficulty of defining "clearly made up one day", this extends the BLPprod principle of requiring a source but without targeting the extension on high risk articles. If we were to extend the source it or it gets deleted principle from BLPs to more articles we should do so to an area where there is a risk of abuse. One obvious anomaly lies with articles about the recently dead, my suspicion is that we are more likely to get another incident about someone allegedly in the news in the last sixty years ago than someone whose article stops in the 1930s with their retirement from sport. It has long seemed an anomaly to me that the bio of someone who died in the last few years is deemed lower risk than that of a pre WWII sportsperson. ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I've never liked the "made up one day" thing, as it's somewhat insulting to new editors, and we definitely shouldn't include it in a speedy delete criteria (we deleted your page because we think you made it all up is quite bitey) Ego White Tray (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This looks to me like it fails three of the four criteria for new CSD rules, namely it is not sufficiently objective, certainly not uncontestable, and there is no evidence that there is a frequent problem with such articles. PROD and AFD are able to handle such things well enough. I also find myself very much in agreement with WSC above point, if we are going to expand the use of a BLPPROD type of procedure, it should be targeted at articles that are a serious problem, not just junk pages that are foolish but harmless. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Then why don't we just extend A7 to the most common categories of things that lack encyclopedic importance, such as unsourced games, holidays, and recipes (drinks or otherwise). bd2412 T 12:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that was what I originally had in mind, but since that appears to have been rejected several times, I tried something else. Didn't somebody propose a similar criterion a few months back? (that was actually the inspiration for my current proposal). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I still stick with my proposal that A7 should cover any article that doesn't give the first hint at why it has any importance to anything, but that's never going to happen. Seems to me "Why would anyone possibly care?" would be an awfully low bar to set as a minimum standard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that we are too diverse as a community in what we consider to be "a credible assertion of importance or significance". To me it seems odd that every species of moss and every populated place is automatically notable, yet some published Academics have been tagged as A7 even when they are full professors. If as a community our A7 tagging was more accurate then I would be less cautious about extending it to any subject that lacked an "assertion of importance or significance" that I found credible. The problem is that I doubt our ability to widen A7 without seeing many more articles tagged A7 where I found their assertion of importance or significance credible but others didn't. ϢereSpielChequers 14:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the frequency or lack of it which is a factor in determining what categories of things to include in A7--its the accuracy by which 2 people (or sometimes one person) can securely and accurately make the distinction. Many of the people nominated and the groups are so absurdly impossible that any rational person who understood WP would agree there cannot possibly be an article. Many band article are so obvious that even someone like I who doesn't know the subject can be confident, and true of a great deal of web content. the same seems to be true of individual animals, though I still don't think this was frequent enough to bother. Beyond that, the original article for a notable subject is frequently so weak that it is very hard to tell without some knowledge of the subject. Prod permits a number of people to look at them and recognize what may be worth saving. (Certainly I have spotted a few dozen children;s books where the article is in the nature of a primary child's book review, but in fact the book is famous). Same for products--people who have some knowledge need to have the chance to see them. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
But as for hoax, I sometimes do interpret it to include things that are utterly ridiculous. So do other administrators. The actual criterion, G3, is vandalism, of which hoax is only a subset. Vandalism is content inserted only to damage the encyclopedia. For material that is not actually damaging, just foolish, I don't use G3, though some administrators do; I prefer to deny recognition, and just call it test page. There is of course the possibility that something might actually be real , but in that case, I would expect a complaint and some evidence. The criterion is apparent good faith, and that is to some degree a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello fellow CSD-ers. I'm wondering about G5. Is G5 still applicable when a user nominated an article for deletion then he was blocked because of a because he was a sock of another blocked account. Will the deletion discussion he made will be deleted or it will continue and progress even if the creator was blocked? Because G5 implies that pages created by blocked/banned users will be deleted. Hope for sincere response. Thanks! Mediran (tc) 06:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PS this is the deletion discussion. Mediran (tc) 06:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh. As the CSD-tagger, I coincidentally have this page watchlisted from a previous discussion (which I should really follow up on, since I still think I had a good idea). Anyways, my understanding was that the idea behind G5 was that banned or blocked users lose the right to make any contributions whatsoever, no matter how useful or necessary such contributions may be. Now, I suppose you could apply an IAR perspective in some cases - let's say a user creates a run-of-the-mill stub on some random town in the Midwest, and a few days later gets blocked as the sockpuppet of a troll who's repeatedly tried to create good-faith accounts, but been told that they'd need to apply for an unblock from their main account (ignoring the fact that IMHO, situations like these, which are a dime a dozen, are a woeful misapplication of WP:SOCK) - but in this case Mangoeater1000 has a long, ugly history of dumb content disputes involving NYU-Poly and Cal Poly, into which pattern this AfD nomination fits perfectly. If this were an incredibly unambiguous case, I could see the case for allowing it, but in this case, numerous admins and strong consensuses at various AN and AN/I threads have determined that Mangoeater has lost his right to contribute to the encyclopedia for his repeated misconduct in this topic area; to not delete the AfD would be to give him a victory he most definitely does not deserve.
Whew. Sorry if I sound tense; I think you asked a very good question, Mediran, and any anger is directed at Mangoeater for some rather nasty things he said to me yesterday. Really, though, you make good points, and I'd say we should even consider opening an RfC on rewording G5 to address limited exemptions to it, like the example I suggested. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mediran (tc) 08:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of the general case, though? I think there's an argument to be made to include something in the G5 wording along the lines of In some cases, it may be in the better interest of the project to retain such a page, such as in the case of an otherwise satisfactory contribution that appears to be in good faith, by a user who was not intending to evade their block, either through ignorance of the policy or misunderstanding of their circumstances. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 09:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It has been my understanding that G5 should be declined on edits the reviewing admin or another editor in good-standing would have made themselves because then deleting and re-doing the same edit would be unnecessary work that's not in the spirit of the policy. As for AFDs, once someone else participated in the discussion and argued for deletion, G5 usually can't be applied anymore because then it can be assumed that they would have started the AFD themselves. If they !voted to keep the article, maybe even because they recognized the nomination to be frivolous, then G5 might still be applied since one can assume that they have no interest in the AFD's continued existence. In this particular case, I deleted the AFD and removed the tag. Regards SoWhy 09:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that if the AfD had been commented on, a delete !vote would have qualified it for the "substantial edits by others" exemption, whereas one could argue that a keep !vote wouldn't be considered substantial. Regardless, the rather obscure case of an AfD submission by a banned user can probably be handled on an ad hoc basis, especially as G5 is probably one of the least-used criteria, second only perhaps to G9 (office action) among the G-series criteria. Speaking of G5 in general, though, my question is if we should include in the description the "pointless to delete and re-create" exemption that you mentioned. I imagine that a good number of well-respected editors have never even heard of G5, so it's extra-important that people reading it understand when and when not to apply it (as opposed to something like A7, which any editor with modest experience probably has memorized). — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I said. If someone argued to keep at that AFD though with a long explanation, the edit is surely substantial but G5 can still be applied because it still fits the spirit of the criterion. As for general purposes: I don't think we need to amend G5 to reflect that since such cases are rare; it's common enough that a banned user makes a good edit that shouldn't be reverted (like removing negative BLP-material), it's rare that they create a page that should not be deleted, so when this actually happens, invoking IAR is sufficient to deal with it. Regards SoWhy 12:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

One comment about deletion discussions opened by banned users: If anyone other than the nominator has commented on the deletion discussion, the discussion absolutely does not qualify for any kind of speedy deletion. For deletion discussions in general, I'd say closing the discussion as speedy keep is a better option generally. That's why speedy keep exists, and we should use it. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to speedy keep an AFD where the only comments are about how frivolous the nomination was. G5 aims to deny banned users recognition, so "speedy keep" will leave entries of their editing and thus some kind of recognition while deleting the AFD will not. Regards SoWhy 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy keep should be used if some other user has voted to delete and later changed their mind, or if the nomination was made in a process where all the daily discussions are on a single page (currently anything but AfD and MfD); deletion of the discussion should be when the page is only that discussion, and no non-G5-able user had voted to delete. Any vote by a non-G5-able user to delete is enough to prevent a speedy close as long as the vote wasn't withdrawn. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

British Rail Class 472 request to delete a document.

British Rail Class 472 request to delete a document.

Train is not actually planning to introduce.

Searching but can not on other sites.

Request to be removed is false information.

(* Web site: *)

Speedy deletion is not the right venue for such a request: this doesn't fall under obvious hoaxes (criterion G3). WP:AFD explains the proper procedure, or, if you feel the deletion will be uncontroversial, you might want to go with the simpler procedure at WP:PROD.
For my part, since I don't have time to research this matter tonight, I won't initiate an AfD procedure without someone seconding the motion. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The article has a Proposed Deletion tag, and as I can find no independent reference to this Class 472, I don't doubt that it will disappear once the seven days are over. Peridon (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I would say it's a hoax, as this would be almost certainly noticed by the media and online world. There's no mention of the proposal on the Internet, aside from Wikipedia ... but there's no need to hurry, as Peridon says. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

F4 misuse?

I've seen several files nominated as "F4 unknown source",

  1. but the source is indicated directly in the images, since the image contains a banner with a source id (collection id #, and collection name). These seem innappropriately listed as "sourceless files" to me.
  2. several images with sources indicated but which don't use one of the file templates also seem to be placed for F4 deletion. Especially older files that predate the templates. This seems a lack of due diligence in using the F4 criterion.

-- (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a note on the F4 description telling admins to check before deleting. Hopefully this will help. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory information about hoaxes

The G3 criteria is called Pure vandalism, and blatant hoaxes. Yet in the Non-criteria section, #2 is: Hoaxes. If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny... etc. I understand what this means vis-a-vis the policy, and the subjective difference between a hoax as framed in a G3 and one that would require an AFD and consensus. However, for a user coming here looking for answers on why their article was deleted, or (more importantly) an editor reading up on the policy to help with NPP, this can be confusing. Wouldn't it be better to simply omit the "and blatant hoaxes" part from the G3 criteria? Perhaps replace it with "... and blatantly misleading information". Semantics perhaps, but clearer from a policy standpoint. Just a thought. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest revising the non-criteria section to state that a hoax that's blatantly obvious can be speedy deleted, but most hoaxes can't. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it's the terminology that's the issue; the use of the word "hoax" is misleading because it's used in two subtly different contexts that are not immediately apparent to people who are not familiar with the policy. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Anecdotally, I have nominated several articles at AfD as hoaxes, and rarely do they last more then a day or two, let alone the typical week for discussion. As a practical matter, as long as the deleting admin properly identifies it as a hoax, and doesn't delete a false positive, the quicker hoaxes are deleted the better. Monty845 06:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If you know the subject area well enough then a hoax can be as blatant as a Libyan Armoured division participating in D Day. But the world is a very strange place, and not only do we have to deal with truth being stranger than fiction, but we also have to remember that some apparent hoaxes will be coverage of fictional topics that merit an "in-universe" tag rather than a hoax tag. I don't remember anyone disputing any of my deletions of blatant hoaxes, but I did get a tag wrong when I thought something was a hoax when it merely required a little amendment to clarify that someone was the creator of a notable fiction. So in my view both hoax and db-hoax serve valid purposes, and if you are correct in thinking that something is probably a hoax then there will be someone else who looks at it and knows it to be a blatant hoax. But db-hoax should only be used when you positively know something to be a hoax. ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need a criteria just for transwikis?

I propose eliminating A5 (transwikied articles) and instead cover it in G6 (housekeeping). Any objections? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Technical deletions" can cover many vague things, and when we can be specific , we should be. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
A5 is actually the least-used article speedy deletion criterion. It accounts for about one deletion every three days. I suspect that if it was proposed now it would be shunted under housekeeping. Hut 8.5 10:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Hut 8.5 for his intervention ☺☺☺. Compressing a lot of things into WP:CSD#G6 is one of the worst things which one can do with CSD (IMHO next after its abolishing). G6 must be reserved for cases where content issues are absolutely irrelevant, and it should be made in from its text. Otherwise, any sysop would be allowed to "apply" G6 to suppress whatever they want. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Added transwikied articles to the list of housekeeping tasks would not give an administrator any such authority. Speedy delete taggers would still use {{db-transwiki}}, its text would simply be revised to say G6 instead of A5. As is the case now, admins would be expected to verify that is was actually transwikied before deleting. Finally with a transwiki, content is totally irrelevant, since content has simply been moved elsewhere. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it causing any problems, or consuming any resources, to keep this as a separate criterion? In what sense is it beneficial to keep the list of 'things that we can CSD' exactly the same, but to express it in fewer less-clear subdivisions? The purpose of this policy is to clarify and explain when speedy deletion might be appropriate, not to be as concise as humanly possible. Happymelon 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Slight revision to G4 and G6

Criteria G4 is "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". G6 includes {{db-xfd}}, which is "a consensus to delete this page has been reached at a deletion discussion, but it has not yet been deleted". In my view, this distinction is pointless, so I suggest revising G4 to state "A page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" - whether it's a re-creation or not is irrelevant. This wouldn't change which pages are deleted at all, but would simplify both G4 and G6. Thoughts? Ego White Tray (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A CSD point cannot include a template, it includes reasons. If the text of G6 recommends {{db-xfd}}, then somebody made a mistake. Why not to fix it by removing both {{db-xfd}} from G6 and mentioning of CSD from the template? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a problem in search of a solution. Both have clear, distinct purposes, and I see no reason to lump them together. You use {{db-xfd}} if the closing admin just forgot to delete the page. {{db-g4}} is much more associated with long-term abuse and the like. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The G6 for an undeleted but should have been page is not nearly the same as G4. G6 is for tidying up a mistake. G4 needs checks to see if the page IS the same (and by the third repeat someone is likely to get blocked or SPIed depending on circumstances), and if not what it is. This is something only an admin can do properly. An article with the same title as a deleted one may be about a totally different subject, or it may be the same subject but with changes that render it a valid article (or even a different title for the same subject - good memory on the part of the tagger comes in here). What does need doing is to emphasise that G4 is ONLY for XfD deleted things. Prod and CSD do not come under G4, but occasionally things deleted those ways get tagged G4. Not often, IMO, but does happen. Otherwise, I feel G4 and G6 should stay as they are. Peridon (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
To add a clarification, a G6 for XfD deletion omission requires an admin to look at the deletion history and the XfD result. It's a fact check. G4 requires a fact check (was it deleted?) and an evaluation (and sometimes enquiries about why it has been tagged when the tagger hasn't put on the talk page that the title has changed...). Peridon (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "G6 for XfD deletion omission" at all. Do not be confused by the occasion that somebody, being lazy to think about the problem properly, injected a link to WP:CSD#G6 into the {{db-xfd}} template. It is a "retarded deletion" (not a speedy deletion), it never was an accepted part of G6, and should not pose any of CSD in the deletion summary. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm really having difficulty understanding your issue. An AFD closes as delete, but the closing admin forgets to actually hit the delete button for one of the candidates. This happens during bulk AFDs pretty regularly. Another editor comes across the should-have-been-deleted file later, and marks it with CSD-G6. What's the issue?—Kww(talk) 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There are two "problems":
  1. The wording equivalent to {{db-xfd}} never was an accepted part of G6;
  2. G6, to remain an intuitively clear condition, should cover namely technical issues, and should not become a sump for ever increasing number of miscellaneous cases.
Did the sysop "forget to actually hit the delete button" or no, but the deletion was (or will be) based on a discussion, anyway. Although {{db-xfd}} may place the page into category: Candidates for speedy deletion, it only for the ease of processing. The reason for the process is not covered by WP:CSD, hence its mention should be dropped from the template and, reciprocally, {{db-xfd}} should be expunged from CSD G6’s list of templates as irrelevant. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It's for technical and housekeeping. Deleting after an xfd delete is a clear example of housekeeping. But it could also be argued as G4, "article with a consensus to delete" or similar wording. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If an XFD discussion has been closed with a delete result but the admin neglected to delete one or more pages included in the discussion it obviously is housekeeping, as already covered by the "obvious errors" clause of the existing language. Arguing over semantics is not going to change that and I have to wonder why anyone would be so worked up about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
To me, the G6 use is no different to any other deletion classed as housekeeping. In my (OK, not all that long) experience, the case doesn't arise often as the closing admins normally go straight to the article and deal with it. The direct reason for the tag is the omission, a housekeeping tidy up equivalent to deleting a dead redirect. Peridon (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
If the admin closing a deletion discussion as "delete" then fails to actually perform the deletion, they should be informed. If they then fail to act, another admin may perform the deletion.
To my mind, deletion by an admin who is not the closer of the discussion does not warrant selection of any WP:CSD reason - instead, use the same deletion reason that would have been used if the deletion had been carried out normally, perhaps with a few extra words for clarity: a summary such as per decision at [[WP:Articles for deletion/insert name here]] should be sufficient. G6 therefore does not encompass an admin failing to carry out the full XFD process. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
For an admin, no. But if a non-admin discovers the page was never deleted, they need a speedy delete rationale to suggest. So, the editor nominates for speedy delete G6 (or G4 if you go with my idea), but when the admin closes, she doesn't need to mention the speedy delete. But just because it's not in the edit summary doesn't mean it's not a speedy delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We may call it "speedy", "retarded", or something else. Both G4 (deletion of a recreated page which makes a separate log record) and G6 (a technical deletion) have nothing to do with the particular situation. Propose a new "Ω1" criterion if, for some reason, you insist that this situation has to be described in WP:CSD. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No, the editor does not "need" a specific CSD acronym to point to in order for the deletion to be processed. This is simple cleanup work, not a monolithic bureaucracy. Stop thinking about the process and think about the desired solution: that everyone can get on with editing articles, including mucking out those that should be deleted, with the minimum of fuss and effort. Happymelon 10:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see a clear case where an admin would jhave closed a discussion as delete, but couldn't for technical issues - a template which is being used, a category which needs to be split manually, etc. Sometimes, non-admins are capable of doing the necessary cleanup needed before the deletion; we need some reasonable way for them to alert the admins that the deletion can take place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've declined G4s for various reasons, including that half the new article related to television roles that were subsequent to the previous AFD. I see G6 as something very different especially if the AFD was not closed by an admin, or the admin chose to delete some of the articles mentioned in the AFDd but not to delete others. IMHO there is no benefit in merging them. ϢereSpielChequers 12:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

G6 corrupted by users Ego White Tray, Kww, and Incnis Mrsi

Kindly either change the section header, Incnis, or start a new thread with a civil title. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If I mistake, then point me please to a discussion which attached something like "pages that were voted to be deleted in a deletion discussion but not actually deleted" to CSD G6. Alternatively, show me that such text was once present in G6 for a prolonged interval of time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I replaced my handle with yours in the section edit. Don't put my handle in section headings. Especially don't do it when you are so obviously grasping. My edit fixed grammar. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Db-xfd}} has been uncontroversially in use for six years. This is clearly a G6 situation. I remember it as being explicitly called out in G6 in the past. It's certainly not some kind of nefarious recent invention.—Kww(talk) 19:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not object that the reason given in {{db-xfd}} is a valid one. I do not agree with people which try to pose it as a "speedy deletion". If there was a deletion discussion for the page, then a sysop has to cite the discussion, not to select something from CSD's menu. The latter is obviously detrimental to the accountability. Incnis Mrsi (talk)
I think the wording could have been better, but the intended meaning clearly meet the heading of technical or uncontroversial deletions. KTC (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

G8 vs. redirected material

Legobot task 20 is cleaning up (tagging G8) redirects without valid targets. (see discussion here). I think this creates a licensing problem in the case of merged content, in that if the destination article is ever deleted, all the source articles (since G8'ed by the bot and deleted by admins) will not be re-created, and thus attribution and licensing is broken. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Do we really want G8 to apply to merged material whose target is gone? Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

BRFA: WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 20. I think you mean, "if the destination article is ever undeleted". Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Right. If it's deleted, all the redirects from merged articles are deleted G8, and then it becomes undeleted, that would trigger the situation I'm concerned about. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see the issue that it's deleting content if the redirect has a history, but if the material from x was merged to y, and then y was deleted, the material in x is now no longer used, and there's no licensing problem if it's deleted. If x was merged to y which was then merged to z, it's the deletion of y that causes the licensing problem, not the deletion of x. In a situation like that, the correct result is for the history of x to be retained, but the redirect to be repointed to z. If you wanted to propose that Legobot not delete redirects with history, but simply put them into a maintenance category, I could see the logic in that. Most redirects with history will still wind up being deleted.—Kww(talk) 23:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see a problem with attribution if the target of the redirect is where the content was merged to. If the target of the merge have been deleted, then the content have been deleted, and we don't need the attribution any longer. A problem could arise if the content was merged from A to B and then to C, while the A redirect to B and B gets deleted. However, an admin is already suppose to "check for possible targets before deleting". If an admin doesn't do that, then the problem is with the deleting admin, and not this criterion. KTC (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The article that prompted this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons, which legitimately deleted List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. However, as one can see by going to that now-redlink, "what links here" is pretty extensive, but doesn't include EMS-05 Agg, which actually had content, which was redirected to MSM-04 Acguy before eventually being redirected into List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. Now, Legobot DOES keep User:Legobot/Broken_Redirects, but anyone undeleting an article wouldn't necessarily know that content in the deleted-and-then-restored article might have come from such a place... would they? Note that I'm not arguing that any of the deletions were improper, or for the restoration of any of the content now, just that if we were going to restore any of List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons (like if someone improved it), we would not have an easy way to put back the original articles reflecting the authorship and contribution of text and the attribution chain. Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the answer would be for the bot to keep records that we can refer to when undeleting. I'm coming more and more to the belief that undeleting is a quagmire when it comes to licensing, and our happy-go-lucky attitude at WP:REFUND needs to come to an end.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
So... for each redirect tagged G8 by Legobot, it should record both the redirect tagged, and the destination at the time it was tagged... and then we should add notes to the undeletion process, something to the effect that if there is any indication that content had previously been merged into an undeleted article, to check the Legobot log? It seems a bit of a kludge, but I'm not thinking up a better one. Of course, it does also suggest that articles to which other have been redirected (lists, for the most part) should themselves be redirected--like the list of weapons could have been redirected to Mobile Suit Gundam--rather than deleted, even if nothing is going to be directly kept in the target article, to make untangling such messes that much easier. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This situation is supposed to be handled by {{Copied}}s or a {{Copied multi}} on the undeleted article's talk page. A WP:Copying within Wikipedia-compliant edit summary is the fallback. If the source cannot be deduced from distinctive text, identifying it becomes very difficult. Page histories hidden under redirects, re-targeted redirects, and deleted pages do not appear in Special:Search. Re-targeted redirects and deleted pages also do not appear in Special:WhatLinksHere to hint that their history should be examined. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. So long as the merge-target is deleted there's no licensing on our part to worry about. Should the page be undeleted, the undeleting admin should be checking both in the article history and on the freshly-undeleted talk page to determine if there are other pages that need undeleting for attribution purposes. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
A quick note: if the source cannot be determined, the merged article is already non-compliant prior to any (un)deletions. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Copied}} also prevents accidental deletions when content has been copied to somewhere other than the redirect target. Consider MS-09 Dom, which was merged to the list as the result of WP:Articles for deletion/MS-09 Dom (November 2009). The content is also relevant to its ace pilots, the Black Tri-Stars (itself redirected to List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters#Black Tri-Stars in November 2009). If text were copied there, the {{Copied}}s on Talk:MS-09 Dom and Talk:Black Tri-Stars should warn against deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that what we need is a bot which reviews all G* deletions, checks if they were redirects (through an admin account, obviously); if it is, then it lists them in some tracking page with the target. Should the target ever exist, and the redirect not, it should mleave a note in an aggreed-on place (WP:AN maybe?) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
When I asked for Legobot to perform this task, I created {{db-redirnonebot}} instead of using an existing template with situations like this in mind. Because it warns the admin to check for possible redirect targets before deleting, an admin who follows its instructions will notice that a redirect previously went somewhere else and will change the target there if he think it appropriate. I don't see why something other than deletion would happen if they were human-tagged, and either way, improper non-restoration is an error on the part of a non-restoring admin. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Comprehensive logging seems excessive if these undeletions are rare. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

G7 - Question

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 3#.EN an editor is trying a novel approach to do an end around to delete a redirect. He took a redirect that is up at WP:RFD and created an unsourced stub. Then put it up for WP:G7 as the only significant contributor. I have declined this as he is not the only significant contributor, the original creator of the redirect is also a significant contributor. Also the request is not in good faith, he has stated as much in that his only motivation for creating the article was to send it to CSD as a G7. He has also stated that he sees many redirects that he can do the same thing and get them deleted G7. My question is this a valid use of G7? GB fan 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As you describe the situation, it is clearly not an apporiate use of G7. You should advise him to cut it out before someone less forgiving then yourself notices and drags him to AN/I where I would anticipate such behavior would result in a block. Monty845 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I would just sternly warn them, as bringing something like this to AN/I is likely to get the admin slapped in the face, since it is a rather small issue to bring up on that page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can (and should) bring a concerning incident to WP:ANI, not just admins; and this kind of behavior is, in my experience, right on par with some of the things that are brought to that particular forum on a regular basis. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, I think warning the editor, and then simply blocking the editor if they (or anyone else) ever do it again is more efficient than going to ANI. Gaming the system is clearly WP:DE and should not be tolerated; besides, any XfD process generally takes precedence over a speedy process. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As above, note that if there's monkey business afoot, you can decline any speedy request, even if it meets a criterion. If it's requested in bad faith, don't do it. (That said, don't deny legit G10 or G12, like, ever). WilyD 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to pile on to make it really clear, this is blatant gaming the system conduct.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
G7, in such a situation, simply means revert to the redirect. Which can be performed by a non-admin. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am the author of the article. I refute that it was in bad faith, I had genuine good faith that it would be deleted because that is what the rules say. As GB says, it is a "novel approach" (and I took that as a compliment): i.e. I saw a gap in the rules. I hope that it is clear from my history that I am a good faith editor, but obviously if there isa gap someone less faithful than I will slip through it: which is why I said "I can see a lot of other articles going that way...". As Alan Herbert has it, well one of his fictional judges, in Uncommon law, "The quickest way to end a stupid law is not to ignore it but to enforce it"-- so it was very much brought in the nature of a test case, in good faith. And I think I made that quite clear.
Not sure if I should copy the above onto the RfD because GB has cross referred it over to here already (thank you). Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I did wonder about gaming, but the point at WP:GAME is the words good faith and bad faith. The opening sentence says "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith (my emphasis). So it comes down, really, to whether other editors think I was doing it in bad faith. All I can do is assure you that I brought it in good faith, exactly so it would be discussed. What Gaming is really about, is the contentious edits you get on political or geographical arguments etc where you get edit wars of whether it is Poszony or Bratislava or Pressburg. To my mind at least, deliberately to show up a loophole (as I see it and am happy to have it said that it is not) in good faith, is not gaming the system. But I'm aware I have wasted other good faith editors' time, and for that I sincerely apologise. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding A-criteria to include fitting WP:AFC-submissions and others

Currently, the A-criteria only apply to pages in the article namespace. Yet, there are a number of WP:AFC-submissions for example that would fit those articles but are in the WT-namespace instead (because IPs can't create articles). I propose that we amend the policy to allow admins to delete pages under A[X]-criteria as well if the page would be deletable as such in the article-namespace (of course this only applies to pages that are clearly meant to be articles) This would of course exclude A1 and A3 because during AFC editors and submitters can amend proposed articles but A7, A9 and A10 would be useable to remove the high school classmates / -bands / -homepages etc. from AFC. Since such pages would already be deletable in the correct namespace, the change would only expand this to articles in the wrong namespace; otherwise, one would have to move them to article namespace, then delete them there. I propose a wording like this:

Criteria in this category also apply to articles that are in the wrong namespace; this does not cover pages that are not meant to be articles or not meant to be in the article namespace.

Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't seen that. While AFC is a prime example where this proposal could be applied, I merely thought of it as an example. That said, this is the place to discuss changing CSD, not WT:AFC, so thoughts? =) Regards SoWhy 22:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its totally reasonable that a user space draft of an article may not meet Criteria A7 for instance. An A1 deletion would be pointless, as if the subject is unclear, whats the harm in leaving it. A10 would destroy the ability to use userspace to draft a revised or split version of an existing article. There may be some A criteria it would make sense for, but by and large I don't think it would be a good idea. As for AFC, I haven't followed the discussion there to know what the current feeling with regard to speedy deletion of AfC submissions is. As I understood it, the original goal of AfC was to avoid the biteyness of deletion whenever possible. If the consensus amongst amongst those at AfC is that they want to change it so that A criteria do apply, I would have no object, but I think its a question those involved in AfC need to answer first, and then bring the change here for broader approval. (Note: articles moved to AfC space from userspace by bots/reviewers would be problematic.) Monty845 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    The proposal explicitly excludes pages not meant for the main namespace, such as userspace drafts. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Baffled If we want to start speedy deleting AFC submissions, then what is the point of AFC in the first place? We might as well dump those submissions into mainspace directly and let NPP handle it. Yoenit (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support CSD A criteria appliying to WP:AFC pages when they reach 6 months with an edit. CSD A criteria are pretty tight, and 6 months is a pretty long time for something at that level. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose original proposal, for the same reasons as Monty and Yoenit. However, SmokeyJoe's alternative could be workable. In fact, a specific deletion criterion for abandoned AFCs generally might be a good idea, quite outside of the A space (I guess it would have to be an extension of G6, which is already used for that purpose to some extent). Yunshui  12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thoughts AfC has to be subject to CSD for attack, blatant hoax or vandalism, and copyvio. Those are not permitted anywhere. There has to be some way of getting rid of abandoned submissions that don't fit the speedy criteria. They can't be userfied if created by an IP, and if an account holder isn't making any signs of editing there is little point in userfying them. They can't stay in AfC indefinitely. I feel three months without being touched is equivalent to a page blanking in announcing a wish to have no more to do with it. Possibly even one month would suffice. There could even be an addition to the PROD types for this instead of a speedy, and whichever is adopted, the author should be notified that leaving the thing untouched equals bye-bye. At present, abandoned AfC pages can be taken to MfD, which is a drag. Whatever the time limit set on the abandoned article, if the author does reappear later it can always be restored if thought worth the effort. Peridon (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • AfC submissions are fair game for the G criteria, most obviously G3 (drivel), G11 (spam) and G12 (copyvios) - I've used all three tags successfully on them in the past. I do like the idea of abandoned AfC submissions expiring after three months - I suspect there are plenty of pages that have been declined a few times, at which point the creator has given up and walked away from it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see the necessity of the deletion of old abandoned AfC's. If we would do that we should set a very generous period in case the creator wants to come back in a few months to give it another stab. If such a thing would be in order, there should IMO be a few conditions, from the top of my head unconditional restoration on request, notification of the creator of deletion and how to request undeletion. I think the overhead alone to make such a decission (it would IMO need an RFC for starters) would outweigh the benefit (which is, what, exactly?) of deletion, not even talking about the overhead in case articles do have to be restored. In case we get a notification from ops with a request to delete some cruft to make space, I agree this is a candidate right behind deleting old deleted revisions from the database, but I don't forsee that event happening. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The benefit of deletion is the removal of material considered unsuitable. and I can't see an 'overhead' in restoration. It only involves a couple of clicks (and the correct title, for preference...). As to the material, if people find out that they can get their outfit onto Wikipedia through an AfC page without it being deletable, we are quite likely to see a great increase in AfCs for corner florists, groups working on their first song, software companies with one open source based program (in development), and all the other wannabe at the top of Google without notability brigade. If not deleted, there would have to be blanking (as with the current AfC deletables prior to the axe falling) to cancel this out. I work with a lot of spam, and the would-be advertisers are desperate to get their SEO fix. I can't see why stuff that fails A7 (for instance) should be left up just because it's an AfC failure. If they're not working on things in a month, we're unlikely to see them again (could be having a good holiday...). If nothing happens in two or three months, they've given it up for 99.95% certain. Exceptions can easily be restored if there is new evidence of notability to hand. As with current CSD deletions, deletion is not permanent if things change. Peridon (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not so much the technical clicks that bother me in the process, but more the having a newish editor find the process. We already have so much process in place that a new editor couldn't possibly expected to know all of it. In the end, it's just WP:CREEPy. The Wikipedia Talk namespace these articles are in isn't indexed, so no google advantage: there is no SEO fix whatsoever, and backlinks are already no-follow. I don't think there would be much interest in the non-notable organisation world for a wikipedia draft that isn't googlable, with a large banner on top indicating that the submission has been declined. I personally see no problem whatsoever in holding on to content of material that is unsuitable. Obviously, this exludes spam, attack pages and copyvios, but those are dealed with in G criteria which apply equally well to AfC's. I'm absolutely happy to keep everything around just for those 0.05% of 'return customers'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would support speedy deletion of AFC submissions, provided they were officially submitted, declined, and untouched for an extended period of time (a year?). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no harm in keeping AfC submissions that were declined on A7/A9 grounds. Not only do their title contain a prefix that is so unwieldy that no one would type it in its entirety just to look at a friend's page, but they also have a prominently displayed tag explaining why Wikipedia has rejected the submission. As for G10 and G11, since they're Gxx criteria, they already apply. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • However, I would support a G13 criterion that would take care of six-month-old declined AfC submissions that haven't been resubmitted. The criterion would also apply to redirects left behind by accepted AfC submissions that have been moved to mainspace. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • AFC is already in many respects a harsher environment for article creators than mainspace, and I don't see the point in making it harsher. I would however support merging AFC back into mainspace, that way such articles would be more likely to attract collaborative editors and if they do get deleted the deleted edits are easy to find. Now that we've set unpatrolled articles to NoIndex I see no reason to maintain AFC as a separate area. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, AFC is done in WT space because anon-editors have the ability to create talk pages, but not non-talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support So, I am on the fence about this. I have reviewed thousands of submissions, and I have seen stellar and utter crap submissions. I do not support deleting old submissions, as you never know if an editor is going to come along and fix up another's work a year later. There is no harm in having these submissions here, and they provide a good history of what has been done here. I do support changing the criteria so that it will include submissions that are utter crap, yet the user thinks they are notable. I generally aim to do this if the article has been declined three times via the same reason, and nothing substantial has been improved or changed. Oftentimes, the users will start fishing the process to see if someone else will take pity on their submission and accept, but oftentimes, it is the same user who has to review it, and it becomes burdensome. Overall, I do think we should be able to include AFC submissions in the criteria, but I do not agree with all of the above supporters. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think it likely that old and abandoned (>6mo no edits) stuff that would fail the A criteria is worth fixing up? I think that it would better to start again. If the author is interested in keeping the for record, they should userfy it. Quite possibly, if the A-failing material were removed, it could improve old AfC material as a resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ah, in that regard, I support userfication of AfC's that have been denied and unchanged for 12 months. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If something hasn't been touched for 12 months then it could be deleted under WP:STALEDRAFT if moved to userspace. Hut 8.5 22:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A CSD#A failing abandoned draft, yes, would fail WP:STALEDRAFT. STALEDRAFTs can be blanked, but I imagine that it would be very rare for someone to want to keep such a thing. Why doesn't WP:STALEDRAFT apply equally to AfC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the deletion provision in that guideline is aimed at fake articles that are kept there to have a 'pretend article'. Reading that guideline, a move to WP:ABANDON (that I didn't know off before now) seems like the most reasonable target. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment As there are suggestions that authors might come back after a year, or someone else might pick up a discarded attempt and get it to fly, I'm wondering anyone has ever come across any examples of this. To my mind, very few are going to decide to go through the dusty stacks of abandoned material to find the base for the article of their dreams (or the base of even a marginal stub). We don't leave unfinished stuff lying around in main article space waiting for the editor who faithfully promised (when it was CSD tagged) that they would expand it in a couple of days (and prove that the 13 year old kid really was the CEO of a billion dollar business and engaged to Emma Watson...). We don't even keep things that have a ring of truth but no whiff of significance or notability. Even user space gets trawled at intervals for 'fake articles', discarded drafts by authors who edited for a week and then sank without trace, and other such. Why should AfC be different? Junk is junk. The stuff we're talking about is stuff that probably wouldn't make the grade even with expert content creators weighing in, let alone waiting a year for an SPA or IP to reappear and produce a GA out of the sow's ear they left behind. It's like keeping a large warehouse full of typewriter parts, because some day someone who still uses one is going to need a new letter E. Assume good faith, yes. Also assume that if they ain't come back in three months, they've found something else to do that's more fun (or been jailed...). Peridon (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The difference with the warehouse analogy is that we can't actually run out of AfC space. Once ops indicate we need to recycle space by deleting articles I'm all for this, but since article deletion doesn't free up any space, why should we go through the trouble of throwing the parts out? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose using the A criteria in general because articles at AfC are supposed to be there to be worked on. If they do not indicate importance, and they are rejected as they usually are for the reason that it needs better sources to show notability , which is what the closest prebuilt reason says, what is ideally supposed to happen is that they get added, and it does happen a good deal of the time. If we remove them before theycan be worked on, the process is meaningless.
but a way of removing articles after they both fall under an A* criterion and have sat there a year would I think be desirable--the likelihood of the user coming back would be small, and there almost never would be much material there to be used. The more important question is whether they should be deleted as FAKEARTICLE at MfD if they do not come under any speedy criterion, but are nonetheless hopeless. Again, I'd suggest a year. Cleaning up is not a matter of space on the server; it gives an amateurish feel unless the junk gets taken out eventually.
But what I think we really need is for the entire AfC process to be done over from scratch, and done properly. It gives so little specific help to the new users that it will continue to cause us problems. It's time someone else who could do the necessary programming were to boldly take over. (If I were able, I would have tried already) DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

clarification needed on musical recording criteria

Since when do you need to make a talk page section for a simple clarification needed tag? Anyway, this is regarding this sentence:

An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true).

First problem - conditions cannot be "true". They can be "met" or "satisfied" or "not met" or "not satisfied", but "true" and "false" simply do not apply.

I should probably have just fixed that ^ and then added the tag for this problem (below), but whatever.

Second problem - what is "does not indicate...where the artist's article does not exist" supposed to mean? If it doesn't exist, then obviously you can't indicate where it is. Think about it - that sentence is basically saying "indicate where this article isn't". What???????? My best guess is that it should say "does not indicate...where the artist's article [does] exists". But since I don't know, I tagged it. So what's the deal here? Charles35 (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty much a problem with your parsing--you're not a computer programmer, are you? First, yes, logically, conditions are either true or not true. "met" is another way of saying true, and probably more in line with common English usage, but there's nothing unambiguous about conditions being true or not true. Second, you're splitting up the two clauses badly: "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is the first, and "where the artist's article does not exist" is the second. Trying to distribute the "does not indicate" amongst both clauses rather than applying it to the first clause only is what led you astray there. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I've never experienced a problem with the wording of this, but possibly the insertion of a comma after 'significant' would prevent the misreading that "does not indicate" applies to both clauses. Peridon (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the clauses: okay, well in that case, some clarification is probably needed because it's totally confusing. I didn't say it doesn't make technical sense, I just said that it should be made clearer.
Regarding "true": maybe in the technical jargon of computer programming this makes sense, but in plain old English, it doesn't. Since this article is not in any way shape or form about computer programming, we should probably not use technical jargon (we shouldn't use technical jargon anyway as it is discouraged by WP:TONE. I understand that you dispute that it is invalid in plain English, but I disagree with you. Either way, it sounds a lot more normal to say satisfied or met to your average person, so I think we should change it to one of those. Charles35 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason {{db-a9}} exists is to fix the situation where somebody in a non-notable garage band creates an unreferenced article about it, and also creates articles for all their self-pressed CDs. Once the main article gets deleted per {{db-band}}, the orphaned articles can also be cleaned up - since db-band only applies to the band, not its releases or other artefacts, we can't use that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We can't use what? The "true" thing or the rephrasing of the sentence? How does this have anything to do with the sentence structure and/or the use of "true" instead of "satisfied"? I don't see how the reason behind the typical scenario in which {{db-a9}} occurs is in any way relevant to these issues. Charles35 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I mean you can't use tag albums for speedy deletion via {{db-band}}, as the parent clause ({{db-a7}}) only applies to living people, animals, organisations, companies and web content. (And now, it seems, events). Anything else is off-limits. Since editors get mightily pissed off when their work is deleted without so much as a how-d'ya-do, we need to make sure we follow the criteria accurately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I still don't see your point or how any of this is relevant. Rephrasing and changing "true" to satisfied would not change the meaning or the function of this criterion. Charles35 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm explaining to you what {{db-a9}} means. Either you're confused by what it means or want to nitpick the wording - in either case, simply go with what common sense tells you it means. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I find quite often that people use A7 when an article is about a record, and less often A9 for a band. Sometimes an A9 that is actually on a recording doesn't take account of the band being blue-linked (and correctly so, going to an article about the band). To get things absolutely clear: A7 is for bands that have no significance shown (disregarding its other uses for now); A9 is for recordings that are not of themselves significant AND are by a band or artiste that doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That the name of the band isn't linked doesn't matter - it should be checked anyway. That it is mis-spelt or incorrectly linked also doesn't matter. A band called Hamster may have that as the link, instead of Hamster so don't be fooled by a either a blue-link or its absence. If it's a compilation, I decline A9 so long as at least one of the listed performers has an article. I would think that recordings that are of significance where no performer has an article are very rare. The only sort I can think of offhand would be a number one 'sung' by an unarticled football supporters club - and that would probably lead to their getting an article. CSD is a short cut to lessen the number of things waiting for PROD to finish, or AfD to call for deletion. (Or sometimes for the seven days to see a rescue mounted...) If it doesn't look encyclopaedic but doesn't fit CSD, there's still PROD and AfD. Peridon (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I quite like the revision made by Charles35. IMO it clarifies things and I hope it will stop some of the mistaken use of A9 that goes on at present. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Honestly it was almost unintelligible and very poor use of the word "where". It's also a sentence fragment, so that makes it more challenging to properly word. Charles35 (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


I suggest adding Events to this criteria, in absence of a formal organization name non notable events should also fail under this criterion. An example is Sacramento Ball Drop easily non notable even by it's own admission (happened twice then discontinued) but some wikilawyering and it's declined creating a waste of time. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Events and products, same problem. However, I believe A7 should be expanded to any situation where the article actually asserts the LACK of importance of its topic, no matter what category the topic falls into. (But G11 already applies to many such situations.) -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a few more days until this is at least a week old but if there is no further objections I think we can update the criteria.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
To me, an organised event has to have an organisation there, and unless this has a totally different name, A7 could already possibly be interpreted to include them. I see no objection to adding 'organised event' to A7. A non-organised event is a different matter. Riots are events, but they don't usually have a known committee planning things on a regular basis, although they do have instigators. I feel there has to be at least an intent of repetition for an event to come under A7. Intentionally one off organised events aren't common and, with the exception of things like Woodstock, can be prodded. Peridon (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree a Woodstock event or riot (LA RIOTS example) definitely wouldn't qualify but when you have the Sacromento Ball Drop, an article that admits it was an event that happened twice then dc and no assertion of notability and declined because it wasn't a organization per se just seemed like a wikilawyer move because it wasn't specifically in the criteria. It just seemed to me that it would be hand in hand with organizations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Seeing i.e., and likely others for those who search well, even if A7 would apply to events, I'd say this is a bad poster child to champion a change. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not using it to champion anything, I'm just using it as an example. That in my opinion would be considered routine coverage, at least that's how I would view it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Routine coverage should probably disqualify anything for A7. Where A7-person does apply to Timmy who lives down the street who has funny hair, but doesn't apply to Joe Blow who is Mayor of Smalltown Uzbekistan (whi is probably non-notable and the article should probably be deleted per PROD or AfD), I could see a possible future A7 event be when the roof of my house collapsed, but not the Sacramento Ball Drop. I haven't seen evidence yet that there is a problem with events of that first category that would warrant and extension of A7 to events. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem there is that you've got to realise that routine local news coverage does indeed cover many, many, non-notable events - in fact nearly all of them are. For example, if I look at my local news source today (the Yorkshire Evening Post), the top stories include an upgrade of local rail services, a car accident in Leeds and a minor assault in a nightclub. In fact, bar possibly one, I can't see a news story about anything notable at all. And that's in a newspaper which covers a population of 5 million people, not just one town. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Since when has non-notability become a speedy deletion criterion? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't, but the point is that where something actually doesn't make a claim to notability importance, an obviously WP:ROUTINE source shouldn't be taken as negating that. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
A7 is actually says lacks a significant claim of importance not notability and has said so for years.-- (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant to say "claim to importance" there. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm reading A7 differently than you are. Could you give an example of an article that does make a claim of significance or importance in your view of things, but isn't notable? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've seen numerous articles that made claims like "the largest manufacturer of..." or "the foremost advocate of ...". Those are claims of importance, but not notability. Depending on whether the claim has any credibility, the article can pass A7 but fail to be notable. For me, at least, it would only take a manufacturer's website link or a brief PR blurb for me to decline an A7 on the basis that the article made a credible claim of importance.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── those are non A7 NN's in my book too. How do you view those Back Kite? Also, Kww, if the article had read "The Sacremento ball drop was a newyears celebration in Sacremento, which happened in 2008 and 2009, and was cancelled the subsequent year for security concerns, as the size of the crowd that was attracted was found to be too large to be effectively controled by security forces", would you qualify that for a possible future A7-events? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd A7 that. "Conventional security forces" could be two bouncers and a rent-a-cop, so it doesn't get into the range of being a credible claim of importance. I cancelled an event at my old bar because it attracted too large of a crowd with too little in their pockets, and that certainly didn't make it important.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hrm, while I strongly disagree this should be A7'ed - To me it is a large difference between a bar cancelling an event because it draws too large a crowd that spends to little, and a city cancelling an event because it draws a crowd that is so large it poses a security risk - it's probably best I acknowledge I'm a minority here, and drop the stick. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus of adding events to A7? I would prefer an admin make this call since I have a dog in this "fight" and am definitely not neutral. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added organized events to the A7 criteria as there has not been any objections since my last posting. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please notify the people who maintain Twinkle, the speedy deletion templates, and any other CSD tools so they can be updated to reflect the new criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have updated {{db-a7}} and {{db-notability-notice}} to reflect these changes, and suggest that a specific {{db-event}} template is also created. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we need more discussion. I don't necessarily oppose the idea--it would be very useful for some cases, but I think it should be made clear that it refers to meetings and such, not news events. I'm not sure "organized" is the right word: Kww's barroom example is an excellent case of where it should apply, but I'm not sure it could really be called organized. I can see this sort of criterion being used to exclude things like Occupy! events -- many of these r were considered not notable at AfDs, but they all needed discussion. I agree with the policy NOT NEWSm, but generally whether an event falls under this is subject to reasonable disputes at AfD . The problem for me is that I could specify what an indication of importance is for a person or a company, but I'm not sure how I would specify it here. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Any existing A7 can be challenged, as I have done quite a few recently (examples just now here and here). Some I end up voting "delete" on AfDs, which eager A7ers might think is just a time waste, but having the discussion makes the delete fairer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pages with parenthetical disambiguators in titles are not "dab pages" for G6?

I've run into someone tagging e.g. Smithers Hall (Fugleberg College) as G6. Can we change G6 to read:

Uncontroversial maintenance, including:
  • deleting dated maintenance categories.
  • deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages—but note that "disambiguation pages" does not include pages such as Smithers Hall (Fugleberg College).
[etc etc etc]

EEng (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Done already? Just hold on here! When someone proposes a change to CSD or MOS, I expect a volcanic display of angry denunciations, accusations of sockpuppetry, spinoff postings to ANI -- the works! I am very disappointed in the Wikipedia community, and will think twice before making any such suggestions in future. EEng (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I shall commence stalk-ish reversions of all your edits now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Good. I'll gear up to misrepresent the situation on various talkpages, and prepare disingenous text for posting at ANI. EEng (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Pfffffffffft!
I'm not reverting at this time, but I have to disagree with this addition. The above was such an obviously wrong use of this criteria, that it is not a problem, and I don't expect that such pages get nominated very often. It seems like a case of instruction creep to me. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:CREEP warns against creeping substantive additions to procedures, policies, guidelines, etc.. "It is important that such pages remain readily understandable and in line with community consensus. Instruction creep occurs when this does not happen." This is a nonsubstantive clarification of what's already there. EEng (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ego White Tray. To add further details because of one incident, which involves an unreasonable misinterpretation which is unlikely to happen again frequently, is unhelpful. Since there is clearly not a consensus in favour of the change, I shall revert it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I also think this was instructions aimed at a one-off misunderstanding, but there was some language included that I think was very useful: describing what "unnecessary" generally means when it comes to dab pages. Remember, most of the criteria explain what they mean right there. This one does not and it's not obvious except to those already in the know. I would add back (in slightly modified form): "such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I support Fuhghettaboutit's proposal, as clarification like that is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that the most recent edit is beneficial, while the original addition was not necessary. Happymelon 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about notification requirement for F11

First, some background: Currently there is an option in the File Upload Wizard for uploading files under a free license belonging to another party, which adds the text "Evidence: Will be provided on request." to the file page. There is currently a discussion at WP:VPT#Uploaded file summary about the possibility of automatically tagging such images with {{subst:npd}} as soon as they are uploaded.

Now to my question: Once the image is uploaded, the editor will see the file page which will have the speedy deletion tag on it. Does that qualify as sufficient notification, or do we need to actually leave a message for them on their talk page (or is there some other option)? Please don't take this as me trying to avoid notifying uploaders, I'm just wondering how much work would be required to technically implement this idea. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A7s and reliable sources

Can I ask a question for the floor? If an article's subject has a brief mention in reliable sources, but the coverage is restricted to one or two sentences, can it still be CSDed per WP:CSD#A7, or should it go for a full AfD or prod? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends on if it's routine coverage or a one or two liner saying it's an expert or top of the line. I'd prefer to see those go to AFD personally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If there's any possibility that it might demonstrate notability then it needs to go through PROD or AfD, but if it really is an obvious trivial mention then I think it can be deleted per A7. Hut 8.5 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think A7s are for rather clearcut cases; if there is even a hint of a reliable source, it should go through AfD; but I'd decide that on a case by case basis. Do you have a particular article/case in mind? Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This version of JetNEXUS Solutions is a CSD I contested, that in my view had one reliable source. It's now at AfD. Tap for Tap is another one that was a submission at WP:AfC that was just good enough, but which I think another editor might have seen WP:VSCA and tagged it as {{db-corp}}. For an article I decided not to create, The Beatles vs. the Third Reich is sourced all over the place, but most of it's unreliable. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The first JetNEXUS source is just a press release, which doesn't really count to notability. I think you'd be sensible to decline A7 on the basis of the second source alone anyhow. One good source is enough to reasonably imagine others may exist, necessitating a discussion. In particular, there's nothing wrong with declining speedies for articles that are subsequently deleted at AfD; indeed, this should happen often. The point of A7 isn't to guess whether an article meets WP:N or not, but to see whether it gives any indication it might. One decent source is typically not enough for WP:N, but it's enough to indicate it might meet WP:N. WilyD 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that if an article has an even remotely valid source, regardless of the amount of information there, it is automatically disqualified for an A7. It's essentially the equivalent of a basic assertion of importance. I've come across new articles in NPP that have references, but they're either invalid or complete nonsense - in that case I tend to treat them as a G3 instead, since going to the trouble of providing bogus references is enough to qualify as a hoax, and it actually makes it easier since any claims of importance are outweighed by the attempt to mislead. Though admittedly those tend to be edge cases and it's always ultimately up to the reviewing sysop to agree or disagree. Still, if the CSD is declined, an article like that wouldn't last long at AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To my mind, a brief mention like "In 2012, BloggsCo were bought by Slippery Hamsters Ltd, who discontinued all products but the Model XD-C909, which they rebranded as the 'B-Hive 21'." is an indication of nothing but existence. Existence does not equal significance. I look for a paragraph ABOUT the subject at minimum, and not a press release or profile that's obviously supplied by the subject. One good one can stave off CSD, but but if the first three or four (I go to five) pages of Ghits (adjusted search to remove the inconveniently named rapper and MMA fighter or whatever else is getting in the way) only produces Facebook, Twitter, AboutUs, and so on, there's not much likelihood of anything better - and a PR campaign is to be suspected. Really, our standards for inclusion aren't all that high. Any that get better references later can come back. A CSD deletion isn't an eternal ban. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't go by any fixed rule about the extent of content: three or four words can be as good as a paragraph if they indicate some plausible importance. I agree the sentence you quoted does not show any indication of importance for either Bloggs or Hamsters, except that if some news source reported it, it might indicate that one or another of the firms was notable enough to be worth reporting. I consider our standards for notability of companies quite high, and I think there's a large space there between the possibility of some plausible significance & notability. But since I think both Peridon and I try to use some degree of common sense, it's likely that both of us would make the same calls 90% of the time at least, and that's as good consistence as can be expected. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A7 exists to allow admins to deal with really blatant cases where the subject of the article has literally no valid claims of importance at all: "Jim Jones is a high school english teacher. He's the best teacher at Anytown High" and things like that. Where the article makes claims which would require investigation to determine their validity, or which require someone to make a judgement on the reliability or depth of coverage of sources, the meaningfulness of claims (such as awards won, etc.), or anything like that, the article is ineligible for A7 deletion, and the article should be PRODed or sent to AFD. Speedy deletion should be speedy enough to require essentially no work to figure out. As just one example, if an article says that such-and-such a band won such-and-such an award, or had singles which charted on such-and-such a chart, or contains references to reviews by putative "music critics", we shouldn't delete the article under A7, as those claims need to be vetted and researched; AFD is where that happens. The simplest way to put this is that A7 speedy deletions are not supposed to be used to evaluate notability claims. They're only used in cases where absolutely no such claim at all is made by the text of the article. --Jayron32 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Jayron32. A7 is for cases where there's no credible assertion at all that indicates the article could be appropriate. ("John Doe is a student at Somewhereville Middle School and is a really cool guy," "Jane Doe is the coolest girl in the world!!!") If the article text indicates significance, or some decent sources are cited (but not enough to sustain the article), best to get more eyes on it. These aren't attack pages or copyvios, they won't hurt us by hanging around for a week if there's a reasonable question as to whether they should be deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A brief mention in one reliable source doesn't preclude there being greater depth elsewhere. That's why the test for A7 isn't about sourcing, but instead is a "credible claim of importance or significance". The caretaker Mr Amos said it was the biggest twister he'd ever seen and it only missed the school buildings by yards is a brief mention of Mr Amos, but being a school caretaker is not a claim of importance or significance. Made lots of inventions and was President of his country's institute of engineers is a double assertion of importance, which two taggers recently missed or didn't understand the importance of. ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)