Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10


Expansion of A7

I'd like to see an expansion of criterion A7 to include groups or organizations (including music bands) as well as individuals. Anyone who patrols AFD sees a ton of these, a prime example being Riot Siren, whose entire content reads:

Riot Siren is the name of the band started by Ryan H (rhythm guitar) and Gordon D (drums). Later, they added Jacob C (lead guitar), Justin H (lead vocals), and Sydney C (bass guitar). They have yet to record any songs or practice. By the looks of it, Jacob may quit the band for the wrestling team, leaving Riot Siren on its own.

It seems rather ridiculous to have to go through the entire AFD process for something as trivial as this. Now if they had claimed they'd issued a CD or something, then that would disqualify them from being speedily deleted. Thoughts? --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Even though I've only been editing Wikipedia for a brief time, I can see very well the legitimacy of this proposal. It seems there should be a speedy deletion tag, or tags, for obvious NN bands and organizations; just like there is for people (nn-bio). This would thin out AFD clutter significantly. PJM 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This also makes it far easier to get rid of hoaxes. --Nlu 22:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to see this kind of material speedy deleted. Martin 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this. Every day we see a significant number of patently non-notable bands and student clubs who make absolutely no attempt to claim notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 08:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C for conserable discussion on such a proposal. DES (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a little more involved than I was thinking. I didn't want to make a speedy criterion only for musicians/bands; just expand the current A7 to beyond individuals to groups of people as well. This way, an article about a chess club at a high school, for example, could be handled as well. Any assertion of notability would mean the article would have to go through the regular AFD process. There would be no need to follow WP:NMG or similar guidelines. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason for wanting a specific one on bands is that band articels frquently show up at, and are deelted on AfD. Much of the purpose of new CSDs is to lighten the load at AfD. There are few problem articels about non-notable groups of people other than bands, and most band articels have at least a vgue claim of notability, so the simple expansion you suggest won't IMO really do much. DES (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The band proposal is unrelated. My proposal is small and you're right, not likely to do much, but it would mean being able to speedy an article about a group of nn people that did nothing in particular (such as this band or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Airport Enthusiasts) without having to go through the entire process that will obviously end in a deletion. Doesn't it seem ridiculous that nn individuals can be speedied, but not nn groups? --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't sell your idea short, I think it'd have a substantial and positive impact on AFD... and yes, it seems silly not to be able to speedy delete nn groups. PJM 23:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good example of why A7 should be expanded to cover groups of people: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patay Gutom Gang. It's a perfectly well-written article about an utterly non-notable group. If this were about a single person, this would be an obvious A7 speedy. I don't believe I'm the only one who feels this ought to be speediable. (In fact, I know I'm not, since Jeffrey O. Gustafson speedied it as G1 nonsense — which I don't believe it is — while I was nominating it for AfD.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with notability, which is not part of deletion critera. This information is unveriable in the sense that wikipedia policy means it, and so can already be removed without the need for new policy creep. Trollderella 08:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The same can be said of almost every A7 article. The issue is not whether the article should be deleted (which I'm sure we all agree on) but whether it should be speediable. Under the current rules it isn't, since it is about 15 people rather than just one, but I see no other reason why this wouldn't be an A7 speedy. As being about 15 people rather than one does not in itself make the article any more encyclopedic, I would suggest that criterion A7 ought to be made applicable also to small groups of people. Now, if they had asserted notability... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to respectfully and vigorously disagree. There is nothing about notability in deletion policy. The problem with these articles is that they are impossible to verify. If you could verify them (per WP policy), it would be ok. Trollderella 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
"Assertion of notability" is verbatim from WP:DVAIN, which is official policy. The current wording of CSD A7 uses "importance or significance". But this fixation on "notability" is really beside the point. We have a rule for the speedy deletion of vanity articles about "a real person". I'm merely suggesting that this should be extended to "a real person or small group of people", since there is no conceivable way in which an article that falls under the current A7 criterion could become encyclopedic and worth keeping just because it was changed to be about more than one person. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think most would agree that there should be a speedy tag for band or group articles that don't assert the subject's importance or significance, no? As Howcheng pointed out, there are the occasional "We're not famous yet, but give us time" and "Our club is 15 members strong and growing" articles that on a 'common sense' level should not go to AFD. PJM 21:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to know what is important or not for readers. I would go with the existing requirement that they be verifiable by reliable third party sources rather than trying to tell people what is important. Trollderella 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not always easy to assess what is 'important' to readers, but this should not discourage editors from 'drawing the line' for the benefit of most Wiki readers. I don't think garage bands and trivial groups / clubs are important to any majority, anywhere, including Wikipedia. Respectfully, PJM 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's ok, you don't have to read about them. In fact, nearly all garage bands are unverifiable. I suspect that the ones that are verifiable will pretty much meet what you mean by notable anyway. Can you give an example of one that you think is verifiable but you would want to delete anyway? Trollderella 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A challenge, eh? ;-) Well, let me try. In my teenage years, me and a couple of my friends half-seriously set up an "anarcho-chauvinistic" all male a cappella group. The group performed once on stage, drunk, singing the Internationale and other similar songs loudly and horribly off key, while wearing nothing but one tennis sock per member.
Now, I know for a fact that third-party photographic evidence of this performance exists — in fact, one picture just might still be on the web. It is also quite possible, given the venue where this performance took place, that a written description of it may have been published in a nationwide youth magazine, with several thousand subscribers, that would generally be considered a reputable source on such matters. Assuming, for the sake of the discussion, that it was, I could now dig it up and use it as a reference for a Wikipedia article. "However", to cite an official policy, "just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it."Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that Ilmari's proposal makes sense. An article about two people that does not explain their significance is from a common sensical point of view just as speediable as an article about one person that does not explain his significance. As a rules lawyer pointed out last week, splitting the article into two articles (one about either person) would be valid editing, and both parts would be speediable. The key part is that if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, then it is not speediable. Thus any organization, club etc is more than just a bunch of people. But an article about me and my kid sister is pointless. Radiant_>|< 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, of course, I should have been more specific. I was looking for an actual article, not something that you think might be possible. I am highly doubtful that you and your kid sister are veifiable in the terms spelled out by wikipedia policy. Again, could you give a real article that you think is verifiable according to wikipedia policy, but not notable? Trollderella 00:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't talking about notability. I was talking about that people should use common sense regarding #A7 if they find one of those relatively rare articles about two persons. Radiant_>|< 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem with your request is that most of those do get speedied under criterion A7, and the ones that don't rarely if ever survive AfD. For one that's currently being nominated, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Coventry. But that's again beside the point, really. We're discussing speedy deletion here. (Or else why would we be on this talk page?) Unverifiability is not grounds for speedy deletion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As Trollderella mentioned below, that was a bad example. I'd assumed that, as the head of the marketing department of a fairly large record label, there would be something about him on the web, but that seems not to be the case (excluding his homepage). That'll teach me to assume instead of checking first. (Of course, one should also remember that not everything is on the web.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As above. If they wouldn't have passed AFD to begin with, and are speedied under a common sensical interpretation of A7, then I don't see the problem. Radiant_>|< 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on. You're telling me you think Jeff Coventry is verifiable? The only source cited is the dude's own website. Our current policy requires that we do better than this. Trollderella 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What precisely is your point? This article will almost certainly end up deleted. We both seem to agree that this is proper. Since this is CSD talk, a question might be if it should have been deleted under CSD#A7. My answer to that would be that it's a borderline case. Given the unanimity of the AFD I don't think there would have been objection to a bold admin who would have deleted it. Radiant_>|< 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
My question is, given that the votes on the page are to delete it for a reason that is not part of deletion policy, and that I don't hear you claiming that it meets the requirements of policy that we do have, why are people insisting on flouting policy, instead of following it? In particular, are there any real articles that are verifiable by WP policy, that you think are 'not notable'? Trollderella 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The assumption that the deletion would be out of policy is incorrect. The reasons stated in the policy are not meant to be all-inclusive (indeed, this has been repeatedly reaffirmed on various talk pages). The policy is, plainly and simply, to delete pages for which consensus to delete can be formed on a page such as AFD. This is because WP:NOT a bureaucracy. I can think of several articles that have been deleted despite verifiability, such as several people that died in 9/11 (on grounds of WP:VAIN and WP:NOT) and several numbers (on grounds of WP:NUM and WP:INF). Radiant_>|< 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Lots of good points above, but this particular proposal is about having the ability to speedy delete articles of bands and groups that don't assert the subject's importance or significance. I think it presents itself clearly enough and is an excellent proposal. PJM 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's ok, you don't have to read about them. In fact, nearly all garage bands are unverifiable. I suspect that the ones that are verifiable will pretty much meet what you mean by notable anyway. Can you give an example of one that you think is verifiable but you would want to delete anyway? Trollderella 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I do have to read about AFD. My point is that they should not make it there in the first place. Your point about 'verifiable' is well made but it isn't the heart of the matter here. PJM 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My proposal has nothing to do with verifiability. I don't think lack of verification in an article should be a speedy criterion because it's occasionally supplied during AfD discussion. All this is about is saying that articles about groups of people should be covered under the same policy as that for individuals. The example of Riot Siren (at the top of this section) is a prime example: A high school band that has never even practiced together and is on the verge of breaking up. If this article had been about a single high school student who plays guitar occasionally, it would be gone. Why should we have to go through the entire AfD process for a group of people are equally non-notable? True, they lack verification, but you can't speedily delete for that reason; as is often said, Google is not necessarily the only authoritative source. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Verifiability has nothing to do with it. There are more than enough band articles deleted daily over AFD to make it a worthwhile consideration for a speedy criterion. In fact, the idea seems to have had consensual support in the last vote, but got voted down by a small margin for technical reasons. Radiant_>|< 10:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The only reason that I bring up verifiability is that it is actually policy, whereas notability is not. Since it already is, there is no need for instruction creep. Trollderella 16:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Unverifiability, however, is not a criterion for speedy deletion, which is what this talk page is for, nor is anyone suggesting it should be. Thus all this talk about verifiability here is completely pointless. As it happens, the policy of speedy deletion of vanity articles does mention notability, although the official wording refers to "importance or significance" instead. I agree that this creates an apparent paradox, since it could be taken to imply that there are criteria for speedy deletion that are not valid grounds for normal deletion. However, this is not really an issue in practice, since, as you noted yourself, any article speediable under the rather narrow A7 criterion is almost guaranteed to also be normally deletable under some part of the normal deletion policy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but the thing is that "not verifiable" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. A lot of time is wasted on AfD voting unanimously to delete unverifiable articles. Is it unreasonable to say that there are certain cases - such as articles on high-school bands that admit, in the article, that the band in question has never played a single gig - where it is so patently obvious that the material is unverifiable, that it should be permissible to delete it speedily without wasting everyone's time on AfD? If you agree that that is reasonable, do you also agree that it would be reasonable to extend the definition of speedy criterion A7 to state this fact? — Haeleth Talk 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, Haeleth posted this while I was writing my response just above. The similarity is striking, but I swear it is entirely coincidental. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
From the above, it's clear that A7 should be expanded from "a real person" to : "a real person, groups of people, animals and objects" . Not too long ago, I couldn't speedy delete an article about someone's pet and had to refer it to Afd. This is just a waist of time of several collaborators who have to go through the whole process of checking the article and express their opinion. But as always, when the speedy assertion is disputed or controversial, the article has to be referred by an admin to Afd, as I just did with Vacuum dirigible. JoJan 18:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
No, more rulecruft and excuses for deletion without debate are harmful and unnecessary. Trollderella 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Calling this "rulecruft" IMHO denigrates the discussion. I didn't propose this because I like rules or bureaucracy. CSD criteria are for things we know for sure that are going to be deleted after a debate. You are 100% correct that articles that would be covered under this proposed expansion would be deleted because of lack of verifiability, but the point is we already know that's going to be the case when we nominate them for AfD, so why waste everyone's time and server resources to do so when the outcome is certain? All I'm asking is that the same minimum criteria for people be expanded to groups of people. This is not a new category of CSD, nor does it come with strings attached. It's just about eliminating some of the clutter in AfD. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
It's rulecruft. That's not denegrating it more than I'm forced to by what it is. The problem is that there isn't a strict class of articles that everyone would agree needs to be deleted. There's a grey area. Pushing this unacountable, nasty method further than it is already is reckless and irresponsible. I have had two articles that I have been working on deleted under CSD within seconds of having been created. People use these critera to delete things that don't fall into the criteria, and no one can tell, because there's no record of what was deleted for most of us. `Trollderella 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
But there ARE articles that everyone agrees need to be deleted; what we're debating here is the SCOPE of that definition. Patent nonsense, test pages, CSDs A1 through A6 have universal acceptance. A7 is where your gray area starts, but consensus has determined that if the author can't be bothered to even make a claim of significance then it's not worth keeping. Regarding your own articles, to avoid such a situation in the future, I would suggest saving them as subpages of your user page, or using the {{Underconstruction}} template to keep overanxious admins/RC patrollers from deleting them. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there's some agreement about a core of article (patent nonsense), but beyond that, the further you keep pushing the definitions, the less agreement you get, and the more people push the definitions to include things that were never originally intended. `Trollderella 17:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how this proposed expansion would "push" A7's definition. It would only expand it in a logical manner. PJM 17:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
There's always someone with a reason why we need more rulecruft. Trollderella 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Back to the heart of the matter. This article - currently in AFD land - is another great example of why A7 should be expanded: [1] PJM 19:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's a great example of why we should educate people about verifiability policy. Trollderella 19:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
But that's not the real issue here. The real issue is the expansion of A7; so we can speedy delete articles (about groups of people) that do not assert the importance or significance of their subjects - much like we do with biographical articles that fail in the same regard. PJM 19:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I am opposing. It's open to abuse and has no effective way to give oversight. Trollderella 20:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough... I agree to disagree. PJM 20:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be useful to expand A7 to include articles on bands, given the sheer amount of band articles we see on AFD that get unanimous deletes. On an earlier poll, consensus seemed to agree with that. That's not "rulecruft", it's simply speeding up obvious cases (which is the reason we have A7 in the first place - to require less bureaucracy and save time for e.g. writing articles). Radiant_>|< 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well put, Radiant. That's exactly what this proposal is all about. PJM 13:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am coming into this needlessly late (and will only repeat what others have already said), but I feel the need to also voice my support for expanding A7. I was at the center of the small VfU flare-up over Riot Siren as I was the one who speedied it. Everyone agreed that it deserved unceremonious lightning fast nuking, but that the rules said we couldn't. I also deleted (and speedy-restored) Patay Gutom Gang as nonsense - though it really should have been A7. Anyone that peruses Special:Newpages knows the astounding amount of crap that gets through. Expanding A7 to include groups of non-notable people (including bands) would make all our jobs easier. That's all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been watching Special:Newpages on a daily basis since becoming an active editor and you are 1,000% correct. Too much rubbish gets through and ends up making voters' heads shake in AFD. PJM 05:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur 111% with this proposal to expand this to non-notable groups, especially since I came here intending to make it only to find that not only had it already been made, but it's appearing to enjoy widespread, but alas, not universal support. Caerwine 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fully agree with this, non-notable groups, bands, organizations, animals, and the like should definitely be speedy-deletable. There is enough junk in AfD without piling this in on top of it. Stifle 13:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A poll for this has been added to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7. Please log votes there. Thank you. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure somebody will complain about this poll in the near future. It's arguably not the best way to create policy. But at least it's in a highly visible place, and we can see what comments and criticism it generates. This proposal seems to be mostly common sense anyway. Radiant_>|< 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with the actual process of creating policy. I figured I'd start this and if someone objected to the way this is being handled, they could inform me of the proper way to go about it. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that this has been described as an "underhanded deletionist land-grab" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very late to this discussion, but in case it hasn't been pointed out yet, people are beginning to interpret A7 very liberally, to include websites, companies, and such. Poke around on CAT:CSD for a week or two, and you'll see dozens of articles getting tagged for deletion because they're non-notable; A7 is the only criterion that addresses notability. HorsePunchKid 2005-12-11 04:57:37Z

I agree. And since there isn't even any notability guidelines, I'd suggest we remove this criteria entirely. Hiding talk 17:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with expanding A7 to include groups of people as proposed by Howcheng. Johntex\talk 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI - it's already been expanded. wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion. PJM 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


While I appreciate speedying obvious copyvios, criterion A8 strikes me as major instruction creep due to its excessive verbosity. Wouldn't it be feasible to remove one or two of the criterion lines to make the criterion simpler? Radiant_>|< 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be safe to change "commercial content provider" to just "commercial website", that is often what happens in reality anyway, and it would allow much more to be speedied with very little risk of actually deleting some legitimate stuff. Martin 17:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose such a change. When A8 was originally proposed without the "commercial content provider" langauge, i opposed it. The main reason is that it is not uncommon for an admitted copyvio to recieve permission later. "commercial content provier was intended to be a bright-line rule for those cases in what we could effectively never expect this to happen. Do you really think that is true for "commercial website"? The other criteria are also IMO needed to prevent the propbable speedy deletion of articles that would not be deelted by the regualr proccess at WP:CP. The 48-hour rule is to avoid "copyvios" that are really articels copied by non-compliant mirrors. If there is a better way to deal with that not uncommon situation, then that criterion could be changed, but not IMO deleted. DES (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a good point for that particular line of #A8, but I think it's needlessly long so there's probably some other superfluous stuff in there. Radiant_>|< 22:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, frankly. Every provision of A8 was worked out during the debate before the proposal was oppend for polling, and every provision was added to answer an objection that would have brought significant opposition had it not been addressed in some way. This isn't really instruction creep, after all -- no one has to use A8, they can always use the old WP:CP process instead. If you think a provision is unneeded, say which one and why, it is not good enough, IMO to say "You have too many notes, Mr Motzart". I am very dubious that this criterion can be usefully shortened. DES (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. What's the point of the 48-hour clause? Seems to me we should delete copyvios regardless of age.
    2. Clause 2 seems redundant; it is true for any CSD that the deleting admin should check the article history to verify it is CSD'able and not vandalism.
    3. "And none seems likely" seems automatically true for any commercial content provider
  • Just a thought. Radiant_>|< 22:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The point of the 48-hour clause is to avoid false positives from non-compliant mirrors, the thought is that if it is a recent addition to wikipedia, it is not likely to have been picked up by a mirror yet. Many reported copyvios cite sources that are actually non-compliant mirrors, where somwone else is violating our copyright, while the reproter honestly thinks it is the oterh way around. it doesn't seem safe to depend on only 2 sets of eyses to chsck for this without the 48-hour clause. DES (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The point of clause 2 is the word only. An article that is a mix of copyvio and non-copyvio content or that has had significant non-copyvio conteent anywhere in its history is not eligable for speedy, although it might well be deleted at WP:CP if the vast majority of content were copyvio. DES (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "And none seems likely" might actually be redundant, 1 hit. i think that wordign survives from a version before "comercial content provider". DES (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for explaining that. Radiant_>|< 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest that the 48-hour part be removed because an admin should be intelligent enough to tell the difference between a Wikipedia mirror and a commercial content provider, even if they are non-compliant. I can easily tell. However, admins have shown they incapable of following the directions in the criteria (and on the tag itself!), or telling the difference between a commercial website and a commercial content provider. ;-) But seriously, even after the definition of a CCP was clarified, the definition was added to the tag and the issue was discussed here and elsewhere, admins are still deleting articles that clearly don't meet the criteria. We need an admin mailing list or a message board that they are directed to when it changes (like their talk page) so we don't have to tell each one individually. If we already have some kind of notification for admins, we should use it for this.
  • Category:Articles that need to be wikified, which I love to work on, is so full of copyright violations and articles that are blindingly obvious CSD and AfD candidates that I couldn't get any wikifying done, so I've given up for the time being. I would be in favor of deleting all copyright violations from anywhere if permission is not asserted. I'd also like to shoot copyright violators out of cannons aimed at each other. However, we should usually follow official policy on these things. -- Kjkolb 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, that does rather prove my point. If many people misunderstand the criterion, for instance because of the less-than-straightforward difference between a commercial site and a commerical content provider, then that proves that the criterion is too complex. Radiant_>|< 16:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the problem is that some admins don't read the criterion or don't read it carefully. Those that do read the criterion and still delete articles improperly, may:
        1. Misunderstand the definition of a commercial content provider. Part of this may be disbelief, as the restriction to CCPs makes it far less useful. This was the case with a few editors the first time it was brought up.
        2. Understand the criterion, but delete the article anyway, either because they think can get away with it and and if they don't they can claim ignorance, or because they think it's become standard practice to delete copyvios regardless of the source, so the exact definition is irrelevant.
      • I suggest that the wording be changed so that it is even clearer what a commercial content provider is. The rest of the criterion should be shortened. Something like this:

8. An article that is a copyright infringement from a commercial content provider, which is a company that makes money directly from the content that has been copied. Content that advertises products, services or the company itself does not count. Also, almost all of the content from the first edit on is copyrighted, no permission to use it has been asserted and it is less than 48 hours since the content was uploaded.

-- Kjkolb 10:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think administrators are misunderstanding this at all; they're willfully ignoring it. (Latest example, and see the db-foreign tag on the second-last revision, which I actually find more bothersome.)
I'm starting to think we should just drop the CCP provision entirely, and limit it to unwikified copyvios from an online source identified within 48 hours of creation. Most taggers and administrators at least play lip service to those provisions that I've seen. Most copyvios are a poor start at an article anyway, and if permission is later granted, it can be undeleted (or just pasted back in).
Failing that, we should drop A8 entirely. As written, it applies to very few articles, but is widely applied nonetheless, and it's making those of us who do follow all its provisions look ridiculous. —Cryptic (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Cryptic. I personally do not use A8 as I consider it fundamentally broken. I leave it to other admins. I would also ancedotally observe that it has made a minimal impact on WP:CP and even less than it may have if we were to restore all the non-A8s speedied under it. We have three options:
  1. Ditch A8
  2. Ditch the commercial content provider clause
  3. Delete all copyright infringments on sight because they're invariably lousy beyond belief and illegal to boot
Number 2 is probably the best, but at least some of A8 needs euthanasing. -Splashtalk 14:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
A8 is very conservative, which was fine to start with because we didnt know exactly what effect it would have. But I think that having used it for a couple of months now it is clear that removing the CCP clause will make it much more usable. Many people ignore the CCP clause anyway. Martin 14:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Of the choices above, i would favor the first -- simply ditching A8. I would strongly oppose either of the otehr two. I am begining to regret having supportd the proposal that became A8. DES (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A radical proposal: delete all pure cut-and-pastes

We could just decide to speedy delete all unwikified new (< 48 h) articles that are cut-and-pasted from another website. After all, it takes no effort to (re)create such articles, so no work is really lost if they're deleted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. It's not so radical IMO. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A very sensible suggestion, in fact. Filiocht | The kettle's on 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I found 40 copyvios in one session while wikifying. I think I only got 5 articles wikified in between reporting them. The problem is more widespread than people think. Unfortunately, they're usually more than 48 hours old before I find them. -- Kjkolb 22:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It should be deleted on the basis of being a copyright violation, not a copy and paste. Some copy and paste (eg from other free sources, or expired copyright like the 1918 Britinica) should be fine. Trollderella 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A pure cut-and-paste from a public domain site (US Gov, CA Gov, for example) should be allowable (assuming the content is encyclopedic in nature). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Let's make it unwikified new (< 48 h) articles that are cut-and-pasted from another website that are not in the public domain. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No need. That's already covered by copyright vios. Plus, public domain doesn't cover all the allowable circumstances. Trollderella 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The intent, of course, is to speed up the intensely backlogged copyvio process. And what other circumstances are you referring to, because any complex licensing you might allege to would be incompatible with ours. Radiant_>|< 23:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The proposal deliberately does not address the copyright status of the material. I would claim that there is no reason for us to keep unwikified cut-and-paste content whether we have permission to do so or not. After all, if someone wants to take such content and turn it into a proper article, they'll know where to find it (by looking at the deletion summary, if necessary). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as above. If it's copy-and-pasted, with no markup, then it's very easy for someone to re-create and wikify in the future, if it isn't a copyvio. --Carnildo 00:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, as above. I like it. Nandesuka 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • stronly oppose any such change would result in far too many false positives and far too much copyright paranoia. DES (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How come this turned into a vote so quickly? It's a pretty controversial proposal, clearly there's significant opposition (myself included). The above proposal would make content subject to summary deletionsolely because it has been cut-and-pasted from another source, even though the material is properly licensed under the GFDL. If the material infringes copyright we already have deletion criteria to deal with that. If the material does not infringe copyright and there is no other reason to delete, then deletion would clearly be the wrong thing to do. This suggestion appears to be trawling for excuses to delete material from the wiki, and that is completely unacceptable. We're here to contruct an encyclopedia, and that can never be done by deleting articles without good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, it has turned into a vote because otherwise, someone would be saying "How can you be talking about changing policy without polling," as Trollderella is doing just a few paragraphs below. Obviously, if through this poll we discover that there is broad-based support for this measure, than your characterization of this as "completely unacceptable" is in error. Nandesuka 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
My reading of it is cut and paste copyvios. If the material is PD or GFDL, fine. What is completely unacceptable is the retention of copyright breaches, or, to put it another way, theft. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Please see the section above. This is what already happens due to the excuse that the word "copyvio" already appears on WP:CSD, except that wikified ones are getting deleted too. Either reality needs to be brought into sync with policy, or policy needs to be brought into sync with reality. —Cryptic (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't something along the lines of "This material has been copied from a source believed not to be public domain or GFDL-compatible..." sum it up consisely and appropriately? Doesn't specifying "commercial content provider" imply that a non-profit organization, for example, is less entitled to copyright protection, or am I misunderstanding? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't limit the proposal to copyvio articles, since accurately determining the copyright status of a source often takes more time and effort than is reasonable for speedy deletion — in fact, probably more effort than creating the article took in the first place — and since it's not really necessary. Obviously most such articles will be copyvios or otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, but even if some appropriate content gets deleted under this criterion, the original contributor can just paste it back in. (See also Wikipedia:Public domain resources#Please don't data dump!) Of course, admins are supposed to exercise some common sense here; I wouldn't be opposed to wording such as In case of encyclopedic content from public domain or freely licensed sources, consider using {{wikify}} instead.Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, saves a lot of time spent tidying them that could be spent elsewhere. Susvolans 14:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I assumed that the proposal meant copy and pasted copyright violations. I do not support deleting all copy and pastes. Some public domain sources have good content and we get permission for some copyrighted content. Deleting it all would not be a good idea.
  • However, we still need more effective and faster measures for copyright violations and those who post them. I would be in favor of a proposal to speedy delete all copy and pastes from copyrighted sources found within 48 hours, if the article or talk page does not assert permission. Besides a change in policy, the biggest improvement would probably be to have the people watching recent changes, and especially new pages, report the copyright violations themselves, instead of adding a wikify or cleanup tag. That way, we'd catch them early and it wouldn't clog the article cleanup system. -- Kjkolb 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, it seems then that a narrower porposal may in fact be in order. What would you say to unwikified new (< 48 h) articles that are cut-and-pasted from another website without assertion of permission? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Preparing for a formal proposal

Comment: I originally threw this proposal to the table just to spark some discussion, but it seems to be getting a surprising amount of support. I'm thinking of turning it into a proper policy proposal if as we can hammer out a wording that seems likely to gain consensus approval. I don't expect the approval to be unanimous, but I'm hoping this one might actually pass if it's simple and narrow enough. For now, I'm seeing support for the following requirements for speedy deletion:

  1. unwikified
  2. cut-and-pasted verbatim from another website
  3. less than 48 hours old (could be relaxed if the source is verified not to be Wikipedia mirror?)
  4. no assertion of permission
  5. not from a known public domain or GFDL-compatible source

I think these can be condensed into a fairly concise criterion (not a bloated monstrosity like A8). If you have issues with any of these numbered points above, or feel that additional requirements are needed, please post your comments below. Also, there's one more big issue we'll need to decide: should this new criterion, if approved, replace the current A8 criterion? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd support points 1-3, indifferent to 4 and 5. Prefer to replace A8, but would support either way. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, looks fine to me. -- Kjkolb 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Support points 2-5, indifferent to point 1. (Any passerby can come through and [[put]] [[links]] [[around]] [[certain]] [[words]], put the title in bold and add {{somekinda-stub}} at the bottom 30 seconds after creation, making the article technically wikified, but no less a copyright violation. You might want to scrap #1 altogether.) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • They could, but I've rarely seen them do so, just like few vanity pages bother to assert notability. I suspect most people creating such articles don't even know how (or why) to wikify them. In any case, it's hard to come up with a criterion to distinguish proper wikification (which takes effort, and should probably count against speedy deletion) from a half-assed job. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The subjective nature of what is and is not wikified, plus the fact that the actual text (if you spoke it aloud, for example) would still be identical, are two reasons why wikification should not be a factor. Furthermore, why force ourselves to wait for a consensus instead of speedying, just because the second contributor assumed good faith by tidying the page without googling it first? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • You may be right. Maybe 2 (verbatim cut-and-paste) and 4/5 (probable copyvio) are strict enough that unwikified could be omitted? Objections?Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • After some more thought, I've come to the the conclusion that point 1 needs to be kept in some form. The whole point of the proposal is to delete probable copyvios that are trivial to recreate. Even half-assed wikification like this takes more work than just pasting some text into a box and clicking "save". If the contributor bothered to do that much, then surely we can take the time to slap in {{copyvio}} instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Copyvio is copyvio. We don't owe them anything other than a deletion. I would urge the avoidance of hobbling the new criterion. Once you've spent a week (yes, I have and more) trying to clear WP:CP then I might hear out arguments about not deleting obvious copyvios. I spend hours removing the most blatant infringements and I can't see any reaason to deflate a proposal in this way. In fact, given how wrong I was to support the present A8 with its tendons cut, I will oppose any revision that has the same hallmarks. -Splashtalk 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, but Newpages patrollers cannot be expected to spend much time checking whether we have permission to use something, so we need a criterion they can apply to probable copyvios without having to worry too much about collateral damage. This is a matter of balancing two requirements: the more effort an article took to create, the more certain we need to be before deleting it. I feel that this criterion, at least, should lean heavily on the side of "delete obvious five-second cut-and-paste jobs without much double-checking", since such a rule is one that NP patrollers can actually apply effectively. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Still, you're right that "unwikified" is not the ideal wording, since it may be taken to exclude any article that has the slightest bit of Wiki markup applied. Better ideas? What about "mostly unwikified"? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dismiss 1 and 3, add ...or GFDL to 5. Support the rest. This because I don't see the relevance of Wikification to copyright infringement, no more relevance to 48 hours and admins should be checking before they delete, and clearly we are ok with GFDL sources if we are with PD ones.-Splashtalk 20:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be very reluctant to dismiss or weaken #3, even to the extent Ilmari Karonen mentions in parentheses above. Just because a given website isn't a full Wikipedia mirror doesn't mean they haven't plagiarized us. The older the article is, the more likely this is to happen. —Cryptic (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support putting it forward as a formal proposal - SoM 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support without 1. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support without 1. Ambi 08:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Polls are evil how about just discussing the options. :-) Kim Bruning 08:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with that, although this concise "poll" style is easier to keep track of than the usual rambling debate here. :-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yup, People are sticking to business, that's good. But then it's not a just a formal proposal, it's already formal. Go forth and edit! :-) Kim Bruning 21:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Never. This proposal will never be policy because it involves deleting material that should not be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little over-worried. Every copyvio article should be deleted. If someone mistakes a mirror as the source, the problem is quickly fixed. -Splashtalk 07:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's over-worried. If an administrator doesn't know whether or not an article that he sees elsewhere is licensed under the GFDL then he can list on AfD of WP:CP and the issue will be looked into and copyright infringing material will be deleted. There is absolutely no need to delete the article in the meantime. The only effect of this proposal will be to delete articles that, if a competent person performed an adequate investigation, would not be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

...and which can be recreated in a few seconds. Really. Or perhaps we have a clarity issue here? Can you think of a (real or hypothetical) article that you think would be speediable under this criterion and would take more than a minute to recreate? (I'm honestly asking, because I don't want to propose a policy without knowing how different people will interpret it. The question is for the rest of you too.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support but add requirement admin explain what they did, and post link to original source on talk page of article (which wouldn't need to be deleted). Also, require notice to contributing author (if not anon). Mistakes could be undone easily. Also, I would want the term "unwikified" to be taken literally, without exceptions (even one category should cause the article to go through normal channels). Wikification is a clear sign somebody has at least thought about what they're doing, is familiar with Wikipedia, and its possible there's somebody to talk to, and this isn't just a "dump and run". If any of the five required points are removed or softened, I would oppose this proposal. --Rob 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian Knot

Since this has been discussed for literally months in a variety of places, suggested by up to a dozen editors individually, and got very little in the way of objections, I do believe there is consensus for expanding the criterion for "unremarkable people" to groups of people, including bands. Thus, I have reworded it to "An article about a real person, group of people or band that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Radiant_>|< 17:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Changing policy to allow immediate deletion of material without discussion and with no effective review is a big deal, and should be brought to a formal vote. I doubt many people are aware of this instruction creep. Trollderella 17:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If Radiant had proposed a vote, you'd have said "oppose rulecruft, especially that imposed by an evil poll. Oh yes, you would. Yes. If Radiant! had just got on with it, per the endless support the proposal has received all over the place, you'd have, oh, wait. You did. -Splashtalk 17:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
There is enough general support for this. Martin 18:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You have no idea how much general support for this there is. You would have, if you polled it... Trollderella 18:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is a reasonable change, per existing consensus. Also, it's worth noting that an article about a group of people could be split into multiple articles, each about a single individual, as part of normal editing. The individual articles could then be speedied under A7 without any controversy. Rather than jumping through such silly hoops, it makes more sense to apply the CSD to the group article. Friday (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with this, but be careful. This cannot be a general 'vanity' speedy. Nor even allow the speeding of bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC - those criteria failed in polls. It must only be a speedy where the is 'no assertion of notability' or anything that anyone would possibly regard as notable: ie 'the famous four are a group of guys who meet in Joe's house and play cards' should be speediable - but 'the famous four are an established jazz band' should not be - it 'asserts notability' (even if google can't find them - or they turn out to have had no hits). Speedies should be deletable from reading the face of the article, if you need google, then it is AfD. --Doc ask? 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
However, then it should still be speedeable as nonsense (G1), or, if the assertion is all that's there in the article, empty/no context (A1), correct? --Nlu 18:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Wel, no, it wouldn't be nonense - nonsense must be patent if you have to use google, it isn't patent nonsense. As for empty/no conTEXT, well if it is a one-liner perhaps, but if we know it is a band, it's genre and it's name, we have sufficient context to expand it, so it isn't. --Doc ask? 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
This is not simply changing the group to which existing policy is applied. I am particularly worried about referencing Wikipedia:Notability and Music Guidelines, which are guidelines, in a policy, effectively making them policy without a vote. Trollderella 18:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's ok, because on wikis, policy is generally decided by consensus. :-) That and "guideline" is actually properly what policy is, since people are not required to strictly follow rules. I hope that puts some of your concerns to rest. If speedying on the basis of notability and music guidelines make you uncomfortable for other reasons as well, please share your thoughts, and let's do something about it. Kim Bruning 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You have no idea what the concensus is, and seem strangely resistant to actually trying to find out. Saying that 'no one who hangs out a lot on a page devoted to deleting things quickly opposes this, so it must be concensus', seems, odd. Trollderella 18:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Policy is not generally created by vote. 2) Referring to a guideline does not make turn it into policy. 3) Lots of policy pages refers to lots of guidelines. 4) The new wording does not say "bands which fail WP:MUSIC" but "articles on bands which do not assert significance", with a link to WP:MUSIC for examples. That doesn't imply the examples are exhaustive. Radiant_>|< 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) new policy should reflect concensus. You don't have any idea what any but deletion enthusiasts think of this.
  • 2) there are so many times when people think that proposed policies or guidelines are actually policy, this will muddy those waters, to the benefit only of deletion enthusiasts.
  • 3) If they do, they should not.
  • 4) It implies that there is concensus about those examples. There is not.
Trollderella 18:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You've hidden the music guidelines in here. No one in the places you mention know about them. Trollderella 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't jump to conclusions. WP:MUSIC is widely known and consensual. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 2) The difference between policy and guideline is far less stringent than what you think it is. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
It shouldn't be dictatorship either. Put it to a vote. Trollderella 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 3) Consensus says otherwise, so I wish you best of luck convincing the rest of the Wiki of that particular issue.
You've no idea what consensus says, you won't put it to a vote. Trollderella 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Putting it to vote will tell you what the vote says. Kim Bruning 19:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, which will give you an idea of whether there is a high level of dissent about this idea. Trollderella 20:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There actually isn't; there's just a vocal minority. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 4) No, it implies that they're commonsensical, which they are. Besides, WP:MUSIC has consensus, because it's heavily used, highly visible and essentially unmodified for half a year. R adiant_>|< 18:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
When people voted on them, they didn't agree, which is why they are not policy. You can't sneak them in under the door without telling people. Put it to a vote. Trollderella 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem seems to be, and was last time this was voted on, the promotion of WP:MUSIC to policy. So I changed the phrasing so that it gets no such promotion. -Splashtalk 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the recent change because it grossly misrepresents the intent of A7. It has nothing to do with groups of people or bands, both of which were rejected as criteria for speedy deletion in precisely the same survey that confirmed A7. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good reason. Kim Bruning 19:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Tony -- Radiant claims that there is consensus for this expansion are exposed by the failure of the recent similar proposals to expand CSD. 63% of votes rejected a proposal to make unremarkable clubs speediable. The proposal to make unremarkable bands speediable was also rejected. Radiant has presented no evidence that this situation has changed. In any case, undeletion remains too difficult to permit this expansion of CSD. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Having failed to pass these things by vote, deletionists are trying to get them passed without one. Trollderella 21:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Correction, "having failed to pass these things by vote due to it actually escalating a second guideline to policy, and as such the incessant rules-lawyers can argue that we should waste more time on these cases, those trying to apply common sense are trying to get them passed without one". Please get the facts behind the rules correct before you start getting legalistic with them. Chris talk back 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony's representation is wrong. The criterion for bands on WP:CSD/P was voted down by a small margin (~69% support) because of technical reasons - specifically, that the wording "bands who fail WP:MUSIC" is wrong because it basically promotes a guideline to policy. However, if you read what people say rather than blindly count votes, it is obvious that most people support the idea. That is why the version I just wrote is worded differently, and should indicate that WP:MUSIC gives some examples but is not an exhaustive list. A proposal for speedily deleting groups was never made on the CSP/P. A group of individuals is not a club. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Au contraire, for I set up a poll at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7]. If there's a better or more official place to do it, by all means let me know and we'll do it the proper way. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Howcheng is correct. TD, please assume good WP:FAITH. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Restating the case

  1. If an article about an individual that doesn't assert his importance is unencyclopedic, it is reasonable to assume that an article about two individuals, or a man and his dog, is also unencyclopedic. Are there any good reasons to think otherwise? (And please don't come up with the obvious slippery slope fallacy here)
  2. Band vanity articles are very high-numbered among the articles that regularly appear on AFD and get unanimous delete votes. On AFD, it is frequently asked "why can't we speedy those?" Are there any good reasons not to?
  3. This is not a way of making WP:MUSIC policy; that is simply a straw man. The idea is simply that WP:MUSIC lists examples of importance or significance, but that is by no means all-inclusive. Are there any good arguments against this?
  4. m:don't vote on everything. Normally, policy is not generated by voting on it. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (to Radiant's first point)
    • The community specifically rejected this when it was voted on. One possible reason might be that they don't trust a system they can't scrutinise. Trollderella 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, read the debate about the final bands proposal WP:CSD/P. It fell due to its dependence on WP:MUSIC. 'That dependency has not been offered (except very briefly) this time around. Please do stop misrepresenting the nature of this. -Splashtalk 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, the community rejected a very specific proposal: "Any article that claims to be about any local club (but not a chapter of a larger organization) and does not assert having influence outside the local community, nor having had media coverage". howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (to Radiant's second point)
    • The community specifically rejected this when it was voted on. One possible reason might be that they don't trust a system they can't scrutinise. Trollderella 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're making the same point twice. So again, you misunderstand the voting and debate surrounding the proposals, which one might be forgiven for not reading since it is rather lengthy. The construction of the bands criterion failed owing to its dependence on WP:MUSIC but was extraordinarily close to the arbitrary threshold anyway. It doesn't take genius to realise what the cause of that was, and that a two or three word extension of A7 to address that is at least as widely supported. And you've only to look around anywhere to see that. Plainly, deletion can be and is scrutinized via Special:Log/Delete and WP:DRV and CAT:CSD and every admin's talk page. -Splashtalk 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with Trollderella on this one. Having to apply WP:MUSIC is too cumbersome. The name of the game is speedy deletion. Articles that force the admin to do Google research should not be subject to being speedily deleted. The scope of this is purely limited to articles like Riot Siren or The Lunch Bunch. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (to Radiant's third point)
    • The community specifically rejected WP:MUSIC when it was voted on for policy. Trollderella 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's the same point three times. WP:MUSIC was not voted on, a policy proposal relying on it was. WP:MUSIC continues to be a very very widely accepted and deployed guideline, and you know that as well as I do. Pretending otherwise is not going to lend any credibility. -Splashtalk 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you mean that direct application of WP:MUSIC was rejected in determining whether an article is a speedy deletion candidate? --Mysidia (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sensible words

  • The reasons we shouldn't delete band vanity articles: (1) individual administrators are not qualified to determine whether an article is in fact band vanity, (2) probably more importantly, whether or not an article contains an assertion of notability is not a strong indicator of whether or not we should have an article on that topic. AFD is much better suited to determining whether or not we should have an article on a band. That said, I would support any such expansion of CSD if it was made clear that if any user contested such a speedy deletion, it would automatically be undeleted and sent to AFD. That would be an improvement over the status quo, in terms of efficiency, and IMO would have minimal potential to do damage. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable. The proposal is not to delete band vanity, the proposal is to delete articles on bands that do not assert importance or significance of their subject. I do believe it's common practice, when a useless article on a worthwhile subject is deleted, to recreate it with an added sentence or two so that it's a reasonable stub, no bureaucracy involved. Radiant_>|< 23:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To make a broader point, as I see it the point of CSD is that, while we usually discuss whether or not an article should be deleted, sometimes we might as well skip the discussion because nobody really wants to bother with it. So that's great. However, this goal is perverted when editors make clear that they do want to have a discussion about an article's future, and they are refused because that article meets the standard for CSD. If the point of CSD is to say: "We should never have this kind of article, ever" then it needs to be severely curtailed. If it's made clear that the point of CSD is to say: "Unless anyone objects, we'll skip the discussion on this deletion" then we can apply it liberally. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • YES, that's the entire POINT of this expansion of A7. It should be applied to articles that are obviously not going to survive AfD. Let's not waste time, server resources, etc, with holding a discussion for this because the outcome is certain and the only likely votes for keeping it are going to be the original author and sockpuppets. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Chris. Thank you for so succintly, elegantly, and reasonably saying what I've been thinking this entire time.--Sean|Black 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The point of AFD is to determine whether a subject is encyclopedic or not. The point of CSD is to get rid of useless articles. In other words, it's the latter. A CSD on an article does never disallow the creation of an article on the same subject, as long as it's not as content-less as what was speedied the first time. The proverbial example is when someone writes an article about Julius Caesar with the sole content "apples are yummy". Obviously we want an article on JC, and obviously the present content is so useless that it wouldn't help in writing one. Radiant_>|< 23:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Seems to me that CSD -- whatever the criteria used -- already relies upon the judgment of admins, and hamstringing them with hairsplitting over whether they can delete the obviously useless because the subject is plural rather than singular is silly. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, after all. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Seems to me the whole point of HAVING a set of CSD in to restrict the freedom of admins to delete. - SoM 00:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's an example that I think highlights my point -- say an administrator deletes an article because it does not contain a claim of notability. Another user, acting in good faith, brings the article up on deletion review, saying that it does contain a claim of notability. Now, if you're asked whether the article should be undeleted, what do you ask?
  • If your try to actually evaluate whether or not the article contains a claim of notability, I would say you have the wrong understanding of CSD. Whether you think the article contains a claim of notability is irrelevant for the purposes of speedy deletion; if a user believes that an article does contain such a claim, then it deserves to be discussed at AFD as any article would be -- particularly, it should be visible to everyone while it's being discussed. The point of CSD is only to avoid the wasteful discussions that nobody wants to participate in. If somebody does want to have the discussion, then we should have it. Unfortunately, this principle isn't well represented in the reality of our deletion process, which is why at the moment simply expanding CSD is a bad idea.
  • See also my own deletion reform proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Christopherparham says: I would support any such expansion of CSD if it was made clear that if any user contested such a speedy deletion, it would automatically be undeleted and sent to AFD. That would be an improvement over the status quo, in terms of efficiency, and IMO would have minimal potential to do damage.

Arguably that is the status quo, as regards administrator challenge (an admin can resurrect a speedy and take it to AfD under the exception of the deletion policy) but if such a challenge could be made wider it would be a good thing. How about this wording?

Any speedy deletion may be challenged by any editor, and deleting administrators are expected to react to all good faith challenges by undeleting the article, and listing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion or Wikipedia:Copyright problems, whichever is appropriate. Undeletion should not be refused without good reason.

This would make our approach to deletion a lot more flexible, in my opinion, and address some very real qualms about summary deletion of good articles. It would also ensure that speedily deleted articles subject to challenge get at least one proper deletion discussion on AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • While you've certainly treated it as the status quo in the past, the reaction to some of your actions (and generally happenings on WP:DRV) suggest to me that it's something a lot of people disagree on. As far as your suggestion goes, I certainly agree, although I'm not sure I can envision a "good reason" for refusing undeletion except that the article is vandalism. The wording of your first sentence is a bit clearer in this regard. If it's not possible to apply such a "challenge rule" universally, I would at least like it applied to any new speedy criteria. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Tony's paragraph (in italics above) is an accurate statement of the status quo and that it currently applies to all speedy deletions. Making that explicit might not be a bad thing. I also like his specific language about "good faith challenges" because I have seen some good reasons for refusing undeletion. It's rare but some vandals are sophisticated enough to try to game our rules against us. We must reserve the right to ignore them. Rossami (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

A thought or two

How about a rearrangement of the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" box to include a link to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and possibly make the deleted section of it more prominent - SoM 00:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

New tag


It's a beautiful thing, isn't it? PJM 13:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Would you all please stop this insane revert war? I've lost track of the number of violations we've had of the three revert rule in the past week. Make your case here and then go cool off somewhere while the rest of us read and digest the respective arguments. Give us some time to think instead of this constant and repetitive bickering back and forth!

<Rant ends> Thank you for your patience. Rossami (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • It's protected now, which seems appropriate. I should point out that the version before the debate began was this one. The differences are a link to WP:DVAIN and a two-word change by TD. Radiant_>|< 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm... that was less than 12 hours ago. Given the activity of this page since Kim B started all this, you'd need to go far further back to get the "last stable version". To dub a version a "stable version" it would have to last rather more than a day without [non-typo] editing. People don't stare at WP every hour of every day, you know. - SoM 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone figured out yet why requiring formal /Proposals and votes to change this page was a good idea? :) - SoM 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's several formal methods available to us, but participating in an edit war is definately not one of them, SoM! I've seen you do it twice now. Since this can lead to you being blocked , would you care to talk about it? Kim Bruning 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that edit warring is bad, but, um, didn't I see you name several time here as well, Kim? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes you did. I admit to shamelessly keeping cool :-) Kim Bruning 05:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Live arguments archived

I'm a little annoyed about this, but part of a currently-live argument was archived while I was trying to add a comment to it. Aren't we supposed to archive only dead discussions? Chris talk back 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. Yes. The reason I archived was that the page was ~250k and that made editing impossible. I already moved one 'active' section back here; if any others were thrown in with the archive#6 please move them here as well. Radiant_>|< 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was this close ->| |<- to applying my 3 Conflict Rule before I spotted the "archive" comment in the history. Chris talk back 00:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Does the spam provision of G3 cover advertisements? Wikipedia:Vandalism only talks about external links. What about ads that have a substantial, paragraph or more, of text with or without external links? -- Kjkolb 10:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that G3 does not apply in those situations. If someone has taken the time to make non-copyvio text about a product or service, it deserves the full scrutiny of the community. It may still be deletable but should be done through a regular AFD nomination. Remember that many (perhaps most) first drafts of any article will be written by someone with strong feelings on the topic. Their prose may come across as promotional yet still may form a basis for a good NPOV article. CSD must be restricted to cases so obvious that every admin looking at the page will reach essentially the same conclusion. Judgment calls get made on AFD. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say Rossami is right in interpreting G3 this way. So may I propose the following additional criterion Ax:
  • Spam: where an article is created which:
  • consists primarily of an advertisement for a single company, and
  • contains no substantive edits by editors other than the creator, and
  • is created by anonymous editor or one with less than 24 hours' edit history prior to creation of the offending content, and
  • purports to cover a subject which is already covered, or
  • makes no assertion of the company's notability per WP:CORP
Thus the followinf could be speedied: Site templates, Site template, Web site templates, Web site template, Website templates, Website template - the encyclopaedic content is covered at web template, also liberally linkspammed by the creator, Special:Contributions/Dave_martin. Actually perhaps that little collection is enough to qualify under G3. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Articles have been shot. Anything that blatent is covered by WP:IAR. --Carnildo 00:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That's my kind of rule :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Mind you, it spoils my example a bit. Here's another: Ocuview. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, I must oppose any speedy deletion criterion consisting of several subcriteria. We need good one-sentence rules that RC patrollers can remember and quote for edit comments and justification. If you need several criteria to specify a group of articles, it's likely that that group is a small enough one for AfD to handle. AfDers don't waste too much time in condemning "obvious" advertisements, and it gives a chance for someone to "rescue" it instead. Deco 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
How about this?
  • SPAM: Any article written in the first person. Such articles are either spam or unencyclopedic (or both).
--Carnildo 03:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a "blatant adertisement" criterion for speedy deletion. Many are already speedily deleted. The difference between an enthusiastic article and an advertisement, is whether the article contains encyclopedic information. If the article doesn't tell us anything encyclopedic, such as how it works, its importance, its history or its impact on society, then it is an ad. It should not matter how non-neutral it is. We rely on common sense for non-notable bios, so I think we can do it for ads as well. -- Kjkolb 11:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an obvious anomaly here. Vanity / NN-Bio entrires on people can be speedied, but where the subject is a company or a band it has to be taken to AfD. Every day there are many bands and usually several company/product ads. I could go and count, I suppose, but it's my strong impression that these are two of the most common classes of article brought to AfD. As stated elsewhere, we rely on common sense in NN-Bio articles, it's usually pretty obvious what is spam and what is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


I've added the following to the copyright criterion: " If the deleting admnistrator is subsequently notified of an error, the article should of course be immediately undeleted."

Really I only added it out of a feeling that there was a misunderstanding of our copyright policy that should be cleared up.

This has been reverted by User:Cryptic with the edit summary: Absolutely not. We don't undelete copyvio pages because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim of permission.

I think this misses the point. Of course one wouldn't revert unless facing a good-faith reason to doubt one's judgement.

If there is a claim of permission, then there is a dispute, which should be resolved. I don't think we should give administrators carte blanche to ignore their errors.`

Whether my wording remains in the policy isn't that important, really, because obviously administrators who abused this deletion criterion would get into hot water pretty quickly. But this is a very controversial area of deletion policy, so we should probably spell out the fact that speedying probably isn't the best way of dealing with disputed claims of copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put cryptic's version back until there is further discussion. "Use the talk page" doesn't mean "leave a notice that you've blindly reverted to your version". - brenneman(t)(c) 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It is not controversial that we delete copyright infringing articles. It is also not controversial that, if permission is asserted (in any kind of sensible manner at all) that we follow that claim up. Eventually, anyway. I think we'd be wrong to restore articles just because an IP address says "I wrote it", which is all they usually say without indicating the fact that we need to confirm this claim. The most I would be comfortable with is a restoration, and a blanking with {copyvio}, the usual listing and the sending of a confirmation email. Assuming good faith doesn't extend to random people on the internet claiming they have permission to copy and paste. -Splashtalk 23:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alternately, the uploader could simply upload the content once more, with a claim of permission. The article couldn't be speedied again. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Splash writes " The most I would be comfortable with is a restoration, and a blanking with {copyvio}, the usual listing and the sending of a confirmation email." Absolutely. This is precisely what should be done if the deletion is contested. I'll go for a rewrite on this basis.

Copyright is a tricky area and we must be sure not to carry copyright-infringing material on our site. However it is not appropriate to treat our contributors badly. Wikipedia:Copyright problems serves a useful purpose and we should not send a message to administrators that they're permitted to circumvent it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What if the page is an obvious hoax?

I think this should be added to the criteria, after seeing a revert war between an author and everyone else on a CSD notice at an article that was an obvious hoax.

There is no CSD for hoaxes. They should go to AfD. -Splashtalk 03:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
To expand on that thought, the reason there is no CSD is that we've found it impossible to write a clear definition of "obvious" hoaxes. Too often, they turn out to be real topics which are either extremely obscure or just poorly written. I don't mean to say that all of them are but we've seen enough false positives that we've made a conscious decision not to have a CSD criterion for hoaxes. AFD, on the other hand, is quite effective at sorting out the hoaxes from the obscure but real topics. For a while, I even made a hobby of collecting examples of articles which were initially tagged as hoaxes but which later turned out to be real. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
There are exceptions, though. For example, I recently closed an AfD early because the original author admitted on the AfD page that the article in question was indeed a hoax. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a CSD for hoaxes! Extremely obvious hoaxes (e.g. "Dave has won Nobel prizes in all categories, including mathematics") are silly vandalism and can be CSDed under G3. G3 requires only that an article be "pure vandalism" (in other words, that every part of it be vandalism); although people sometimes mix it up with the requirements mentioned in the 3RR, as I did once before, G3 isn't limited to simple vandalism. --Aquillion 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Per Aquillion, I think the existing policy covers hoaxes that are so obvious that one could question whether they are seriously intended to be hoaxes or properly categorized as hoaxes. And I don't think anyone engaged in silly vandalism of that sort, who engages in a revert war on the CSD notice, is going to be deterred by a clearer articulation of policy, since these people are not sincerely engaged in encyclopedia-building, but rather in trolling or breaching experiments or whatever. No matter how policy is phrased they will find some pretext, or no pretext, for removing the speedy notice anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep. And, for those who consider the hoax/vandalism rule not clear-cut enough for them, there's another way around it. Obviously implausible claims not backed up by reliable sources can be removed by anyone, and it's a completely legit edit. Once the implausible claims are removed, often the content that's left is speediable without having to stretch the rules at all. Of course, as pointed out above, some "hoaxes" have turned out to be legit. So, rather than removing implausible claims and immediately deleting, I'd move the contested section to the talk page and ask for sources. Deletion should happen only if sources are not produced in a reasonable amount of time. And, of course, if the claim is "Bob is president of the Universe and married Queen Elizabeth and Salma Hayek", we won't sit around holding our breath waiting for sources. Friday (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

templates for speedy deletion

I've made the template {{tsd}} (based on {{tfd}}) for templates that may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I hope that someone will find it useful. --Ixfd64 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

On TfD's talk page, it appears as though this is not a good idea (I tried and failed a similar template with {{D-t}}). I'm off to TfD to nominate it... --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Deleteagain" for speedily deleted articles?

Criterion G4 reads: "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject."

I remember that in a recent vote it was decided that recreation of a speedily deleted article is not automatically a speedy deletion candidate. It may be subject to speedy deletion under the same criteria as in the first deletion, but it also might have been deleted in error. When (if ever) was this change reversed? - Mike Rosoft 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the policy and practice is still the same. That particular text was removed as part of an edit on 24 Nov 05 by Radiant! who commented "Cleaned out the dirt and cobwebs with a heavy-duty flamethrower. See talk page." I presume he meant that this rule is so well understood that it's not necessary to actually include on the page. If that was his intent, I agree that it's a widely understood rule. I also would agree that the CSD page was badly in need of rewrite though I don't have strong feelings about the inclusion of that particular rule either way. Rossami (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that it is not understood well enough. Just recently there were two articles deleted as recreations after being speedily deleted: Hacker standard time and Bwn0x. (In my opinion, the first one was a speedy deletion candidate in the first place, while the latter one wasn't.) - Mike Rosoft 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is widely understood. I also think that the misunderstanding arises often enough to justify having that clarification in there. It is not a change of application, just a clarification. -Splashtalk 15:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, people. What is considered the appropriate procedure for proposing an extension to the CSD criteria? DJ Clayworth 18:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You can just make a new section here with your proposal in, or test the water at the relevant project page if there is one. -Splashtalk 15:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete is too speedy.

Someone keeps speedily deleting an article I started before I can add anything too it. The article was "Danish Pedophile Association" Articles need some time to cook as a stub. I didn't even get a chance to add the stub tag before it was deleted the first time. Someone newer to wikipedia may not even know how to put in a stub tag.--Gbleem 05:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Here is the discussion from my talk page:

Danish Pedophile Association

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What vandalism? --Gbleem 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating an article which consists of nothing but the name of a person and a link to NAMBLA. That's an attack page. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you you should give me more than a few minutes to finish an article.--Gbleem 04:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should create an article which consists of more than links. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You deleted it before I could add anything else. Are you sure you are following the deletion guidelines? Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Gbleem 04:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup. Please don't add this again. - Lucky 6.9 05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion--"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it."

It is the admin who is in error here (unless of course your page was intended as a personal attack). The inflammatory nature of the article may have biased their judgement. However, it's sometimes difficult for an admin to tell whether an article is still being edited. To avoid this happening in the future, you may want to make more judicious use of the Preview feature, particularly while writing controversial material. Deco 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's now in review. WP:DRV--Gbleem 00:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • For future reference, you might consider adding the template {{Inuse}} to articles if you are dividing their creation into several edits. While I can symphatize with your position, you have to understand that clear CSD articles can show up pretty fast on Live RC; patrollers have to make spot decisions from time to time just to keep up with new ones. Please try to make their job a little easier by marking any incomplete pages you save with the approprate tags. --Aquillion 00:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Tsd

Template:Tsd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Tsd. Thank you. --Wcquidditch | Talk 13:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Notability should not be *only* criteria for an article to be kept

A number of articles and topics are significantly worthy without being notable, popular, or even very well known. So long as the account is verifiable, and it has historical significance, I do not see why we must establish that they are making a claim of current notoriety. For example, there was an article not long ago about a woman who was a natural conductor of electricity, something which affects 1 in 4 billion people. There were only 2 google hits on her, and only 1 newspaper article. However, it was true, verified, incredibly interesting and of immense historical significance. Therefore, I think that requiring for an article to make a claim of notoriety should not be a definite criteria for deletion full stop, let alone for speedy deletion. There is much debate as it stands as to whether an article can be deleted purely because nobody has heard of it (or not enough people). If an article's only claim to fame is popularity, then yes, that is relevant. But the best articles and best topics do not aim to be encyclopaedic because of popularity at all. For example, firsts of things are rarely popular. I bet nobody had ever heard of UNaXcess before, but its 100% worthy of my books. Many things are notable because they lead to things, and so forth. In other words, what I am saying is that this should not be a criteria for speedy deletion at all. It can be a guideline for deletion, but one which is not always applicable. However, under no circumstances should it be a reason for speedy deletion. Not in my opinion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong forum for this rant. Criteria for speedy deletion are supposed to be clear-cut, and do not include your example. Non-notability is never a valid justification for speedy deletion, mostly because it's so subjective. We also don't establish criteria for keeping articles on this page – maybe one of the VfD discussion pages or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is more appropriate. As for what we can do about it, I'm sure many inclusionists sympathise with your position, but we are a community of many viewpoints and I doubt your arguments would significantly shift the standard for inclusion. Deco 03:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Fictional characters that don't come from actual fiction

I think that fictional characters that aren't actually derived from works of fiction should be added to the list of speedy deletable content. These will often be role-playing characters, or creations by fans trying to flesh out their favorite fictional universe. These aren't even created as part of actual fan fiction, but through fictional biographies. See "Darth pyre" for a recent example—the character's description in this article is apparently the only form in which this character exists. I believe this criteria is much narrower than a non-notable fiction criteria would be, as that issue is often contentious (particularly with web comics, it seems). I don't think such a judgment call is required, as I believe it's pretty clear when a character just exists as a character description rather than in a story (whether self-published or mass-media). Postdlf 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many difficult-to-judge borderline cases, I think. You might get away with "does not assert importance of subject". If the page makes inaccurate claims about the importance of the subject, you can remove them and then delete by "does not assert importance of subject". :-) Deco 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
What borderline cases could there be? Postdlf 05:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
After re-reading your proposal I see that you're proposing deletion of subjects that don't exist at all outside Wikipedia. Certainly any subject that does not exist outside the encyclopedia should be deleted — but this seems difficult to determine accurately, considering that the Google Test does not suffice. I think this is something that necessitates review and consensus (at least until Google indexes the whole universe). Deco 08:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
At a minimum, yes, subjects that only exist as Wikipedia subjects should be deleted. If the article itself does not assert any external existence, these should be easy cases. Postdlf 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
one possible set of "borderline cases" which may need to be specifically excluded is things like alternative personae used by entertainers as part of their act. I could definitely make a case for Dick Emery's "Mandy" having a separate page, or at least being mergable, despite being fictional but nor from a specific work of fiction. Grutness...wha? 09:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
An interesting issue, though I believe we could phrase the criteria in such a way that such performance characters, even though not strictly on paper, would still be excluded from being speedy deletable. I'm open to ideas on the language. Postdlf 17:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
there was a proposal specificaly for role-playing characters IIRC at the last major expansion of the criteria. it failed badly. I see a couple of prolems with this, one beign borderline cases, adn another being poorly written articels which are in fact about fictional chartacters from a work of fiction, but which fail to specify the work of fiction. Even now these are soemtimes tagges as {{nonsense}} -- i have cleaned up several such on new-page patrol and speedy-delete patrol. Speedy delete criteria are suppsoed to be for bright-line situations that can be reliably detected by a single editor with few if any false positives, so that we can trust deletion to one or two pairs of eyes (an admin or a tagger and an admin). I don't think this qualifies, unless at the minimun you require the admin to do a google search to check if there is in fact an actual work of fiction behaind the character, or limit it to articles that explicitly say the character is from a RPG session, or made up for the articel itself. Also, speedy criteria are mostly suppsoed to be for fairly common situations, so that they remove significant load from AfD -- have you noticed many pages about such fictional characters not form a work of fiction on AfD, or on wikipedia? Is this a solution in search of a problem? DES (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem in my mind is that the only decent tool we have for detecting invented topics is the Google Test, and it has both false positives and false negatives. If I write an article on a mathematician from a book about mathematical history, and no one on the web has written anything yet, surely that article should not be deleted. A VfD debate is a suitable forum for dealing with such cases, where interested parties have time to cite sources as proof of existence. After all, as Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Redundancy says:
Finally, it is possible that in the fullness of time Wikipedia will contain more relevant, reliable information on any given topic than can be easily found via a search engine search. That's certainly our plan for it.
And remember, The internet certainly does not contain all human knowledge. Visit any decent library and consult some of the specialized reference books and you will find information which is not on any website (or at least not freely available), and is unlikely ever to find its way onto the web (except onto Wikipedia, of course). For example: a search engine may find hundreds of pictures of a particular butterfly but no detail regarding its taxonomic status, breeding biology, range or even its size (all of which are details you would expect of a decent encyclopedia).
You get the idea. Deco 01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that this is already covered by A1. By definition, an article that is plainly about a fictional character and yet does not cite (or provide enough information to determine) the fictional universe from which the character comes is not providing enough context to allow expansion. --Aquillion 08:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In the case I mentioned above, "Darth Pyre", it was a fake Star Wars character, so there was an associated fictional universe, just no actual fiction relating to it (beyond the article itself). Postdlf 16:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How speedy should speedy deletion be?

One issue I have with speedy delete is that some deleters are either not checking the creation time before deleting an article or they seem to think that an article should be written instantaneously. If an article has any potential at all for being discovered by other users it should be left a few weeks or even a few months before deletion.

Many of us use the "pick at your food" method of writing. I make a little stub or a lot of little stubs and then I come back next weekend or next week and pick at it some more. The wikipedians who write like me are underrepresented in discusions about policy because we would rather spend the little wiki time we have picking at our articles instead of engaging in policy discussions.

(If you don't like my slow picking method of article writing then please give me a grant and I'll quit my job and work on wikipedia full time.)

My proposal is there is a legal issue, e.g. plagerism, child porn or slander, there should be a tag and a one month waiting period before deleting like the 7 day tag placed on fair use images not connected to an article.

--Gbleem 08:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a useful template for editors like you. It's called {{underconstruction}}. Just slap it on whenever you save in incomplete page — it lets us Newpages patrollers know that the article may not be quite ready for prime time yet. I agree that that it ought to be better publicized, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally i prefer {{inuse}} but it seerves the same purpose. When you start workign on an article include {{inuse}} at the top, and remove it only when you save a version that is at least a decent stub and desn't qualify for a speedy delete. Otherwise, when you press save, you are sayign that an article is good enough that a random user can see it, and that a new page patroller will not be tempted to mark it for speedy delete. i do a fair amount of new-page patrol, and I not infrequently tag pages for speedy delete within minutes after they are created -- but I also not infreqiuently expand or cleanup articles, soemtimes removing speedy tags that others have placed. DES (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You could also write your artilces a bit at a time off-line and only post them when they are done enough to not be speedyable. i have done that with several articles. DES (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to keep anything on my computer and others can't contribute. --Gbleem 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of putting a bunch of tags on the article when it is obvious it is under construction.
Then you will sinmply have to add at least enought to make a valid stub -- three or four sentances with some indiaction of context and a stub tag should be enough to avoid speedy deletion, and that does not seem too much to ask in one edit anyway. You could also put a note that you plan to expand an article later on its talk page, but that is not guarenteed to save an article from speedy deletion, although an admin is supposed to look at the talk page before deleting. Good luck. DES (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I could also buy him a bottle of wine and send him a McDonald's gift card but maybe a clarrification or policy change would prevent some bad deletes. I went throught the undelete process on a few but I'm sure other people just walked away from wikipedia. One thing that made wikipedia grow so fast is the low barrier to participation. You don't have to learn how to navigate a complex buracracy to participate. --Gbleem 18:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not so obvious that an article is under construction, and if you like to piece your articles together word by word, you can always use temporary user pages (safely out of the main article namespace, where random users would normally arrive at). Sometimes a brand new article with just a few words appears that says too little to even serve as a useful stub: if a Wikipedian finds one listed in Recent Changes or New Pages, then it will probably be fixed, tagged to categorize the article's problems/state, or deleted in fairly short order, on the other hand, sometimes an article slips by and sits unseen, in poor shape for a long time, which is bad -- since at least if the title is a redlink in other articles that come to mention the subject, readers know that the article has not been written yet, otherwise, unlabelled these "under construction articles" may be mistaken for actual articles. Having no article by a title is better than something unusable by the title that looks tacky for readers such as a 'two-word' article... And the article pages are for readers not editors -- if you want to save something that's in such bad shape that it won't make a decent article, without labelling it as such, then use a talk page or user page... --Mysidia (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes to A7

I have removed "This only applies to articles that are likely to have a consensus to delete in an AFD." from A7, since:

  1. it adds unnecessary complication
  2. A7 already mentions that controversial cases should go to AfD
  3. most importantly, it states the patently obvious

I have at least some faith in the ability of Wikipedia admins to take this into account anyway, without having to be explicitly told to do so. Chris talk back 12:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Experience shows that many read the same thing different ways. The extra wording avoids extending CSD to things that would survive an AFD. I have no doubt some would like to speedy things that they think would survive an AFD. At worst its being redundant, which is rather harmless. --Rob 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

O ye of little faith ...
In general, the extra wording suggests that somehow the criterion is particularly dangerous and should be handled with more care than any other criterion, when in reality they should all be handled with care, something of which the admins are well aware. We should restrict the letter of the criteria to enough material to explain the spirit of them, without unnecessary complication which, as I said, states the obvious. There's also the fact that it's rather heavily loaded. Chris talk back 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
A7 is different than other criteria, and wording should be different. For other "General" and "Article" criteria, the survivability of the topic on AFD is often insignficant. Nonsense, attacks, blatant copyvios, and such don't need such a qualifier. If somebody writes a pure attack on an organization, and there's no other edit history but the attack (no useful content), then an admin can and should delete, regardless of the fact that the organization might easily prevail in an AFD. If not worded properly, A7 can be used to define what topics are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, which it should not. Its simply here to recognize what's already generally deleted by AFD (with guidelines and policies of different types of groups set-out elsewhere), and to allow their prompt removal. The general desire to make notability a universal criteria for deletion should (initially) be done through Wikipedia:Notability proposal not here. CSD should not lead deletion policy. The order should general be policy=>guidelines=>AFD precident=>CSD. If I'm wrong and " states the patently obvious..." then there's no harm. --Rob 17:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not have the power to see into the future. The criterion is very simple: is there an assertion of note. Yes/No. If Yes, don't delete, but AfD if you like as usual, if No, then delete. Admins should use their brains in reaching a No conclusion, but they do not need to reach into the future, Yoda-like. -Splashtalk 17:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't like this criterion. Perhaps a need for it has emerged, but we've always maintained that notability is too subjective for a single editor to determine — and just because an article does not assert the notability of its subject doesn't necessarily mean the subject isn't notable (as in "Blah was a 17th century mathematician who studied trigonometric identities."). I think some of these should be expanded rather than deleted. But I guess that's just common sense. Deco 18:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
If you dispute an A7 speedy, you can recreate it and place it on AFD per the policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Rob's point is that in the case of A7, "notability" is defined functionally via AFD. It's not up to the admin to implement their own personal interpretation of notability, but rather to implement the Wikipedia standard of notability that precedents on AFD at least sketch out. I think this is rather implied by what's there already, because that's the only thing "notability" can possibly mean in this instance, but if necessary it could be made clearer. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a misinterpretation of the rule. The rule does not permit speedy-deleting of non-notable articles; no rule does. It only permits speedy-deleting of articles which themselves make no claim of describing a notable subject. The concept would be that these are easier to identify objectively. Deco 21:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how you can get that from what I said; I didn't even mention the rule. I'm talking about what "notability" means, not only here but in all Wikipedia policy where it is ever likely to appear. What constitutes "notability" is effectively determined by AFD. So "claim of notability" should be read as, "the article claims something which, if true, would be interpreted as a claim of notability by AFD," and the CSD should be employed where it is obvious that NO claim in the article would be judged by AFD to make the subject notable. Thus "X is a high school student at Y high school" is read as not making a claim of notability and would be speedy deleted while "X is a college professor at Y university" or "X was King of Togo" would probably be sent to AFD. Terms like importance, significance, and notability aren't actually defined on WP, they can only be read as reflecting the concepts that the community has generated via discussion at AFD and other related pages. Otherwise, A7 is saying to the admin, "delete this if you don't think it makes a claim of notability," which is pretty much license to delete any page about a real person. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. --Rob 21:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I see now — it didn't occur to me that the terminology used in the rule itself was vaguely defined. I would personally assign "notability" a liberal interpretation in this context; I would allow any article that so much as infers that the subject is notable. But I guess that would be a natural inclusionist interpretation. Your definition is good too. Deco 08:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Christopher Parham's comments above. However some have intrepted A7 to mean only "it may be deleted if it says nothing that has the form of a claim of notability, no mater how improbable or how likely to be discounted at AfD." In particualr soem people have opined that "X is a notable college professor" (with no additional content) or even sinply "X is notable." constitutes a claime of notability sufficient to prevent speedy deletion. DES (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I should add that if an article said only "X is a professor at Y university" without indicating why X was a notable professor, i would tag it with {{nn-bio}}. DES (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The exact text of the proposal that was passed suggests that college professors may be individually notable: "People such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker." So I would refrain from tagging any such articles for speedy deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • They may be. Or they may not be. There are hundreds of thousands of college professroes in North America alone, and many of them are in no way notable. In any case, my long-standing rule is that an articel that merely says that a person has a particular job, such as college professor or corporate vice-president or game designer, without more is not a claim of notability, and I routinely tag such articles for speedy deletion, and will contnue to do so. i have expressed my position on this matter at considerable length previously, and have not been impressed by any counter-arguments offered to date. DES (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • For a concrete example, consider the DRV case for Brian Walters that came up a few days ago on DRV: most participants in the disucssion who talk about the speedy said the original article was non-notable, although the text asserted its subject was a "prominent barrister", with only Tony Sidaway arguing this did in fact constitute a claim of notability. I take it DES is saying he would nn-bio such an article if he saw it. --- Charles Stewart 20:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes that is exactly what I am saying. IMO that was a 100% valid speedy, although the current state of the areticle in no way allows an A7 speedy delete. DES (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a problem with A7. It encourages people to speedy articles which they openly admit can be improved. It should be clarifoed so that editors don't ever speedy articles that make a claim of notability, as the original version of Brian Walters did. The onus really is on the deleter to ensure that he isn't deleting an article that he shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. thje onus is on the artice creator to give some indication of why the subject is worth an article. I admit, after the fact, that the Brian Walters article was improved. (I might add that I have removed speedy tags from and improvbed more articels than i have deleted.) But the original artilce was effectivly of no value to the final improvement, and the current articel could jsut as easily have been created afdter a deletion and a placement on Requested Articles. Tony Sidaway speaks of "collateral damage" and "loss of valid articles". I claim thjat articels such as the original version of Brian Walters are of no value, and their deletion is no loss to wikipedia. it is true that some people are improperly applying A7 to articles where it should not be placed -- Tony cites several examples below. But I cna't count the number of times I have removed an improperly placed {{nonsense}} and almost as common is an impropoerly placed {{db-empty}}. The "colleteral damge" from thsoe spedy criteria is far higher. Yes, we need to educate people not to apply speedy tags to articles that do not qualify. But that is true for all speedy criteria, and IMO is if anything much less of a problem with A7 than with several other criteria, including G1 and G4. (I have quite a number of times seen a {{db-repost}} tag on an article where a previous articel by the same title but with quite different content, had been previosuly deleted.) DES (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Being one of the two people who actually expanded the article, I can absolutely guarantee you that the original version of Brian Walters was not of "no value," and indeed was pretty much entirely the reason the article in its current state is on Wikipedia today. We simply wouldn't have this article in the first place unless a user who actually knew about the guy added it; the rest of the information I assume came simply from online search (and speaking for Tony I might be wrong on this, but it doesn't really affect my point). The article made a claim of notability (unless "prominent Melbourne barrister" doesn't do it for you), and provided enough context to be easily expandable; alternately, one could have asked the creator to expand it, which nobody did. Instead of engaging in any of these constructive behaviors, however, the choice is simply to destroy if doing so is remotely justifiable. This attitude is not acceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would also have to agree that the original version of Brian Walters should not have been speedied, and that this criterion needs rewriting quite heavily to avoid people in any way misunderstanding what a claim of notability is. Mary Welsh Hemingway is another article that recently got tagged as a speedy candidate under this criterion, as was the original version of Roddy Llewellyn, which it is likely would not exist now if that article had not been created and then expanded. It is worth bearing in mind that even a one sentence article is worthy of inclusion if the person is notable, by which I mean there is a liklihood someone unrelated to the person is going to run across the name and turn to us for information. If we keep speedying articles of short length simply because we do we are going to start deterring people from contributing. And the onus isn't on the article creator to give some indication of why the subject is worth an article, it is on the tagger to ensure that any information within the article is not a claim of notability. Perhaps we need to clarify these tags with the phrase If in doubt, do not tag. Hiding talk 16:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's not add more rhetoric that won't actually be listened to, ok? People don't follow the simplest of instructions, so adding more won't make much difference. The kind of preceding comments rather misunderstand the means by which A7 was framed. It was not intended to put the onus of notability on the writer of the article. The intent was to enable speedy for those articles where the writer would not be able to include an assertion of note. Now clearly, "Splash is a notable Wikipedian" is trivially an assertion of note, but only by means of adjective. It does not take more than an ounce or two of common sense to get to the fact that the assertion of note is intended to be inherent in what the article is about and what it says, rather than layered artificially on top. Because that kind of notability can't be included in article about my incredibly fantastic (ex-)girlfriend, but it can be in an article about the founder of, say, Fox News or something. See the difference? -Splashtalk 17:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm not entirely clear who or what you are addressing here Splash. This was always an ambiguous criterion, since it relied on subjective definitions of assertions of notability. If shagging a princess or being married to Hemingway are not, in some people's opinions, assertions of notability, then this criterion is too ambiguous. Any criterion that relies on common sense must, by definition, be too ambiguous, since common sense is itself a subjective value. To me, this criterion is too open to misinterpretation and should be removed. Hiding talk 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Single Link Attack

When is a single link an attack? I linked a self described pedophile to a pedophilia organization. Is there attack criteria? --Gbleem 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an attack criterion, but it only applies to pages created solely for the purpose fo disparaging their subject. The question is of intent — if your information is accurate and your intent is to inform, then you are not in violation. Just make sure you have your facts straight when adding controversial information, and include some verifiable quotes if you can. Deco 18:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD G4 ambiguous?

WP:DRV#Right to exist showed a diversity of opinions on when a newly created article counts as being "a substantially identical copy" of a deleted article. The DRV concerned an article that was rewritten by hand, but which seemed mostly to consist of claims that were in the deleted article , and which had roughly the same structure. If G4 is ambiguous, we should probably tighten the wording, or provide an example. --- Charles Stewart 21:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately "substantially similar" requires a judgement call on borderline cases. i can't think of any wording that wouldn't require a judgement call on borderline cases, that's why editors are humans, not AIs. If anyone can think of wording that makes the desired distinction clearer, and offers help to the person considering whether to tag for, or delete under G4, feel free to propose it. Note that a long legislative code is not going to be clearer, IMO. The only way never to have a disagreement is to have a single person whose judgement always rules, and that doesn't scale well and has other problems. DES (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but it was surprising to me that admins who have spent a long time alongside each other on VfU/DRV should not have reached a working consensus on this. Maybe a List of borderline CSD cases is a good idea? --- Charles Stewart 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
DRV in particular has a set of long-standing philosophical disputes, people on the same side of those may have reached a working consensus, but DRV as a whole has not. DES (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

close AfD when you speedy something?

If an article which is listed on AfD (as indicated by and afd tag in the article) gets speedied, shouldn't the closing admin take care to close the AfD subpage as well? From what I've seen this gets done about 50% of the time -- coudn't the software or a user script help? Jamie 10:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes this should always be done. I have done it on several ocasions, and it doesn't take very long. A user script to more or less automate the process could be created, if anyone wants to. DES (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of G3?

Because of the amount of garbage that comes up and has to be filtered through WP:AFD, we are seeing more and more {{deletebecause|something}} tags being used by editors for things where we don't have any matching criteria in WP:CSD. The article usually deserves a delete, even a speedy, and admins often speedy on this basis.

The most obvious of these are spam, blatant hoaxes, and complete bollocks. I'm guessing that the editors are interpereting these as vandalism under CSD G3. My question is, if these are clearly valid speedies, should we update G3 to make this explict? Part of the point in CSD is that the rules should be easy to apply, with minimal need for judgment calls, so that the deletion be speedy and uncontroversial.

Jamie 12:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please read WP:VAND and the various examples of vandalism. Since you didn't provide links to articles I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about, but WP:VAND seems to cover it. Radiant_>|< 13:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD A7 and collateral damage

A copy of this was also posted on WikiEN-L

It's been a while since I did a speedy patrol to check how our newpages patrollers were handling the A7 "no assertion of notability" criterion. I was rather shocked. by what I encountered in two short bouts of patrolling this morning and at lunchtime.

In the following, I list *only* the points of notability that were contained in the articles at the time they were speedied as"non-notable".

  • Michael Viscardi: child prodigy, winner of the 2005 Siemens Westinghouse Competition, won $100,000 in scholarships.
  • Marissa Siketa: author put it up for deletion as a misspelt article. Should have been redirected to Marisa Siketa. Actress in the popular and longrunning Australian soap opera Neighbours.

The patrollers performing these deletions are all good fellows and are doing an excellent job, but there seems to be a considerable price in collateral damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's seven articles out of how many, Tony? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, a few hundred. I'm not saying we mustn't delete stuff, but the above suggests that there is a considerable cost to this. Not one of those articles was deletable, or even came close to being deletable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, people make mistakes. I'd personally be in favor of a speedy process that tried to get 2 or 3 sets of eyeballs to agree to deletion. First one to spot it puts a speedy tag, second one puts a note concurring on the talk page, third one actually deletes it, or something along those lines. I'm not saying try to make this "policy", but maybe we just encourage people to do it that way. Of course, completely obvious junk could still be deleted on sight. In such cases, talk pages would be kept rather than deleted with the article, as they'd contain good information, visible to anyone, about why the article was deleted. Friday (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ever since this current experiment with anons not being able to create pages, it seems like for every dozen pages I see that are legitimately speedyable, I have to remove tags from at least two or three—mostly instances like Tony has cited where a clear claim to notability has been stated. So now I try to do basically what you've suggested. Most of what I delete is from browsing CAT:CSD, so I'm sure at least one other person has seen it. Likewise, I try not to delete pages that I myself have tagged, unless it's patent nonsense (which nowadays does not seem to last long enough for me to see!). My main concern now is no longer the volume of deletions (thanks to this experiment) but the number of people who are tagging articles but do not seem to fully understand the criteria. HorsePunchKid 2005-12-15 21:38:15Z

To err is human, to restore is easy. 4 those 7 were by Jeffrey O. Gustafson who has had quite a number of speedies reversed since his RfA, and I hope he is gradually learning. To call people fools when you disagree with them is usually the course of action to follow. -Splashtalk 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess NPA doesn't apply to the mailing list, eh? More reason why I don't bother with it. android79 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I persoanlly favor a tag and bag method -- indeed I would favot making it policy or at least a stroing guideline for all but obvious simple vandalism -- a look at my deletions will show that I act on this policy. That is, i pretty much never speedy delete a page unless soemone else has already tagged it and the tag is in place when i delete. (I only make exceptions for veery clear-cut vandalism.) I wish every admin could say the same. DES (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Spash, restoring is easy if you're an admin, but that's a small fraction of Wikipedia. who already has to much control over Wikipedia content. That ignores the vast majority of Wikiedians (e.g. non-admins) can do almost nothing to review any of these, or do anything to correct it. If somebody creates a new article on a notable person and it's speedied, few will ever know, as its not visible. Non-admins can't even see the old content, as its hidden. If its a full length article, the delete summary won't fully explain the contents (like it can for sub-stubs). Non-admins need to be able to review the content of articles deleted, just like admins. The genius of Wikipedia is that it recognizes that everybody makes mistakes, but that's handled ok, if those mistakes are easily found and reversed in an open public sytem. As long we have this secretive system, of blind trust of an elite group, we have a serious problem. With the recent substantial expansion of Wikipedia to include groups of people, many more *notable* articles are at risk. --Rob 17:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with Splash that David can be undiplomatic in his description of proponents of what he considers to be unwise policy changes.

I seem to recall that a number of those speedy deletions were previously tagged by third parties. Worse, Brian Brolly was deleted a second time by a third party while I was wikifying it, even though it clearly described Brolly's pivotal involvement in at least two major media ventures. I think we need more eyes on the deletion log. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is unclear, I'm not saying that I think those speedies were particularly good, although I can see why some of them attracted the "wrong kind" of attention. Maybe we should add an urging somewhere for people to stubbify rubbishy articles rather than tag/delete them. I do think, though, that A7 does serve the purpose for which it was created: to allow us to shoot-on-sight articles about boyfriends, girlfriends and the like. It also, when misapplied, catches innocent articles (and their contributors). That is the fault of the misappliers rather than the criterion itself. It's not clear to me how else we might phrase it, and I do note that other phrasings have previously been rejected. -Splashtalk 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it has been successful in stopping girlfriend, schoolfriend and wannabe articles. Another bad speedy: Charles Pellegrino. This one was tagged and bagged, so two people saw it and still wrongly believed it to be speediable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I'm looking for volunteers to help me with recovery of out-of-process speedies. I have done it as an occasional thing, but perhaps I will make it more regular; I sometimes enjoy the cleanup work that is involved, and I get more satisfaction out of salvaging potentially good articles from deletion than I do from editing established ones. I'll probably start a project page at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion patrol and take it from there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll sign up, I do a lot of that, although it's not much fun seeing fixable good-faith contributions get slammed. Unfortunately non-admins can't see what was in deleted articles, so you have to hope that deleting admins leave some contents in the edit summary. Kappa 17:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of requiring a separate tagger and deleter. Two admins in combination are rarely wrong about what's speedy-deletable (conspiracy aside). Non-notability even in this limited sense is subjective and so requires caution. I'm glad at least that the policy is clear that this applies only to people — I once had a dictdef article deleted out from under me while I was adding the "move to wiktionary" tag. Bah. Deco 00:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Second this idea. Having another pair of eyes look at the article can only increase the "correctness" of the CSD tag. Checks and balances are good. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a good safety mechanism for most (not all) A7s is to allow a 24-hour (or whatever) pause between tag and deletion. A new tag/category could be made, which uses date/time as the sorting parameter (we could keep the existing Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and add Category:Candidates for speedy deletion sorted by date-time). I'm pretty sure this date/time paramater can be added, without requiring a tagger to actually type it in. Admins would only delete the oldest ones in the category, while everybody else could review the newer additions to the category, to see if something needs "saving". --Rob 01:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then it's not speedy, is it? That starts to smell more like an express-lane version of AfD. I like the separate tagger and deleter idea better. Perhaps if we didn't need to stretch the rules so much on A7 (for bands, groups, websites, companies....) it could be applied more accurately. Jamie 04:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is not (despite it's name) nessesarily about speed (except in cases of clear vandalism, copyvios and such). It's about not having to seek a consensus on each and every deletion first if the object falls within scertain narrow parameters. Changing a criterea to instruct admins not to delete articles under A7 untill it's at least 24 hours old (or whatever) or not rely hurt the "spirit" of speedy deletion (though some will cry "instruction creep"), we already do that with categories, and many image critereas require the image to be tagged for 7 days before they are deleted. Problem is it would require people to insert the date because there is currently no way to have a template automaticaly include the date of tagging, if you use subst or hard code a ~~~~~ string in the template it's expanded in the template and all subsequent use will be hard coded with that date, if you just put in a {{CURRENTDATE}} it will change whenever the page using it is updated. --Sherool (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing that would help is if all admins were in the habit of writing edit summaries that clearly indicate the grounds for deletion. On WP:DRV one frequently has to do a lot of tealeaf reading to figure out why the admin actually speedied the article. I'm guessing this would make speedy patrol that much easier. --- Charles Stewart 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Even the admins who do cite CSD often do play fast-and-loose with the rules. If a subject is not notable they'll use A7, even if the article asserts that the subject is notable or even if it's not a bio. If they don't understand the article they might use "nonsense". They might delete a "copyright violation" that in fact is being donated by the person who wrote the content. You get the idea. Deco 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you think that admins are often just ignorant thugs. Tell us something new. -Splashtalk 18:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't insulting admins. I am an admin, and I have made unreasonable deletions myself. Just saying that there is reasonable justification for a double-check on speedy deletions. Deco 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done a hell of a lot of scrutiny of speedy deletions, and in general I'm very happy with the quality and I have no complaints about the speed. I think the best solution to any problems is to have the speedy patrol, which is now set up and has acquired several members. I don't think speedy deletion is broken so I don't think it should be mended. There are quality issues and these can be handled best after deletion, and by polite feedback to the administrators doing speedies we improve their performance. --18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Without making changes to the system, the only people who can do the patrolling effectively are fellow admins. That 's just having the same people do what they've always been free to do. I don't understand how you can suggest feedback to admins after deletion is a solution. What is the basis of the feeback? Without seeing the content, there's nothing to comment on. --Rob 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
One admin can feed back to another (tinc) and, out of courtesy in reversing someone else's deletion should do so. Also, oftentimes the salient parts of a speedied article are visible to everyone in the deletion summary, when MediaWiki puts it there. Other times, well, maybe a little trust here and there wouldn't hurt. The overwhelming majority of speedies are fine — but I don't really expect that statement to be trusted. We only ever hear about the ones that go wrong; don't extrapolate from that that every speedy is wrong. -Splashtalk 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For the substubs, they're often reviewable, as the contents actually fit in the edit summary. But substubs are insignificant, as even if a mistake is made, little work is lost, and its easier to recreate then request an undelete. The serious issue is for longer articles, where an admin may, in good faith, miss critical points. Also, this defensiveness illustrated above, shows part of the problem. One reason speedies aren't easily reviewed, is knowledge that the admin is likely to be defensive if any is questioned. In this discussion an admin seems to be saying, "You can't see what we admins see, but if you could see what we see, then you would know that you don't need to see what we see.". But, there's never been an explanation of why we can't see what's to be deleted, even for a breif period of time (as the 24-hour delay I suggested above). Splash, I'm not suggesting you or fellow admins, are untrustworthy (as you seem to take the comments). I'm suggesting you're human like me, make honest mistakes like me, and need actions with serious consequences reviewed by others, just as all my edits are and should be reviewable by *all* others like you. --Rob 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a neverending question though. We have AfDs last 5 days, and people complain that isn't long enough. We have speedies sometimes in CAT:CSD for a number of hours, and people say that's not long enough. If we make it 24 hours (apart from having to hold on to "zOMG PWNED" for 24 hours), people will just say "but 24 hours isn't very long at all, why not make it 5 days like AfD?". Then, the mirrors and Google will pick up all the trash we get. Even 24 hours is long enough for content to get Google-spidered and mirrored. Speedy is there to remove the very worst, the most damaging content quickly, not deliberatively. Speedies are visible until they are deleted and many are partially visible after that; that's the best that can reasonably be done. Unless there is wholesale reform, but that's not being talk about here. And, yes, I think statements like "having the same people do what they've always been free to do" is a fairly clear implication that what they've been free to do is bad. -Splashtalk 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree that virtually all speedies are good (and without it we would be in a bad place), and consequently that we are making a mistake in not allowing more articles to be speedied. But the problem, as I see it, is that our existing processes deliberately drive up the cost of contesting potentially bad speedies; for instance, by users demanding that such contests go through WP:DRV, which is patently the wrong place for such a discussion. Our processes amplify the cost of admin errors; this is why we only hear about the ones that go wrong, and is also partly why the community is unwilling to trust admins with greater freedom in making speedy deletions. See User:Christopherparham/DR for more along these lines and my proposed solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a required review of every speedy deletion afterwards, the speedy deletion would be considered tentative until seconded by someone other than the person to perform the delete? It seems like the Speedy Deletion rules should make it clear that AFD has priority over speedy deletion, and if objections have been raised about the speedy deleting an article, the CSD do not apply and it is necessary that Afd be the method be used instead of Speedy Deletion to decide on the disposition of the deletion request. --Mysidia (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A speedy compromise

For those concerned about speedies done too soon after an article is made, and/or speedies that just might be contested or turn into something real, I invite you to check out Rob Hooper (specifically this version, in case it changes). I applied a template to it which effectively "deletes" it in a transparent way. It looked like a speedy to me, but I chose to err on the side of caution. If it doesn't turn into something real, I'll come back to it and speedy it later. Or, whoever looks at it before then and decides it's junk can speedy it too. Whoever lokos at it and decides it can turn into something useful is welcome to do that, also. This seems like a fairly painless way to get more eyeballs on speedy candidates before they're actually deleted. Friday (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Damn. I should have used a somewhat less-speediable example. Friday (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this just exactly the same thing as the proposed "can only speedy delete articles tagged by another user"? If someone prefers to expand it, they can just remove the tag. I don't think it's so bad leaving the content visible as long as a big ugly box proclaims it to be wrong. Deco 01:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
How does this proposal differ from addnig a {{nn-bio}} tag to it, putting in a category and then waiting for either of the two actions you anticipate? -Splashtalk 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
(ec) When used to delay a speedy, it does little that the good ol' speedy templates don't already do, other than attempt to explain the options more clearly. The content could be left visible by whoever uses it, if they so chose. It's more generic than a speedy tag; it can be used in situations that don't call for a speedy as well. Friday (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think which tag used is minor. What would be good, is the approach (you used) of replacing the entire article contents with the notice. Immediately (but reversably) removing the contents deals with the problem of Google cache, makes clear there's something wrong to the author, avoids pollution of the relevant category; avoids us publishing misinformation (as nn-bios are often unverifiable), and avoids generally embarrassment of us publishing sillieness; yet it's still reviewable/fixable by all Wikipedians who wish to do so. --Rob 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(ec) Attempt at better explanation: Yes, for our speedying purposes, you can use it just like a speedy tag. That's why I mentioned it here. But why a new template then? The advantage I see to a generic tag like this is that the language used leaves the ultimate disposition of the article completely open-ended. When applied skillfully, it works as well as anything else and is no more difficult. If applied clumsily, perhaps by a novice, I feel the potential for collateral damage is somewhat reduced by the ambiguous language. Friday (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that erroneous speedies are performed as a consequence of well-intentioned judgement errors made in haste by an admin who is doubtlessly looking at his/her Nth CSD candidate of the day. I don't believe it's possible to correct this particular type of error with a mere template, because any template will be quickly relegated to mental background noise by the same folks making erroneous speedy deletes in the first place.
Furthermore, this is not an urgent problem which requires immediate, wide-ranging changes to templates and processes. Tony Sidaway's Speedy Deletion Patrol seems, at least currently, to be the solution which most fits the magnitude of the current problem. I say we give that a chance to work itself for a while before seeking more invasive solutions. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well articulated by User:Extreme Unction. Amen to that. --Gurubrahma 14:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It's just a little template, there for anyone who chooses to use it. I don't see that it's invasive in any way; it doesn't run around biting people on its own accord or anything. But I definitely agree that no template will cure judgement errors; I didn't make it for that purpose. The template was there and had a purpose already; I just saw that it could be used to delay speedies so I thought I'd throw it out here as an idea. Some new editors are good at knowing "this article is horribly wrong and should not be", but aren't yet familiar with all the various processes. So I personally see some good value in a generic "get rid of this for now in a reversible way" template for reasons explained by Rob above. Anyone who doesn't like it can ignore it, and nothing bad will happen. Friday (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

CSD I6 - A new proposal

Hi, I propose I6 as under

Temporary upload - Images uploaded from commons for main page images can be speedy deleted under this category once the image is definitely off the main page.

Reason: As of now, we use {{C-uploaded}} for temporary uploads and speedy delete those once they are off mainpage as indicated on that template. But sometimes admins forget to do it. Also, it would be better to have a formal instruction/category for such a task. Having I6 helps non-admins to flag it off; also, admins can just quote a two-letter reason for deletion. Please note that I1 is for reverse direction and hence doesn't fit in. I2 to I5 look at totally different types of images. Hence, I propose I6. Thanks. --Gurubrahma 05:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This would include {{m-cropped}} images also. --Gurubrahma 11:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Reworded I1 accordingly, seems to me a case of the obvious. Radiant_>|< 13:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


(not using CSD I6, being discussed above)

I'd like to float the idea of having a speedy deletion criteria to couplw tih CSD A7 which allows admins to get rid of photos used in non-notable bios. These photos are rarely for semi-notable people where biographies are being written, but rather for autobiographies by web-bloggers or MySpace users. It just makes sense that if someone can have their bio speedy deleted as vanity, then putting up images to accompany those articles should also be covered. So, with rough wording:

CSD I7. Images of unremarkable people. Any image used to accompany an article deleted under CSD A7, which is not used in any other article, may be speedy deleted if used solely to illustrate an article about a real person or persons that does not assert their importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to IFD instead.

Thoughts? The wording can change if needed. Harro5 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"...if used solely to illustrate that article." It can stop there, the rest is necessarily redundant with A7. And, personally, I oftentimes take the view that such pictures are vandalism and remove them with the article. I don't see the need for pointless bureaucracy over a picture of a teenager in a monkey suit playing his dad's guitar. Or similar. One of the few times I might actually rely upon WP:IAR. -Splashtalk 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I too just delete these photos, knowing it's highly unlikely anyone would oppose this action, but it then sets the rule in stone. Anyway, it's just a proposal. I agree that the wording could stop where you suggest. Harro5 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I also delete those photos, and would like the short wording. r3m0t talk 18:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This sounds reasonable. Maybe extend to also cover images put on attack pages? I'm not sure if that occurs a lot. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I like this idea, and I agree with Splash's suggested modification to your wording. Nandesuka 13:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Many of these pictures can be deleted because the uploader doesn't specify a suitable license or the uploader has no authority to license the material, not being the owner. If they are the owner, however, and they do release the material, it might just be a good idea to keep it around and see if we can find a use for it, in cases where the image actually has marginal informational value. Deco 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One poroblem is, soemtimes we get articles properly speedied under A7, but shortly recreated with accurate statemetns of notability. For the text this is no problem, but since images can't be undeleted that might be an issue. In the case of the usually vamnity articel, the uploader will probably fail to explicitly specify source and/or copyright anyway, so simply using {{no source}} or {{no license}} will do the trick. I don't think we need this. On the other hand, something like "Images whose only use was to illustrate a deleted article, which have been tagged as orphaned for at least 14 days" might be a good idea. DES (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewording of A8 for clarity

I think A8 should be reworded so that it's clearer what a commercial content provider is and that advertising by its very definition cannot be counted (companies don't normally charge people to read their ads or sell ad space to other companies in their ads). Many of the improperly deleted articles are nominated and deleted in good faith. The changes are italicized and will not appear in the final version.

8. An article that is a blatant copyright infringement from a commercial content provider and meets these parameters:

  • Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider, which means they make money from the content itself, such as an encyclopedia or news service, advertising does not count and;
  • The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and;
  • Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely and;
  • The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).

Here is a completely reworded version:

8. An article that is a copyright infringement from a commercial content provider, which is a company that makes money directly from the content that has been copied. Content that advertises products, services or the company itself does not count. Also, the content from the first edit on is almost entirely copyrighted, no permission to use it has been asserted, is almost totally unwikified and it is less than 48 hours since the content was uploaded.

Is either one of these acceptable? -- Kjkolb 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to me. I would resist any change that empowers spammers by making it more difficult to delete spam. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the fact is that criterion A8, in its currently approved form, explicitly does not justify the speedy deletion of most kinds of spam. If you want to delete blatant spam, be my guest. But please don't cite A8 as the justification, since it isn't. Try G3 or A3 instead, or just cite WP:NOT and/or WP:IAR. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
But it does justify the deletion of some kinds of spam, and I would be reluctant to lose that justification.
Moreover, your proposed change would not provide any benefit that I can discern. I am not seeing a problem which would be solved by the changes you suggest. Perhaps you would care to provide a summary of the problems you believe this change would solve? → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The CCP part of A8 hobbles it into uselessness if it is to be observed properly (which it isn't). Why spend effort on it? -Splashtalk 18:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Reworded A8 to strike the CCP part (since nobody follows it anyway, obviously it's not consensual); struck the part about checking history (since that goes for all CSDs and is stated at the top), and struck 48-hour clause as instruction creep. Keeping the mirrors perfect is neither feasible nor our job. Radiant_>|< 13:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes, as they were very specificly included in the proposal that approved A*, which might well not have been approved without them (I for onew would have opposed it). You can't just remove them without broader consensus that a couple of people discussing this on this talk page -- I think a formal proposal is required. DES (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not every change to policy requires a formal proposal - indeed, if it's common sense, one can just go ahead. In particular, the part about "commercial content provider" is ill-understood by many and hardly followed by anyone, which strongly indicates it doesn't have consensus. The part about "checking the history" is redundant, since for any deletion the deleting admin must check the history. And the 48-hour clause is an entirely arbitrary cutoff point (also known as "instruction creep") and doesn't actually work against the "mirror problem" as it is intended (note 1.that Wikipedia mirrors are not commercial websites, or content providers, in the first place, 2.that improper content of mirrors is their problem, not ours, and 3.that we do not know when exactly mirrors draw their copies, so waiting an arbitrary amount of time is not going to alleviate that).Radiant_>|< 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You have misunderstood the point of the 48 hour clause. it is not to enable deletion of content form mirrors it is to avoid the problem of finding content from a wikipedia article dupliacted on an external site, and speedy deleteing it as a cpyvio, when it turns out that the site is a non-compliant mirror. The assumptrion was that an article first tagged withign 48 hours of its creation is unlikely to be mirrored. This is an anttempt to avoid false-positives. I have seen articels incorrectly tagged as copyvios when the source was a non-compliant mirror, so this does happen. If there is a better way to avoid such false positives, fine. There needs to be some such mechanism, however. DES (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to hear some arguments against the content of what I proposed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, thus if there are no reasonable counterarguments there's no reason to require a lengthy process before making the change (and I'm not saying there aren't any, just saying that I haven't heard any so far, please enlighten me). Radiant_>|< 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Answerd below. This is a case wher eI think that the Process is itself vital, just as a short dicussion on this page would not justify adding a compeltely new spedy criterion, it does not justify substantive changes that significantly broaden what can be speedied. The main substantive reason for these restricvtions was the desire to avoid false positives. See the discussion of the original proposal for lots of detail on the reasons behand them. That said, I would be willing to debate changes in a proper proposal to expand A8 -- it is not cast in stone. But I do not think a short talk page discussion is enough for any substantive expansion of any CSD -- CSDs must have clearly established widely-based consensus.DES (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not trying to change A8. Did you guys read the part where I said clarify? ;-) But seriously, please read this carefully. I was trying to reword it so that people don't misunderstand what a commercial content provider is, not change it. I want all copyright violations to be deleted regardless of the source. However, that is a separate discussion. Until we decide to drop the commercial content provider provision, we should make it absolutely clear what it is. A lot of people think commercial content provider means any business of any kind or anyone that claims copyright. See this AfD for one example. There are some people who ignore the provision outright, as well, but that's a discussion for discipline of editors or changing the criteria, not clarifying it.

A8 in its current form does absolutely nothing about spam or even a sub category of spam. Spam would be an advertisement and companies generally don't make money by charging people to read advertisements. It'd be like charging people to watch commercials on TV. A8 is about content that is generating money by itself, like an article from an encyclopedia or a newspaper. This can be done by charging for access (like full access on Britannica) or by selling ad space (like newspapers). An advertisement is selling something else, and it is not for sale, rent or any kind of money making thing.

Only copyrighted material from very specific places is allowed to be deleted. Very few copyright violations come from these sources, so A8 is not very useful. If you want to expand it to all copyright violations, you have my support. However, as I said before, that is not what this proposal is about. Sorry about all the bold, but I've tried to craft this response with careful wording and emphasis so that I'm not misunderstood like last time. -- Kjkolb 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible expansion of R2?

R2 provides for speedy deletion of redirects that point into User space from the main article space. Is there some reason why we couldn't/shouldn't expand this to cover all redirects pointing into user space that emerge from other namespaces? → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are a few userpages that are so widely known and used that they have a WP:TLA-type shortcut, i.e. a redir from Wikispace to userspace. The second reason is that it doesn't occur all that often. But in general your point is correct. Radiant_>|< 13:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is the existence of these few WP:TLA user pages of significant enough value that it's worth maintaining them as-is vs. expanding R2 in a logical fashion and finding some alternate method of addressing the few exceptions? → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not (and arguably, those pages could either be the obvious exception, or moved into Wikispace). Redirects from anywhere into userspace tend to get RFD'ed anyway. Radiant_>|< 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. And those nominations are problematic. They are almost always very obvious candidates for a speedy delete, but since the current CSD criteria requires that they be listed on RFD, the nomination can turn ugly. Expanding R2 in a useful way would ameliorate these problems. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My only possible problem with this would be things like WP:LAVT which redirects to User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool. Is there a way of making sure that this isn't speedied? Otherwise, I definately support the idea. --Celestianpower háblame 16:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason why User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool couldn't be moved to Wikipedia:Lupin Anti-Vandal Tool? (Note: this is a genuine question, not some sort of querulous back-handed attempt at a snarky response. For all I know, there are perfectly valid reasons why such a move would be ill-advised.)
In general, I don't see why not. The same applies to WP:CDVF. However, as in the case of WP:CCW there was opposition to leaving it in WP space, but it's popular and it's a pain to write out User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia. I'm sure that there are others (one more example I just thought of would be WP:BEEFSTEW, which is a popular userspace page with thoghts/opinions on school inclusions). Blackcap (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:LAVT is already technically speediable, since it's in the main namespace. (There's no WP: namespace.) All those pages consisting entirely of {{wi}} or {{deletedpage}} or even {{some infobox|various|parameters}} are technically speediable, too. Just because the criteria here say you're permitted to speedy a page doesn't mean that you must. —Cryptic (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary; redirects to userspace from other namespaces aren't really common enough that they're cluttering WP:RFD, and their deletion is more likely to be opposed by experienced users than redirects from the main namespace. Speedy deletion is only for frequent cases which would always be deleted with little or no opposition if they went through the full deletion process.

On the other hand, I could see a case for expanding R2 to redirects leading from the main namespace to any other namespace. These frequently show up at WP:RFD, and are nearly all deleted. There would need to be an exemption for shortcuts (WP:foo, WT:foo, CAT:CSD (are there others?) and so on). There are cross-namespace redirects that have been kept, though. (I'm thinking of NPOV, which I'm sure was listed at one point, though its deletion discussions apparently wasn't preserved.) Perhaps a template could be made for these cases along the lines of {{R from misspelling}}. —Cryptic (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. It's a pet peeve of mine. FreplySpang (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent change to A8

I notice this recent change to A8, apparently per a discussion above. The way I read the change, it seems that the 48h restriction has been dropped. Is this inteded? Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • As I stated two sections up, yes, it is intentional. Strict numerical limits are generally arbitrary, unwiki and instruction creep, and the main purpose for this limit was to only delete pages that haven't been passed on to mirrors yet. However, since we don't know when exactly mirrors draw their copies, the limit doesn't actually help. Also, mirrors taking over material that we delete is far from limited to this CSD clause, nor is it actually our problem. Radiant_>|< 14:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Second question about A8. When using {{db-copyvio}} do you blank the page too? Unlike {{copyvio}} which tells you to blank, current policy and practice woth {{db-copyvio}} seems unclear. Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • While it's no big deal, I'd say that you should not blank for db-copyvio. If the page is left intact, the deleting admin can quickly ascertain what's actually there. The point of blanking for regular copyvios is to remove the page quickly, but if it ends up speedily deleted it's also removed quickly anyway. Radiant_>|< 14:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would prefer that pages so tagged remain unblanked; less history digging when double-checking the copyvio claim. android79 14:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the above described change, pending a formal proposal and consensu for it. See my comments in the section above where this was discussed. DES (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • See above. Please give arguments against the chance, rather than merely requiring procedural grounds. Radiant_>|< 22:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I made those arguemtns, at length, during the discussions on the proposal that became A8. But at the moment I think the procedural grounds are far more important. People can't simply change CSD's to render things speedy deleteable that were explicitly excluded in the proposal that authorized the CSD. That is a form of baint and switch, it might even be called vote fraud. People were asked to supprot the whole proposal, and in a number of cases made it clear that their support hinged on the specific restrictions. To get consensus for a CSD that way, and thenm later edit the CSD to remove the restrictions without comperable visibility for that proposal, and gaining comperable consensuss, is no more acceptable than simply edithing to remove a CSD altogether because one dislikes it (as for example a fair number of people dislike A7), or than simply addign a new CSD based upon the agreement of a few people on this talk page.. The substantive reasons for the restrictions lie in the strong desire to avoid false-positives, and to avoid copyright paranoia. If a true proposal to change (broaden) this criterion were made, i might be persuaded to agree. But changing a CSD substantively (as oppsoed to tweakign the wording to make the intent clearer) by tuis sort of backdoor approach is simply out of the question. DES (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Okay, I'll consider writing a formal proposal after christmas. Radiant_>|< 23:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll be happy to discuss the merits when you do, and I will try not to be overly rigid about things. A major goal of mine here is preventing false-positives, since CSDs are supposed to be only for things clearly deletable, but I am willing to consier modifications to this criterion in the interst of making things work better, and if an altered version gains consensus, so be it. DES (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

G4 clause

Actually I support the removal of the last sentence of G4 - it is indeed rather redundant and confusing. Radiant_>|< 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. As I mentioned in the edit summary when I removed the line earlier, either the article you are deleting is a substantial recreation of previously deleted material, or it isn't. If it isn't, you shouldn't be using G4 as a justification for deletion. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, well, it was in much better shape before the recent (imo rather unfortunate) masticating of the CSDs. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive4#Some thoughts on the G4 criterion for an earlier discussion, and the history for the perfectly clear phrasing it used to have. Despite the suggestion-free complaints of Kim Bruning, the CSDs weren't broke, didn't need fixing and were in worse shape after the edit than before, principally because they were the then-current iteration rather than a first iteration, and several important details got lost in the process. -Splashtalk 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


A recent proposal to expand A7 to include groups of people (e.g. bands, families and clubs) on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7] reached 76% support in three weeks' time. Also, some of the oppose-voters objected to the wording rather than the intent. In other words consensus supports the proposal. I've modified A7 accordingly; if people have concerns about the wording, please discuss here. Radiant_>|< 22:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • How did organizations like schools get to be speedy deletion candidates? Kappa 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • They didn't. A school is not a band, family or club. Radiant_>|< 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • But it is an organization, of sorts. I'm glad that word is no longer being suggested. Kappa 01:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is getting out of hand. Please stop editing the CSDs at will. -Splashtalk 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've no objection to the reverts of my earlier edits (even though they were discussed on this talk page, they can always be discussed further). However, several people have objected because they weren't formal proposals. This A7 change was a formal proposal, discussed for a long time, put up for a formal vote in a highly visible place, linked from all over the wiki, and it got 76% support. That's entirely different. However, it's not supposed to be about schools, I've clarified that. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with not making it about schools specifically but schools shouldn't be exempt just because they are schools which is what I feel is becoming the issue here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It should be obvious that a school is not just a group of people. For instance, it also requires a rather large building, and a community mandate. I don't mind whether it's used as an example here or not; it should be patently obvious that speedy deletion of school articles goes straight against consensus. Radiant_>|< 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When the expansion to "groups" was made, i don't think most people considerd that that included "institutions" such as schools, companies, or governmetn departments. I have long argued that schools are not inherently notable But I think includign them in an expandaed A7 is just asking for trouble. DES (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If people feel that an institution is in fact a group, then we should use a different term. The intent as proposed is to keep out articles on bands, families and clubs. Not churches, nations, fruits or whatever else people might be able to associate with it. Radiant_>|< 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It said "...person or persons". I can't see anything wrong with that, but I can see lots wrong with a criterion that starts trying to construct a wikidictdef of what an organization is or is not. A proposal of that specificity needs thinking out in advance, not implementing as the result of an ad-hoc post to the village pump. -Splashtalk 23:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't an ad hoc post; this was discussed for about half a year. Most other CSDs use examples, I see no reason not to have examples on this one. It's not a dicdef. If you don't like examples you should also strike all other examples (e.g. the attack page, and patent nonsense ones), but that would make the page less clear. Radiant_>|< 23:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I entirely support the expansion, just not the explicit phraseology which was an ad hoc post to the village pump (rather than CSD talk, for example). You'll hear no objection from me to removing "OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11!oneone" from the end of A6 since it doesn't change anything. The list of examples in the draft of A7 does change things by being inclusive and exclusive rather than merely examplerous(sic). -Splashtalk 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, we need not define "groups" (that wasn't the intent), but I do believe it should be explicitly worded "person, group of people, band or club", because the articles affected are those about bands and clubs, and that's also the way it was proposed. Radiant_>|< 23:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • That seems reasonable to me, and it would seem to me rather perverse to interpret "person, group of people, band or club" to cover a school, company or institution. DES (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed a number of individuals in recent days speedy-deleting under A7 articles not about individuals or groups. This may be a problem. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you give some examples? howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Just caught this in the deletion logs: 11:43, December 21, 2005 FireFox deleted "I Like Anime" (CSD A7)Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Most of that article is about a NN group; the rest is about a podcast show created by that group. Borderline, but snowball. Radiant_>|< 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd rather be conservative on borderline cases. Gives the folks who want to completely dismantle the deletion process less to scream about. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, goodness, we had better mutter darkly about admin abuse and armageddon-by-speedy about that, hadn't we. As so seriously phrased above, "This may be a problem". -Splashtalk 20:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed with Extreme on this. It's a new rule and let's err on the side of caution for a while so we can get a feel of what kind of articles this is getting applied to before we start getting more liberal with the application. howcheng {chat} 22:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that admins who do substantial improper speedies (as opposed to an occasional honest mistake) should be censured. Radiant_>|< 22:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I regularly apply A7 to small websites and companies. r3m0t talk 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I would like to ask all the admins doing deletes to *please* always include edit summaries. A number of descriptions are only "CSD A7" (that's totally inadequate). Or the text of the *rule* is given (I already know that), but not a sample text from the article. Or simply give a concise statement of what the person is (e.g. student, prof, executive, politician, singer, whatever). Example:

# 02:15, 21 December 2005 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "William "Duke" Procter" (A7 - the subject is non-notable, no claim of notability is made)

This makes me curious, and wander what the reason is. Now, it turns out this was likely a valid speedy, as the person's only "claim to fame" was being one of the last WW1 vets[2] (note: I'm speculating, as I can't see the article contents). If the edit summary said "nn-bio: only claim of notability was being one of last WWI vets"; then I would be happy. I and others could look at that, understand why exactly the article was deleted, and not have to waste time double-checking with a Google search to know this. If more admins did good edit-summaries for good speedies, then we could all focus on the smaller number of potentially questionable speedies. Instead, any mistakes are likely lost in a sea of unexplained deletes (valid deletes, but unexplained). I don't see how we can have any discussion about the quality of individual A7 deletes, until we all know why things are getting A7 in individual cases. --Rob 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Good point, but a better place to mention this would be WP:AN, or the talk pages of individual admins that don't use those summaries. Radiant_>|< 15:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that if an article makes an assertion of notability it does not qualify under A7, therefore one cannot write "nn-bio: only claim of notability was being one of last WWI vets". Hiding talk 16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In theory yes, in practice no. The letter of the rule indicates any claim of notability counts. However, its common practice that absurd and hopeless claims are discounted. If somebody's claims is "X is the smartest professor in the world", that won't count. Some admins will speedy delete reality tv contestant as they consider it not to be claim of notability (but they wouldn't speedy a similiar TV actor). The handling of political office is tricky. Take the article "Mr. X is the head of Y" where Y may equal the school student body, schools PTA, school administration, school district, township counsel, city counsel, province, or country. Obviously, the first couple would be speedied, and the last ones wouldn't be. What distinguished them isn't the presence of a claim, but the quality of the the claim. By having a proper edit summary say "nn-bio: only claim is subject is head of Y" I'll know where the line is being drawn. Similiar examples would apply for "Mr. X won Award Y". If Y is "Best speller is Mrs. Crabapple's class" that would be a likely speedy, but I would just like the edit summary to read "nn-bio: only claim is best speller in class". If the edit summary read "nn-bio: only claim is best speller in Competition X" then I could find out if Competition X is notable, and possibly challenge the speedy. Only with edit summaries is all this reviewable. --Rob 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Regardless of theory and practise, that is the criterion, and any claim of notability should mean the article is not speedied under this clause. However, I would agree relevant content should be placed in the edit summary, but I again make the point that any claim for notability means an article should not be speedied, regardless of the perceived worthiness of the claim. This was made clear in the vote and discussion to adopt this criterion and any change to introduce a concept of allowable notability to this criterion challenges the consensus reached there. The community decided that the quality of a claim is something which can only be decided on VFD, and that no line should be drawn. Hiding talk 05:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Normally when deleting speedies, i have felt it sufficent to indicate the criterion (or soemtimes criteria when more than one applies) under which i am deleting. "Nonsense" or "attack page" or "No context" or "talk page of deleted page" seem sufficient to me -- when the software fills in the start of the content (as it usualy but not always does) this helps. But I can see that for A7 soemthing more is needed, or at least could be helpful. I'll try to insert that soemthing more from now on. DES (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm still rather upset I missed the opportunity to oppose the change of A7, it's harder to make fixes to this sort of material now that it's not showing up on AfD. I'll present the example of Fiona Sit, who was speedied due to her alleged lack of notability. It turns out that should have never occurred, and it thankfully made its way back to AfD to be better repaired. The point is, however, that since regular users cannot see the deletion logs anymore (i.e., who deleted what and why), we have no way of knowing why something got deleted, or what the content was in the event it qualifies for speedy again. Was that considered when the deletion logs mysteriously disappeared from our view, or...? --badlydrawnjeff 15:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • They haven't disappeared. The deletion logs are still available at Special:Log, accessible to any user. Radiant_>|< 15:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New speedy templates for new A7 rules

The new A7 rules now make it possible to speedy the most common types of vanity pages beyond the traditional one-person {{nn-bio}}. Some new speedy templates might be useful in order to tag some of stuff that is newly speedyable.

I've created an {{nn-band}} template for the most common case I've seen on AfD. Please tweak the wording if it's not good. I'm hoping that we will create a small number of these for the most common other cases.

Jamie (talk/contribs) 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Created {{nn-club}} too, because there are quite a few on AfD today. I hope we don't need to may of these, I don't like the idea of template creep. Jamie (talk/contribs) 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this is going to significantly reduce the amount of nominations on the AFD page. Thank you, JHMM13 (T | C) 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • {{db-bio}} now takes an optional parameter, so that {{db-bio|club}} replaces "person or persons" with "club". if ommittd the default is the same as {{db-bio|person or persons}}. Any text can be used as the parameter value, but I would expect any uses of (for example) {{db-bio|High-school}} to be reverted propmptly. DES (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This should avoid template creep, BTW. DES (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Should we categorize A7s into a subcat (as well as the main cat), like we do with attack pages? Since it is on A7 that the rules are most often stretched, this would allow CAT:CSD browsers focus on those which are most likely to be improper. We might also do the same with the use of a bare {{d}}. Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I always give uses of bare {{d}} extra scrutiny anyway, and we should do the smae for A7s, particualrly now so soon after the rule expansion. But I oppose a sub-cat, unless you put stuff in both the sub cat and the parent. i want only one place to go for speedies. The creation of the attack page sub-cat has basically meant that I never patrol pages tagged as attck pages. I woiuld favor undoing that change. DES (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. I meant that the stuff would go in both the subcat and CAT:CSD, the same as happens with attack pages. But I see now that the attack page subcat is proposed for deletion (so far, erroneously, on the same grounds that you mentioned: splitting speedies into too many places). So I'll hold off on this until we see the outcome of that CfD. Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any point in subcatting them, no. This only encourages bureaucratization (and note that people can already check the WhatLinksHere from the templates, if they really must). Something classified in the wrong subcat is not automatically not a speedy. Radiant_>|< 12:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have recently seen {{db-club}} used to tag an article about a bar/nightclub, specifically Boarhouse. IMO tha tis not the kind of "club" for which this tempalte exists. Do we need to somehow edit the template to make this clear? DES (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-speedy new unsourced articles

I proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Semi-speedy new unsourced articles which would allow us to start deleting new unsourced articles. Please discuss it there. I put it there, since I'm proposing something that would expand the scope of what's deleted (not just what's speedied). I'm hoping to get some input. --Rob 21:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Foreign language articles

2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. - Is this not already covered by {{notenglish}}? either this criterion or the template in question need to be removed, as they give conflicting messages (One says we'll speedy delete any non-english article covered by another prject, the other says it'll go through the regular AfD process.) GeeJo (t) (c) 14:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

They don't conflict at all. A2 is only for non-English articles that are already present on another project. {{notenglish}} is for non-English articles that aren't already on another project. —Cryptic (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Clarified it myself, to at least let anyone trying to help by tagging such articles know that the template exists. GeeJo (t) (c) 20:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewording of A8 for clarity, take 2

I made a new section because the old one was so full of misunderstandings (which is part of the problem). Please read this carefully and please do not change this into a discussion about expanding A8, which is not what the proposal is about.

Currently only copyright violations from commercial content provider (CCP) can be deleted. CCP has a very specific meaning, but it is often interpreted incorrectly by editors and administrators. I am not trying to change A8. I am trying to reword it so that people don't misunderstand what a commercial content provider is. I want all copyright violations to be deleted regardless of the source. However, that is a separate discussion. Until we decide to drop the commercial content provider provision, we should make it absolutely clear what it is. A lot of people think commercial content provider means any business of any kind or anyone that claims copyright. See this AfD for one example. However, a commercial content provider is a company that makes money directly from the content that has been copied to Wikipedia. There are some people who ignore the provision outright, as well, but that's a discussion for discipline of editors or changing the criteria, not clarifying it.

A8 in its current form does absolutely nothing about spam or even a sub category of spam. Spam would be an advertisement and companies generally don't make money by charging people to read advertisements. It'd be like charging people to watch commercials on TV. A8 is about content that is generating money by itself, like an article from an encyclopedia or a newspaper. This can be done by charging for access (like full access on Britannica) or by selling ad space (like newspapers). An advertisement is selling something else, and it is not for sale, rent or any kind of money making thing.

Only copyrighted material from very specific places is allowed to be deleted. Very few copyright violations come from these sources, so A8 is not very useful. If you want to expand it to all copyright violations, you have my support. However, as I said before, that is not what this proposal is about.

The changes are italicized and will not appear in the final version.

8. An article that is a blatant copyright infringement from a commercial content provider and meets these parameters:

  • Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider, which means they make money from the content itself, such as an encyclopedia or news service, advertising does not count and;
  • The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and;
  • Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely and;
  • The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).

Here is a completely reworded version:

8. An article that is a copyright infringement from a commercial content provider, which is a company that makes money directly from the content that has been copied. Content that advertises products, services or the company itself does not count. Also, the content from the first edit on is almost entirely copyrighted, no permission to use it has been asserted, is almost totally unwikified and it is less than 48 hours since the content was uploaded.

I hope I've done a better job of explaining this time. -- Kjkolb 14:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I support these changes provided that they're accurate, as I don't know much about CCPs.
Regarding whether it should cover spam, A8 is not intended to do anything about spam. Spam has POV issues, but it's often possible to fix up or otherwise incorporate into a decent article. If they want to pay their employees to give us free content which we can reshape into useful articles, why not let them? Deco 20:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did someone change my signature above? Please don't edit my signature for no apparent reason. Deco 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
This brings up another point: There is technically a whole second (unenumerated) category of speedies for copyvios. According to Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, anything that is being used without permission will be speedied immediately if the copyright holder requests it through the approprate channels; there is no requirement that they be a commercial content provider or that the infringing material be from a website in that case. That should probably be mentioned somewhere on this page. Also, technically I think all copyright cases should be under General criteria, not Article criteria--copyvios are just as unacceptable in Template, Wikipedia, or user namespace as they are anywhere else, and certainly nobody should hesitate to speedy an otherwise speedyible copyvio just because it was for some reason or another created as a template or a Wikipedia essay. --Aquillion 04:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Putting it in general seems like a good idea, although not many copyvios meet A8 and even fewer copyvios are found outside the article namespace. -- Kjkolb 09:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
A8 is too verbose, too confusing, and doesn't match current practice. I would strongly support any effort to simplify it. In particular,
  1. "Commercial content provider" should be replaced with "commercial website", first to match current practice, and second because people don't understand the term "content provider"
  2. The bit about checking history is redundant since it's true for any deletion, so it should be removed here.
  3. The 48-hour clause is an entirely arbitrary limit and therefore instruction creep. It does not in fact alleviate the "mirror problem" since we do not know when mirrors grab their copies, or how often. Also it is not our duty to prevent mirrors from taking up inappropriate material. And no WP mirror is a commercial website, so the argument that this might delete anything duplicated on a mirror doesn't hold water. Radiant_>|< 10:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The 48 hour thing is not to prevent mirrors taking innappropriate material, but to prevent us deleting material that has been mirrored and mistakenly thought to be copied form the mirror, as a mirrors aren't up-to-date of within 48 hours of wikipedia. Also, plently of mirrors are the kind of commercial websites that get copyvioed from. That said, I do think admins are more than capable of distinguishing between mirrors and non-mirrors, and would like to see that clause removed. I also agree that "Commercial content provider" should be replaced with "commercial website". Martin 11:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to simplify it, then remove it. All of its requirements are necessary; as written, we only speedy unarguable copyvios for which there is zero chance of receiving permission. Perhaps you'd like to see Aloha Flight 243 speedied because the Honolulu star plagiarized it. I would not. I've said again and again that our copyvio process works, and it does. If there aren't enough admins working it, then the solution isn't to make those doing speedy patrol do the exact same work, and especially not to have them skip necessary steps. —Cryptic (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither the old nor the new wording help protect against the risk that we identify cases where we being used without attribution as copyvios. The only clause that would be mistakenly applied is the part about blatant copyright violation. This doesn't amount to an argument against the change. --- Charles Stewart 16:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I was replying to Radiant, not to Kjkolb. That's why my text was indented the way it was. —Cryptic (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote stacking organizations

I'd like to propose a new criterion for speedy deletion, Miscellany pages that are created for the sole purpose of votestacking should be speedied. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. I don't have a suggested wording, in fact I'm not even sure which section it would fit in but I did want to bring it up. Apologies if the archives already cover this, I didn't read all of them. ++Lar 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This is the first time I remember a "vote stacking organization" being speedy deleted, or deleted at all. Is it worth adding a new speedy criterion for pages that only show up once in a blue moon? Also it would have to avoid deleting the WikiProject Deletion sorting Kappa 04:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, this does bear thinking about, but I'm not sure speedying is a good idea. The problem is that a good vote stacking organisation can stack enough votes to prevent it from being deleted through regular process. This has happened several times in the past. Radiant_>|< 10:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant, can you provide some examples of stacking orgs saving themselves? It might address the objection Kappa has about it not being a problem. I am a newbie so don't have the organizational memory you guys do, but I thought it bore mentioning. Kappa, the deletion sorting project wouldn't be deleted, it would be humans doing the speedy, not bots, presumably. (a counterpoint to this proposal is the problem of instruction creep that it would introduce.) ++Lar 16:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Tony Sidaway could give us some proposed wording that would allow any admin to speedy items like this on sight. If I recall correctly, his main objection was that such organizations are "fundamentally incompatible with NPOV", which is a different objection than "will stack the vote." That might be a good place to start. I'll start us off with this as a suggestion:

Speedy Deletion Criteron X1: Fundamentally incompatible with NPOV.  Pages which exist
for the sole purpose of organizing users to work towards frustrating Wikipedia's neutral point of view.  
This includes, but is not limited to, user groups whose intended purpose is to stack, flood, or 
otherwise disrupt discussions on what to include and what to exclude from the encyclopedia.

I called it "X1" because it's not clear to me which section this belongs in. My personal opinion is that the above is way too broad. At a minimum, it needs to be modified to allow people to express personal opinions on their user pages (or does it?). But it's a starting point. Have at it. Nandesuka 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Can someone please address the question for why we need a new speedy criterion for something which almost never happens? Kappa 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure! Tony was very insistent that material like this must never be allowed on Wikipedia, to the point of insisting that it must be deleted before the consensus process closed. One possibility is that Tony is wrong, and we should wag a finger at him for being a bad wiki citizen. But given that the consensus to delete was so lopsided, it's clear that he might be on to something. So the other possibility is that Tony is right, and if he was right, then we should definitely have a criteria for speedy deletion that will give just cause for any admin to delete material like this on sight. That way we won't run the risk of wagging a finger at someone for doing the right thing. I hope that explanation suffices. Nandesuka 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
      • So the aim of this scope creep is to avoid the terrying risk of finger-wagging at an inncoent victim in the hypothetical event of a repeat of the Catholic Alliance case? 17:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talkcontribs) 12:44, 28 December 2005
  • I'm not persuaded by this case: it is far too easy to organise these vote stacking organisations off Wikipedia, and it is perfectly easy to frustrate these abuses without speedying them (ie. by blanking these pages). Unless and until these exercises become difficult to combat by such mechanisms, I'm not in favour of expanding CSD. Possibly a Poll Integrity wikiproject, devoted to uncovbering evidence of such exercises, is worthwhile? --- Charles Stewart 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Another possibility is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, that we don't base policy on issues on which there are only very few instances, and that while Tony was technically correct, he could have reached the same result in a less radical manner by simply using the present deletion processes, which work well for inherently-POV items if not for vote stacking organizations. Radiant_>|< 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Radiant, you said you'd seen it happen in the past though. Maybe only a very few times, so maybe this guideline is not necessary. Chalst: I think it's easier to communicate with people here than elsewhere, so people will try here. But on the other hand, perhaps it's better not to try to have policy against it so that people WILL try here instead off in secret? I brought this up because it seemed like something that ought to be brought up... Tony said he didn't think a criteria could be written at all that wouldn't be game-able. So I dunno. ++Lar 19:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No change to process is needed, the current process is entirely acceptable in this regard, and on any issue like this we should take the time to actually discuss the intent of the project. If the closing admin believes that the project is designed to undermine NPOV, he can feel free to delete regardless of the outcome in votes; principle trumps process. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am very uncomfortable with this proposal. This whole discussion but especially the specific wording proposed by Nandesuka seems to be attempting to create a speedy-deletion criterion for what is essentially a thought-crime. The discovering admin would have to determime the intent of the page before determining that it was created "for the sole purpose of organizing users to work towards frustrating Wikipedia's neutral point of view." If we as a community can determine that the intent is hostile to Wikipedia, I would agree that it represents a problem for the community. The problem might or might not be solvable through deletion of a page. But the determination of that intent is not something that is appropriate for CSD in all but the rarest of cases. And if a case really were so patently obvious that any given admin would have to reach the same conclusion, I believe it would likely already be speedy-deletable as vandalism. Any case less extreme should be decided through a much more deliberative process than CSD. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    The assertion has been made, by a senior admin, that the page in question was already speediable — the specific wording was "Such pages must always be deleted on sight." So, at least if this point of view is valid, this criterion already exists. So the question is whether we try to get this criterion out in the open where we can all know about it, or whether it is Mystery Criterion whereby some admins can delete some pages, without going through MfD, AfD, etc., without giving any reason supported by the deletion policy or WP:CSD. My personal opinion is that MfD was doing just fine, and really didn't need any help from overeager admins. But I think we owe it to our readers and ourselves to explore the issue fully. If we can come up with a good criterion out of this, that'll be great. I urge you to not get hung up on the specific wording of my proposal. I very clearly put it out there as a starting point, and fully expect it to be folded, mangled, spindled, and mutilated in order to end up with something workable.Nandesuka 21:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    As long as we're all making people argue against points we don't actually hold anyway, why don't we just codify that Senior Admin's veto over all aspects of the deletion process? —Cryptic (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't see why you're giving Tony such a hard time over this. Admins speedy obvious deletion candidates for not-strictly-CSD reasons all the time, we don't try and set up new rules for every instance. Kappa 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't see why you think this is about giving Tony a hard time. I assure you it is not. I just think it's better to have our policies reflect our actual practices. I'm absolutely fine with making something like this a speedy deletion criteria, and having it codified, to some extent, will help me (and I believe others) on CSD patrol. Nandesuka 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion criterion i (very appropiate, since it is complex and irrational): because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, admins sometimes bend the rules, or ignore them entirely. If an admin, in good faith, deletes anything for whatever reason, and consensus is later shown to uphold this decision, then the deletion was proper regardless of whether it technically fit any speedy criteria or not. Can we please drop this matter now? Radiant_>|< 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I brought it up because it seemed needful. I think Nandesuka thoughtfully put forth a trial as a way to spur discussion, not because it was the perfect version. Making it overly broad gives everyone a chance to narrow it... that might be easier than starting in the middle and trying to move sideways. Tangentially, I am not sure that codifying that Senior Admins (what are those? thought all admins were the same level of authority) have veto over process is a good idea. That said, it seems that maybe a consensus is forming that this additional criterion is not needful? ++Lar 01:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I would oppose such a rule. Speedy deletion exists to decrease load on AFD by dealing quickly with a large percentage of obviously deletable articles. This rule would employ speedy deletion as a means of bypassing the normal voting process, which is not its intended purpose. Moreover, any such rule would be so subjective as to call into question any deletion executed under it. Leave this miniscule proportion of articles to AFD - I believe that good AfD admins know sock/meatpuppets when they see them, and even if they don't you're entitled to resubmit it after a waiting period. Deco 02:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Hey, hey, hey, whoah there, Buckaroo. First off, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion. And second of all, how about assuming a little good faith here? Your accusations certainly have no basis in reality when applied to me, and I haven't seen anything that Lar has said that would indicate that it would apply to him. How about working with us to help narrow the proposal until it's acceptable, rather than just saying that we're bad people who hate motherhood and apple pie? Nandesuka 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if I came across as too strong - I meant the words "exploit" and "abuse" only in a literal sense, not that you're seeking to bend CSD to your evil will, and I've tried to tone down my rant. Maybe we just disagree about the fundamental purpose of CSD - some say it's for anything that should definitely be deleted, or that should be deleted quickly. I believe that CSD should be reserved solely for classes of articles that actually significantly impair the functioning of AFD by flooding it with large numbers of articles that will surely be deleted anyway. I don't see any way to fix the proposal that would make the articles it targets more numerous - although I can't argue about their deletability, I believe they should face the full formal process. Deco 03:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly object to any such criterion -- this is not something that can be safely determined by a single admin, or even a pair of them, and so should not be a speedy delete reason. i might add that the speedy that apparently occasioned this seems to me to have been way out of process -- i am strongly considering bringing it up at DRV or simply unilaterally undelting. 07:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (the previous comment was mine, i seem to ahve signed with 5 tildas instead of 4. DES (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

I don't think we need a CSD for this. If someone makes another page like the Catholic Alliance one, it'll go to MD and, like the Catholic Alliance one, and most likely will amass a massive consensus to delete and be quickly speedied just as the Catholic Alliance one was. I see no problem with this, nor does the arbitration committee. Making up rules for hypothetical situations is always a bad idea, and I think we've got this one well and truly covered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannot recreat Doosan article for long?

Dear administrators, I wanna write an article on Doosan, but the 'doosan' page informs 'cannot be recreated without a good reason'. But I just want to talk about the Korean top 10~12 company Doosan with other users, and get more information and oppinion of the others. So, please let me create the 'Doosan' page. Thank you. Sincerely, truism77

G7 - authors blanking their own articles

I am sure everybody agrees that if somebody creates an article, then soon after that (before any other edits) blanks it, it was a test. I suggest:

G7: Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. → Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.

All in favour say aye! All not in favour, say nay! All who want to tweak the wording, say your tweakings! :) r3m0t talk 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Support (how we vote aye on Wikipedia) :). As long as the other safeguards (no other edits, appears to be mistake) of G7 are retained, this makes sense, since newbie authors may not know about WP:CSD and how to apply {{db-author}}.
  • Support. After all, even newbies don't generally blank their own articles just by mistake. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose both the current and new versions. The authors do not own the articles they write, and if User:ProlificWriter gets in an edit war over Swiss cheese and suddenly decides they hate Wikipedia, we don't want them going around eradicating every good article they ever wrote out of spite. Yes, many of them will have been edited in the meantime, but can you really promise that they all would have been? Determining if it was mistakenly created seems to require some highly subjective mindreading.
  • Besides being too permissive, it's also not permissive enough. The slightest minor edit like adding a category could prevent a legitimate deletion.
  • That said, I do think someone blanking their own article should be viewed as a request for deletion. So that could be a good argument to use for nomination on AfD. Deco 05:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    Admins are not bots. A deleting admin has to check the history anyway, so they can surely decide to keep the article if it looks good. Just the fact that it has been around for a while should trigger the "is this really created by mistake?" check. (We can stuff the word "recently" into the criterion if you want that made explicit.) Actual mistakenly created articles are usually close to being speediable under other criteria (such as G2, R3 and I1) anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    This is not the place to oppose the current version. If you agree that the author blanking the page constitutes a request for deletion, you are in support. If you think they may do so for some other reason, you are in opposition. Of course, you could also not vote, and I invite you to add a new section to this page and argue against G7. r3m0t talk 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I guess you're right. As long as we're keeping the criterion around though, I suppose I must support this addition. Deco 19:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This codifies what already happens. Blanking-by-sole-author is treated by many admins as a deletion request. History checks are required for speedy deletion. If others have contributed content to the article, no admin in their right mind would speedy it. android79 06:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    I like to codify what happens. It can save time for future admins. :) r3m0t talk 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and to get around "minor edits make this impossible" problem: edits that don't add substantial content (CSD tags, AfD tags, stub tags, a couple spelling fixes, etc.) don't count. android79 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suppport - I'm actually fine with the old wording, as I think an admin could already interpret blanking as a request. I'm also fine with the suggested wording. An alternate wording that takes blanking as a request for deletion, protects older established articles, and ignores minor edits, would be:
Author requests deletion. Any recently created page edited (signficantly) by only one user who says creation was a mistake or blanks the page. --Rob 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggested revised text, to deal with the "ownership" issue: Author requests deletion. Any recently created page edited (signficantly) by only one user who plausibly claims that creation was a mistake, or who blanks the page provided the deleting admin concludes that the blanked page was a mistake. DES (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I tend to view a sole-editor-blanked article as much more deletable anyway (e.g. when dealing with unused categories). -- SCZenz 07:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support. This was actually a discussion point when the criterion was first drafted and voted upon. The general consensus was that self-blanking was evidence of a test and was deletable (subject, of course, to the admin's own opinion on whether to salvage the article instead). So I think it's already a good idea and is already allowed. We don't need to clutter up the wording of the criterion with every possible way of identifying a "user test". Rossami (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Utterly oppose. I get angry in a few months, and I go round blanking all my articles. You'll delete them? Uh huh. Just leave it as it is, and expect admins to apply a modicum of sense to the behaviour of an anon or new editor. This isn't like A7 or anything, and a small amount of common sense is entirely sensible to apply. -Splashtalk 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And this would be a different scenario from you getting angry and replacing all your articles with {{db-author}} how? Actually, I don't quite follow your logic here: first you seem to assume admins would delete blanked pages without applying common sense, and then you say we should expect them to do just that. Which is it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Replacing it with db-author would be asking for deletion under the current A7, obviously. Which wouldn't happen because it's phrased properly. We shouldn't provide the option of page-blanking requests explicitly because we then have to deny them when they are actually specifically used, rather than used out of ignorance. -Splashtalk 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It's phrased properly? I suppose you mean "Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created". Well, the new wording has that too. And I don't understand what you mean by "deny them". Deny the deletion request? r3m0t talk 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:CSD is about allowing admins to deleted certain pages without further process, not requiring them to. A bit of judgement would be useful here, as the author doesn't have a right to have their article deleted. r3m0t talk 00:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for elimination or limitation of G7

In its current form, G7 provides a mechanism for unilateral deletion of good content at the behest of its original author. While I have never personally observed G7 being abused, it's dangerous to leave this kind of hole in our policy.

Let's describe a fictional scenario. User:ProlificWriter, an English professor, writes an article about a notable colleague at their university. They show it to the colleague, who says that while it's accurate and comprehensive, they don't want to be publically exhibited in this fashion. The colleague demands that they remove the article. ProlificWriter reluctantly complies to avoid creating professional conflict, adding the db-author tag. A new admin busy patrolling tagged articles deletes it without a thorough investigation, perhaps because they trust the original author as an established Wikipedian, or perhaps because they too have been coerced by the article's subject. In fact, there's nothing to say that the admin who deletes it could not be ProlificWriter himself. I can think of many other scenarios in which an author may wish to delete a good article, even one that they just wrote.

If this same article had gone to AfD, it would probably have received nothing but "Keep" votes. The policy calls for the admin to judge whether the article was mistakenly created, but although some cases are clear-cut, in general there's no objective way to establish this - the author's claim is clearly not enough, as they'll say whatever they have to to get it deleted.

More philosophically, this policy also makes an implicit assertion that the originating author has a kind of "ownership" over their newly written article, in that they can say whether it lives or dies. It's also strange that the policy is no longer applicable after even very minor edits by other people, such as adding categories. For these reasons, I suggest that either:

  • The policy be eliminated, and such articles be treated individually on AfD, which is not unreasonable given their relative rarity;
  • The policy be modified to explicitly require that the article was either clearly devoid of useful content, or that same content was published in another article, and also that the admin deleting it not be the original author.

Thanks for reading. Deco 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • When I, as an admin, am faced with a G7 request, I don't deelte unless the mistake is obvious and is of a more or less format type. If the title is misspelled, or if an article is created when another article on the same subject at a different name exists, or if a tempalte was created when another template alredy serves the same purpose, that sort of thing. i would never delete just because the author decides that s/he doesn't want the content made puiblic after all --indeed I have oppose such deletions on AfD. In a case like the one you outline I would remove the db tag, adn put a note on the talk page expalining why this should not be deleted. i would expect that any future admin would see this note sould the article be re-tagged. I would also expect that most admins would act similarly. G7 used to require that the autor explain plausibly how the page was a mistake -- I wouldn't object if that were restored, or some simialr wording added. G7 is intended for the case where the author reqalizes that a contribution should never have been made, and no one has good reason to want it. Mechanical errors, articels at wrong titles, obviously unencyclopedic articels from newcommers who want to retract them after the rules are explained, PoV forks simialrly retracted, duplicate articles, unused templates, policy proposals that never went anywhere -- those and the like are what G7 should be for IMO, and in those sorts of cases it saves a poitless trip to XfD. DES (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Providing a plausible reason is a fine idea, but unfortunately this isn't useful for the majority of intended targets of this rule, articles written by new or anonymous users who would not know of the rule or the template. I think it's okay for admins to make independent judgements (as long as they're not the original author themselves), but any potentially ambiguous case should hit AfD. Speedy deletion was conceived for and should only be for clear-cut cases. This may be common sense, but often failing to codify common sense results in people with an agenda justifying their destruction with policy. Deco 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • New users don'tnow the rule or the template, but they do generaly expalin why they want soemthign deleted. However, what if teh rule were to require a plausible explanation of how the page was a mistake from either the reequestor or the deleting admin. If an admin can't plausibly explain in a few words why a page was a mistake s/he shouldn't be deleting it. DES (talk)
        • I'd agree with that, as long as only clear-cut cases of mistaken creation are permitted - anything ambiguous should go to AfD. Deco 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack templates

Administrative consensus is developing that templates (e.g. userboxes) that only disparage their subject should be deleted under CSD A6. I suggest we make this explicit on this page. Comments? -- SCZenz 09:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be in line with the intent of A6. By turning a blind eye to the use of some templates in userspace in order to systematically denigrate a person, a group of people or a corporation or other organised body, or the works uniquely associated with a person, persons or an organised body, we would be condoning such organised campaigns. Wikipedia userspace would be in danger of being abused as a campaigning medium for black PR. We cannot overlook this because of Wikipedia's immense popularity--it's one of the most popular websites in the world.
Just as we summarily delete personal attack articles, I think it's time to apply the same standard to template space. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack pages is listed under Articles for a reason. Many non-articles don't even have a subject - this is an article concept. What if a user writes disparaging comments about themselves on their user page? Do we delete it? Aren't {{cleanup}} and {{NPOV}} disparaging towards the articles they're used to mark? I'm not saying the idea couldn't be extended to templates and project pages, but it seems like it would require significant modification. Deco 09:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup templates have a purpose other than to disparage their subject; they're construcive criticism for improving the encyclopedia. A template that said "This article sucks" absolutely should be speediable; it's pointless and obnoxious. -- SCZenz 09:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If a user "Michael Jackson" writes something defamatory about Michael Jackson on his user page, we would of course immediately delete the user page, because it is impossible with our technology to determine whether the user is or is not Michael Jackson. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a very sad developement Wikipedia got into selecting acceptable POVs users are encouraged to held vs. discouraged to held (by existence/deletion of templates). IMO only good solution would be to delete all userboxes which promote or condemn some POV (with exceptions, like "wikipolitics").
To the proposal - as I understand it, if interpreted withou bias, templates like
would be speedied and templates like
would be ok?
I doubt. To me it seems in fact there is growing administrative consensus on which POVs are totally unaceptable. If you want it make it explicit, Userboxes promoting particulary nasty things can be deleted. Which opinions are nasty is a matter of administrators and voting. --Wikimol 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the ones you've listed above as deletable attack activities or abstract concepts, with the exception of the antiscientology one which attacks a religion. So of those you've listed as deletable, only the antiscientology one is strictly deletable as an attack.

Of the ones you claim would not be deletable as attacks, the one supporting terrorism clearly would be because it's a very extreme attack on Jews in Palestine. The one advocating George W. Bush isn't an attack (we may or may not want to delete it for other reasons, but it just isn't an attack). Similar reasoning goes for the pro-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one. While thats an attack, it's an attack on an abstract concept: Zionism, not a person, group of people, etc. "This user is antinazi" would be an attack on a political ideology and not deletable under the proposed extension.

So I take issue with your reasoning on the proposal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with Tony's counter-reasoning, the fact that some of them explicitly required counter-reasoning leads me to believe that this is a poor candidate for a speedy-deletion criterion. As a community, I'm not sure that we've shown that we're very good yet at identifying or agreeing on what is or is not a deletable "attack". Speedies are supposed to be so clear and obvious that essentially every admin will agree that it's immediately deletable. I just don't think we're there yet. I recommend letting these go to AFD/MFD/TFD for a while longer. Once we have more experience with them, let's see if we can come back to the issue and identify the common pattern in which ones are patently deletable and which are close calls which should continue to be decided by community discussion. Rossami (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be my preference also. I did some test speedies of 15 attack templates this morning and took them to WP:DRV, where there seems to be the makings of a strong consensus on what is and is not appropriate attack deletion for this context. I think we should still move cautiously in this area. SCZenz brought it here and, while I'm eager to discuss policy wording, I'm not yet ready to put this to the community. It's still very much "suck it and see" and there is at least one ongoing tfd discussion in which the majority in a straw poll favor retaining a template that contains an attack on George W. Bush and incites vandalism on his article. It's early days yet, policywise, and having just drafted an arbitration remedy (adopted by arbcom for its forthcoming final decision) that cautioned one editor that it doesn't do Wikipedia any good to have policies that cause dissent, I'm not in a hurry to fall into the same trap myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm much more comfortable to have policies we can act on than a sort of ad hoc administrative consensus on what we will and won't speedy. Although those 15 speedies deserved support, I see the method of delete-and-review as a stopgap measure at best. That's why I brought this discussion here. -- SCZenz 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I do agree. It's just that I don't see much chance of consensus at present so if stuff needs to be done it'll have to be done in this ad hoc way until we do have a policy. Maybe October? Seriously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A draft wording

Any page in template space that attacks a person, persons, or an organisation such as a corporation, religious sect, government, either directly or by reference to works uniquely associated with them.
So this would cover, as well as direct attacks, attacks on Microsoft disguised as attacks on their software, attacks on Muslims disguised as attacks on dress associated with muslim sects, and so on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This is stronger, broader wording than I would have proposed, but I'm willing to accept it. I just hope that admins can use it with a modicum of common sense; I'd hate to see Infoboxes with POV problems being speedied rather than edited. -- SCZenz 14:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it's a wiki, so please redraft. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I disapprove of the inclusion of "corporation or government" and I am not wild about "Organisation"> I also strongly disagree with "by reference to works uniquely associated with them." One must be free to comment on a work without being held thereby to attack the work's author. Unless we are going to have a general policy banning expressions of opnion from userspace, than this simply doesn't fly, IMO. DES (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I could live with: Any page in template space the sole or primary purpose of which is to attack a person, an identifiable group of persons, a religious sect, or an ethnic or racial group. Anything much broader than that I would be inclined to oppose at the moment. DES (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's good wording, I'd support that. --Deathphoenix 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Count me in. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I like that wording. It's almost exactly what I would have written. -- SCZenz 20:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Works for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I am very pleased to see some agreement behind this wording, Particualrly from Tony Sidaway. Obviously any such criterion would need to be applied on a neutral basis -- delting attiack on people or groups one approves of, but not people or groups one dislikes would be very wrong. DES (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I also support this, as an expansion of A6. I see no reason to extend it outside of article space. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
            • It should clearly be a template criterion, and it should be applicable both to templates designed for use in articlespace and namespace --- Charles Stewart 02:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd like to see this happen as well. I'd rather see the Government stipulation re-added, "an identifiable group of persons" covers it to a point but I'd like it to explicitly restrict polictics and political subjects. Rx StrangeLove 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
              • If "identifiable group of people" includes organizations, as some people seem to think, this is broader and vaguer than the original. If it does not, what does it mean? In short, this is both dangerous and divisive. Septentrionalis 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to make this a general criterion? I see no reason to tolerate an attack page simply because it's placed in the Wikipedia: namespace, or a redirect from a title like Blithering idiot. —Cryptic (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this page I can't see any such consensus for a speedy criterion as Tony suggests above. The opinion is fairly evenly split. This issue is not about whether such templates are right or wrong, it is about the process for determining whether such templates are right and wrong. It is far better to have a strong community consensus on a particular template's meaning than allow admins to delete based on their own point of view of what constitutes an attack. We should not allow admins the ability to delete user content at will, we should allow reasoned debate to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate content. Allow guidelines to be developed at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes and then list for deletion on that basis. Hiding talk 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, there appears to be some sort of consensus not to use Tony's original wording, but to use DES's revision. --- Charles Stewart 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I oppose both. Speedy deletion on grounds involving judgment is a very bad thing, as Tony would be the first to say in any other context. The proper remedy is to ban people who put them up; and MfD. (I could be persuaded to encourage blanking, which is reviewable.) Septentrionalis 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a discussion, not a poll! Please unbold oppose and keep it collegiate. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I really dislike this proposal. Not because I support personal attacks (obviously) but because I wouldn't like to limit the freedom of expression on ones user space. If someone wants to write I'm *add a random insult here* on his own user page, that's fine. In discussions and polls, it's a different matter. Larix 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

debate about "attacks" in userpages & userboxes

I don't think this should apply to userspace pages. I have seen people gathering evidence for RfC or arbvom cases, or simialr things, which might have been at least arguably called "attack pages". If we can find a reasoanble wording for that exception that doesn't get too lawyerly, fine. DES (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the only speedy criteria that should apply to user space is the user requested one. As to the template, I think at the minute I'm standing behind the principle of freedom of speech and opposing such a criterion. If someone has a problem with a particular template, run it through the deletion process and let consensus decide. This criterion establishes power in the hands of admins which can be abused strictly on a point of view basis. Hiding talk 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to this without a more explicit clarification of what does and does not constitute an "attack". As far as I am concerned, we should recognize that Wikipedia editors, like everyone else, have opinions on things both positive and negative. Recent events lead me to believe that some editors regard almost any negative opinion as an attack, which would make this proposed CSD tantamount to a rule that you can only say nice things about people. I am emphatically opposed to that. However, I do support the view that opinions, especially those target at people and organizations, ought to be expressed with the maximum of civility. To my view, if you express a negative opinion, but do so as civilly as is possible then in most cases it should not be regarded as an attack. For example, while I expect that most people see "This user thinks Alito is radical right-wing crackpot" as unacceptable, I believe that something like "This user thinks that Alito should not appointed to the Supreme Court" ought to be acceptable. To this end I would add "Merely expressing a negative opinion does not constitute an attack unless the opinion itself or the way it is expressed goes beyond the bounds of civil conversation." The purpose of the phrase "the opinion itself" is to acknowledge that no matter how you say it some opinions, like "all jews should die", are always going to be uncivil. If people disagree with making this kind of distinction, then I would challenge them to be more explicit about what they mean by "attack" in whatever way they feel is appropriate. Dragons flight 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a "all jews should die" template is a wonderful idea. It would give me a very easy way to get a list of several users that I need to be worried about. Personally, if someone believes that all jews should die, I'd rather KNOW about it. Sweeping problems under the rug doesn't make them go away. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as being a bit surreal... we're about to have policy that states that it's perfectly alright to ADVOCATE something, but not to DENIGRATE things? You can be PRO something but you can't be CON anything? This is absurd. Wikipedia should not be in the business of censoring out of hand (TfD is always a posibility) something simply because it "attacks" something. I am fundamentally opposed to this proposal. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if a user wants to denigrate something, they'll have to write it themselves. No one is being prevented from stating on their user page that they don't want to revert vandalism on George W. Bush because they don't like him. There's just not a need to for such a statement to be in the template namespace. For that matter, I also don't think we should have "I support Bush" templates. Personal opinions don't belong in a public namespace. Carbonite | Talk 03:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think political advocacy templates may be deletable also, but here we're discussing, specifically, attack templates and whether they should be speediable. I don't think we'd find consensus to speedy advocacy, which is why we're not discussing that. Last week I made a gambit by deleting every single template that I could find that might conceivably be used for the purpose of subverting the process of consensus building, and the upshot was that a case that had been miscast as an admin conduct case changed into a discussion on userboxes. Now we're getting down to detail. There does seem to be a substantial consensus developing here, but it's very early days. Let's continue discussing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Carbonite's reference to the template namespace as a "public namespace" is a source of misunderstanding on this issue. The articles are clearly public and intended for readers. The project and talk pages are clearly intended for contributors. But what about templates? My answer is that each template is either intended for readers or contributors depending on where it is intended to be used. If a template intended to be used on user pages is used in articles then that edit should be reverted - it does not mean the template should be deleted. If a user creates a template for personal use, and another user uses it for evil, it means that that person's edits should be reverted, and perhaps they should be blocked - the template should not be deleted. Templates are a feature, not articles in and of themselves.

Let's reflect briefly on the official purpose of the user page, from Wikipedia:User page:

A good start is to add a little information about yourself, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, your real name, your location, information about your areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, other homepages, and so forth. [...] You can also use your user page to help you use Wikipedia more effectively: so you can use it to list "to do" information, work in progress, reminders, useful links, and so forth. It's also good for experimenting with markup (a personal Wikipedia:Sandbox). Another use is to let people know about your activities and opinions on Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. If you won't be editing Wikipedia for a while, drop a note on your user page to that effect. You might want to add quotes that you like, or a picture, or some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images, or something like that. [ . . . ]
In general, avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests.

We've always been liberal about what content users choose to include on their user pages, and I don't see why we would feel any differently about the mechanism by which they do so. In my opinion, what's gone wrong here has nothing to do with templates and everything to do with the objectionable practice of making degrading edits to another user's user page. We can delete templates all day long, but they can still substitute exactly the same markup without them. A much more effective solution would be an optional means of protecting one's user page against edits by other users. Deco 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Where to begin...

  • What, exactly, is the problem? Would it be possible to state a significant problem? For instance: "edit counts are steadily dropping, we are losing people, and such-and-such body of evidence indicates that the user templates are driving people away". If you can't specify what is broken, are you sure you want to start fixing it?
  • "I just don't like them because of such-and-such reason" is not a sufficient statement of a problem. That might be a problem for you but it is not a problem for me. You can make it problem for me, but I have plenty problems already. I don't need your problem to become my problem.
  • How about... maybe you look at our articles on Organizational Development and suchlike, identify editors who have made good edits there and ask them what they think of all this? Would that not be preferable to having people who don't know what they are talking aboutt debating this.
  • I mean no disrespect by this. Nobody is good at everything. When you talk about restricting the user templates, you are talking about managing the user pages, which means that you are talking about managing people (and in weird new environment where the head count are volunteers). Not everyone is automatically good at that right away. It's not a shame to not be good at that right away. Reading The Mythical Man-Month is a good start toward humility.
  • I understand the split between the long-timers and new influx, and the fear of an eternal september. Just... trust me, this is not where you want to fight this out. Even if it you're "right", it won't work.
  • Also... if you understand the split between long-timers and new-influx to be a problem with the new influx, then you... erg. Get the OrgDev people in here, is all.
  • By the way, I have no problem with working with no-nonsense, hard-nosed, suffer-no-fools, demanding people. But there are two kinds:
  1. No-nonsense, hard-nosed, suffer-no-fools, demanding types who might (say) message me and say "I noticed your work on such-and-such and frankly, I'm disappointed, I think you can do better." "You were out of line at such-and-such." "Please explain your edit at such-and-such". That sort of thing.
  2. No-nonsense, hard-nosed, suffer-no-fools, demanding types who want to micromanage my user page. I can't stress this enough: you have got - got - to keep those people off editors's backs. You can develop a very serious problem in a very short time if you don't.
  • In closing... just remember the tens of thousands of managers who have tried to get the Star Wars figurines off the software developer's monitors ("doesn't look professional, nothing to do with our mission") only to find it was the wrong fight, at the wrong time, against the wrong problem. R2D2 is still up there and lot of those managers are squeegee guys now. Please, please, if you must pick fights, don't pick ones you can't win.Herostratus 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh that was long. The problem is simply stated. Wikipedia template space is being used to produce quickly distributable templates, the sole purpose of some of which is to attack a person, persons or an organisation. There is a growing consensus that this is an abuse of template space and that such attacks are speediable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run based on consensus, but it is run on reasoned consensus that's rooted in our core principles. I'm not fond of running around and making people mad by deleting things, but the notion that people whose reasoning is rooted in those principles should avoid a fight they "can't win" against users whose reasoning is not is pretty silly. There are definitely templates that go over the line; to have peoples' religious or ethnic groups insulted in template space is intolerable, and they aren't going to stand. Whether {{user GWB}} was really all that bad is debatable; it wouldn't kill me if we added the phrase "unless that person is an unpopular American" to the wording above... ;-) SCZenz 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because more people are deleting templates out of process and getting away with it doesn't mean there's any kind of growing consensus. I believe strongly that we give entirely too much attention to deletion of templates, which are not intended to be viewed by anyone in any case. Deleting a template doesn't change anything - what if the person who used it exclusively used subst, or went back and changed them all to subst after the fact? What if they continue to paste the same markup into user pages after the deletion has occurred? Deleting templates isn't a solution to anything. Deco 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Your statement is crimethink. Those people should be grateful that they have jobs and get back to work. Those people should realize that they are just cogs in the great machine who can be easily replaced. </snark>
Seriously, Houston we have a problem. Not the userboxes per se but what it portends for the future. Somebody above said my statement above was too long... just to boil it down: in any organization there are people like that, by which I mean... you know. In a regular organization sometimes those people get into positions of authority, but the owners, who want to make a profit or whatever, usually keep them from getting out of hand. We don't have that mechanism here. Until now, it's hobbled along on consensus and fair play. But we're so big now... I see that breaking down, and it worries me. Herostratus 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I sympathize with the notion that userboxes keep people happy, and should be kept; I just don't think divisive userboxes are so good, and I think people who claim they have a right to use the template space to be divisive are confused. Anyway, I'm not completely sure I understand what you're saying, but if you're concerned that the wiki can dissolve into civil war as people go out-of-process in an effort to control problems, you needn't worry. Jimbo runs the whole place; he's generally opposed to userboxes that divide the wiki, but he's also definitely opposed to administrative abuse. He also thinks most problems can be resolved without his intervention, but if anyone goes far enough over the line you can rest assured that he'll intervene. So you can be pretty confident that discussion and consensus-building will continue. Now that that's out of the way, instead of worrying about authority, can you explain why {{User against Scientology}} helps us make an encyclopedia? -- SCZenz 21:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It tells you immediately what you would have to conclude from a long and unpleasent experience: it's not just that User X is tactless, or that he's lost his temper. He genuinely hates Scientology - he said so. His edits and comments can be discounted accordingly. Septentrionalis 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So now you propose ignoring peoples' edits because of their stated views--and this is better than censoring user pages? It sounds worse to me. Why not just all be editors and work for the encyclopedia, as Jimbo has suggested? -- SCZenz 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
PRECISELY. How does NOT knowing someone's bias help? If people are willing to clearly state their biases (and furthermore, use a template so that there's a convenient way of seeing a whole list of people who share a certain bias) how is that a bad thing? Better the devil you know... Aside from that, if anti-FOO goes, pro-FOO has to go to. I cannot see a rational way to separate the two that could be unambiguously worded as policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Pro-Foo and Anti-Foo are, in general, pretty obviously different--although they both have their own problems. I think we can make a policy wording clear enough--it doesn't need to be unambiguous, because we trust our users to have common sense. -- SCZenz 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
So what about "This user supports Hitler"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
For me that would be a very politically divisive statement, but it isn't an attack per se. Please understand that I'm not dodging the issue--in my personal opinion, a pro-Hitler template would have to go because of its abuse of template space for political ends. But it isn't an attack template and so wouldn't qualify under the extension of A6 that we're proposing now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment we have come way off topic here. This started as a discussion on a possible expansion of CSD A6. It has turned into a discussion of what should and should not be permitted in userboxes. That is an entirely separate issue, which has seen lively debate on Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes, Wikipedia talk:Userboxes, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes. Can we move the discussion on userbox policy to one of these places, and leave this page for discussion of CSD issues? I for one supported the proposed expansion of CSD A6... within the context of article space. I see no need to expand it to Wkipedia: space, User: space Template: space or anything else. I have not yet formed an opinion on the userbox policy issues... except that it is not a speedy-deletion issue, but a larger policy question. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But so far as I can see, the proposal in no significant way expands A6 in article space It was origianlly proposed very specifically for template space, and some then sugested having it apply to all namespaces. I presume that the proposal is specifcally in response to the userbox issue. If the proposal were to be limited to article space I would oppose it as needless. DES (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • As near as I can see it, this issue (and proposal) is entirely about using Speedy Deletion to deal with "problems" in the template space... specifically, "attack" templates. The arguments above (what constitutes an attack template and how appropriate is the proposed remedy) are entirely on point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well we have some examples. A template that, in its original form, described the EU as "an over-powerful, non-democratic bureaucracy"; a template that expressed the opinion that a famously elusive pop star is "whacko"; two templates that describe users of Apple and Microsoft software as "consumer-drones"; a template that linked the Bush administration with neo-fascism; two templates that, respectively, advocated the overthrow of the governments of Nepal and Saudi Arabia. Which of these is an attack, and of those, which ones are so obviously abuses of template space that they should be speedily deleted? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
        • "attack" is a very nebulous and easy to misapply label, IMHO. All of the templates you cite express opinions, not all opinions I would agree with but I'm not seeing any of them as "attacks", and further none were worthy of speedying. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
          • And {{User against Scientology}} and {{User against Jews}}, were they also opinions, rather than attacks, and unworthy of deletion? -- SCZenz 04:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, and no in that order. Scientology is a belief system. It is not an attack to say one is against a belief system. I am against creationism, but not against the PEOPLE that hold the view. I am against Scientology but not against Scientologists. (they are misguided, they need professional help, their actions are a menace to society, but I am not *against* them as *people*). It is a subtle but important distinction. I spoke out against deleting that template before and would do so again. The other template is far different, it is advocating hate, it is against persons, not beliefs. I would support users wanting a template that said "user against Zionism" or "user against string enforcement Talmudic of dietary laws" (even though I personally am not against those things) but not one like "user against Jews", as it is clearly against people, not beliefs. Further on the for vs. against question: You cannot have pro without con. Is it bad to say "User against creationism" but OK to say "user supports the scientific method"? No. It's a false dichotomy. I side with the Supremes, all speech except very clear cut hate speech is free speech. WP is not a free speech zone but I have said before that I support users making people aware of their POV and that the guideline as to what POV can be stated is the one the Supremes use. Until WP:UP is changed to ban POV I will not change that stance because any other stance is slippery-slope-ness. It is all pretty clear cut to me, really... do you get where I'm coming from even if you don't agree? ++Lar: t/c 05:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I understand your arguments, yes, but I don't choose to draw the line where you do. I think "User against Judaism" would be basically as bad as "User against Jews" (it doesn't literally advocate hate, but it's close); since the former is basically equivalent to "User against Scientology", I'd speedy both. Our other difference is that I take seriously the idea that users of Wikipedia have "free speech" on their user pages only insofar as it furthers the encyclopedia project; a lot of leeway does so, yes, but mass-producible and divisive templates go too far. -- SCZenz 06:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
                • "User against Scientology" and "User against Judaism" are not equivalent. Judaism is not only a belief system but also an ethnic group; Scientology is not an ethnic group. Stating that one is "against" a belief system could simply be an expression of disagreement, while stating that one is "against" an ethnic group could not, because an ethnic group is not a statement or set of statements with which it is possible to disagree. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
                  • Using Wikipedia to make statements against a religion, any religion, is unacceptable. It is antithetical to our mission. I don't know what to say other than that. -- SCZenz 07:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
                    • The article space is already protected against attack pages. Also, where statements have been made against religions, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should document them. However, since this debate concerns user space, we should tread more carefully. It is certainly true that Wikipedia should not endorse any statements on user pages, perhaps we need a disclaimer to that effect added to user pages, but I'm not sure we should censor someone expressing their opinions through user boxes. There are a number of essays on contentious issues which already exist in user space, are we to target them next? Hiding talk 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The statements cited above would be quite unlikely to be deleted from a talk page if written using text. Templates are not articles. NPOV does not extend to them, and a template can't attack or otherwise affect anything until it is used. The only good reason to delete a template is if it has no legitimate purpose, a subjective decision that must solicit the opinion of the creator and other interested parties via TfD. Deco 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

The current speedy criterion is not for the arbitrary term "attack page" but for the less arbitrary term "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject". The difference should be obvious. I don't think there would be serious objection to speedying templates, categories or Wikispace pages that serve no purpose other than disparagement. In fact, such deletion already happens, and is hardly ever contested.

  • That said, a (well-formed) RFC, RFM or RFAr does serve another purpose, namely dispute resolution (as opposed to a badly-formed RFC that simply says "User:RogueAdmin is a moron", and indeed such pages are already deleted).
  • A template "this user dislikes <ethnic group>" also does serve another purpose, namely to show the political (?) opinion of a user. If this is deemed inappropriate, TFD will suffice for now (as will the proposed guideline for userboxen). A template that says "User:RogueAdmin is a moron" does not serve another purpose, and can be speedied.
  • Everybody happy now? Radiant_>|< 12:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I would, at the moment, object to speeding a userbox tempalte that "serves no purpsoe but to disparage" a group or entity. Thre is no policy warrent, no CSD, and policy discusions are underway. That is, IMO exactly the the tiem to be narrow and strict in adherence to current policy, as written. Aside from that I agree with the above. DES (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, I would recommend against deleting userboxen for the time being. Looks like we finally have a controversy to rival the perennial school matter. Given the people involved, the irony is just staggering :) Radiant_>|< 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Can you explain that for the benefit of the newbs like me? (FWIW: I attended my last degree granting related class in 1992 so...) ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Being a "newb" is not the issue; you may have just missed the debate in question. I think what Radiant is saying is that the userbox policy issue is not just this discussion here on CSD, but also Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, amongst other places... and that the discussion has been lively and controversial. The "school matter" he's referring to is likely the debate on whether or not schools are notable in their own right and warrant inclusion regardless of size. See Wikipedia talk:Schools and its archive pages for some history on that topic. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 01:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Actually, I've been participating in the Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes fairly extensively already. Radiant explained his ref on my talk page. I knew parts 1 and 2 already (that the school notability and userbox debates have some similarity) which led to the irony, but haven't yet put my finger on which user was on opposite sides of the two debates that makes it massively ironic. I'll get it soon enough. More on this is probably better suited to user talk pages as it's off topic a bit, my apologies for starting the digression. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the "no purpose but to disparage their subject" criterion for articles only because they arise so often. I have seen no evidence that there is such a preponderance of pages in other namespaces, and since determining the purpose of a page requires subjective judgement that may be in error, I'd still rather see these go to a vote. Deco 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Category:Idiots would be a simple example of something only to disparage, as would Template:This article is a piece of crap. I've seen the occasional "such-and-such admin is a jerk" in userspace or even wikispace. All of those tend to be speedied when seen. Radiant_>|< 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that CSD rules should only be created where they significantly lessen the load on A/T/MfD, particularly where the rule involves a subjective call. Is TfD really buried under attack templates? Deco 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, it's not. My point is that any deletion requires a subjective call of some sort, and that speedying Category:Morons would generally be accepted as reasonable (such cats have been deleted in the past and nobody minded), and speedying Template:This user likes beer would not be (such tempaltes have been deleted in the past and there was a huge controversy). Hence, don't do the latter. Radiant_>|< 02:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Okay, so we're trying to define what is speediable so that some templates won't be speedily deleted, not because we need speedy deletion at all for templates? If that is the case, then why not say that templates cannot be speedily deleted unless they meet the general speedy deletion criteria? That would allow vandalism, test pages and such to be speedily deleted, but cases that don't fit will be decided on an individual basis. Article criteria like A6 would not apply. Since templates are not equivalent to articles, perhaps the deletion criteria for them should be different as well. -- Kjkolb 18:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not trying to define anything, and template criteria are indeed different from article criteria. I'm simply pointing out that rules can be (and are) stretched at times, and that certain stretches are acceptable, whereas others are not. At present, stretching just about any CSD to userbox templates is not going to sit well with the community. Radiant_>|< 19:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another set of mishandled deletions

In the last few days a series of Irish historical images from 1912-1914 were removed. The original person who downloaded them is no longer on WP and as a new member at the time did not state their origins. Obviously as that user was long gone they did not reply to a message on their talk page asking about the images, so they were deleted.

Had any of the many Irish members on WP been asked about the images, they could have confirmed the dates of the images (they all came from a unambigiously certain time-frame that expired in September 1914) and helped trace their origins. However as no-one was asked, and users were unaware of the issue, and we cannot now see the images to begin tracing them, WP had now lost a valuable set of copyright-free images that were of major benefit to a series of historical articles. If images are from a clear location, as these were, it would make perfect sense for the noticeboard of that country to be alerted to the fact that there is a problem with images. Users from there could help get information for the images. But by notifying no-one but a user who was gone (and even that sort of notification seems all too rare) WP has quite simply shot itself in the foot, again, over mishandled deletions. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Since you didn't provide any links it's hard to tell what images you're talking about, but it seems to me you're complaining about a certain admin acting out of policy. That would be an RFC matter, I suppose. Have you tried the Wayback Machine to find the images? Or google for the Wikipedia pages and check the archives? Have you tried posting a feature request on Bugzilla to allow for image undeletion? How about using the village pump to request images? Radiant_>|< 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Since it was I who asked my friendly local admin about it, here are two examples: Image:TrimCastleNorman.jpg and Image:Uvfnurses.jpg. In defence of his action, user:Admrboltz says on JTDIRL's page "the images were tagged for 7 days... so it might have been possible for someone to notice that before they were deleted". What possible reason would anyone have to go back and look at the original image? So might I make a constructive suggestion. Rather than blindly delete this kind of material, could it be moved into a "holding tank" for at least 30 days. That way, when the images disappear off the pages that cite them, there is an opportunity for others to find a provenance. --Red King 11:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Many of these images have been in a "holding tank" called unconfirmed images for a long time. For example Image:TrimCastleNorman.jpg was first tagged on 7 November 2004... They just kept piling up wich is why Whales decreed that they should be cleared out ASAP without much ceremony because most of them are copyright violations. Those uploaded more recently where done so ignoring the huge notice on the upload page that unsourced images will be deleted too. Now I realise it must "suck" if an image you knew the details for where deleted for lacking details, but unfortunately what is obvious to you might not be so for the people who tag the images, and they probably don't know that you know either. I would recomend that people simply start paying closer attention to the images that are used in theyr favourite articles and make sure they are properly tagged and sourced. You can also voulenteer to help out on Wikipedia:Untagged images if you feel the people working there are not communicating good enough with people who might be eable to provide source info there are still 35.000+ images that need work (that where detected from the last database dump, new ones keep coming in every day though). That said I would encourage admins who deleted images to save a copy of it first so it can be restored if someone come up with the required info after the fact, it hardly takes half a second to click "save target as" on the image before you hit the "Delete all revisions" link (if it's a huge image you may have to wait a little bit while it downloads, but just do some others in the meantime. --Sherool (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
        • But quite evidently the technique that was being used had no effect. Why - because people weren't aware of it - nobody had any reason to look at the image to see if it was tagged! The best way to get people's attention is to move the image to holding tank and replace it with a dummy image - say a big red COPYVIO on plain white background. Clicking on that "image" would take the reader to the text that explained that the pic is suspended for 30 days and will be deleted unless the provenance can be proven. The essential point is that it gives article readers a reason to go and look at the image page, which they don't have underwise until it was too late. --Red King 15:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I understand. This may have been inconvenient, but it was an entirely correct deletion by the admin involved. The reason is that the images did not have a source tag, and hence are problematic with respect to copyright. Jimbo has recently asked us to be extra vigilant about those. Legal issues are important. Radiant_>|< 16:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Another idea would be to place them in a specific category page, so that people with expertise in that area could look at them. eg. I've suggested to the guy who did that deletion (BTW I'm not criticising him. He simply followed policy) that an image to do with Ireland should be mentioned on the Irish WP users' page. Or maybe we should have specific pages such as Wikipedia:History copyright problems so that in that case people with a knowledge of history could look at images and bring their background knowledge to play. Red and I, for example, both instantly knew the timeframe of the deleted images (1912-1914) whereas the deleter may not have known when the images came from. They could have dated from the 1930s for all he knew. The big problem is that WP is not using all the resources at its disposal because those doing the deletions aren't communicating with those who may have specialist knowledge and so be able to help them get information. We have no adequate communication methodology so deleters are operating in the dark. And because of the sheer size of WP users aren't necessarily aware of an image problem until it is too late and the image has been deleted. So the timeframe on this page makes mistakes more likely. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

These images are assigend to a category by being tagged as no-source, but not an irish-specific one. You might see Wikipedia:Lost images to recalim these particular iamges. It might be good if the no-source and no-license tags were reflected on pages that use an image, if any, to alert peolle who might be intersted and knowledgable. DES (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, some (automatic) way to "flag" problematic images so people looking at an article know there is a problem would be good. WP:PUI have the {{unverifiedimage}} template that is supposed to be put in image catptions when an image is listed for example. There are some problems though. Firstly it's "labour intensive" (people often skip that step), and when it is used others will ocationaly remove it because "it looks ugly" or "it disrupt the layout of the article" and so forth. I'm not sure replacing the image with a placeholder would do the trick either. They do it on commons for redundant images, but I'm not convinced it would work for images you want people to provide extra info for. Most likely some well-meaning editor will simply remove the "eyesore" from the article altogether without even checking the image page, and if someone revert the image you can't tell unless you keep a close eye on the upload loge because it won't set off the watchlist. Idealy we should have some kind of "magic" tag like __IMAGEDELETION__ or some such that would automaticaly cause the MediaWiki software to render images tagged with it in a special way to alert people of the pending deletion. Then it would be an easy task to put that directive in all the relevant templates. Wonder what the chance of getting somethign like that implemented is. Worth submitting as a feature request? --Sherool (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be technically possible that images within an article are also added to a user's watch list when a page is watched? Hiding talk 12:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be quite possible to give those popup tools many people seem to use an extra button for "watch this and all images" (bit of javascript, I'd say). Or you could ask the Devs to make it part of Wikicode, but that seems less likely to get a quick response. Radiant_>|< 14:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)